Yet another American tradition invaded and destroyed by the liberal cancer in our country. If the Scouts do not want homosexuals in their midst, that is their right and their decision.
Yet another American tradition invaded and destroyed by the liberal cancer in our country. If the Scouts do not want homosexuals in their midst, that is their right and their decision.
And if they do want homosexuals in their midst, that is their right and their decision.
I was a boy scout and got a whole lot of good out of scouting. I think it is a very worthy organization. I am not put off by this decision. To be honest, I was OK with the ban and I am OK with the lifting.
Should they ban blacks too?
Should they ban blacks too?
Your query suggests a lower intellect but I will reply anyway.
The answer is that they should be able to exclude anyone they want. If the public agrees, they will thrive. If the public does not agree, they will cease to exist. This is how it should be. If the Scouts do not homosexuals in their midst, so be it.
I don't think that Mad Mac's question suggests a low intellect. Although certainly not exactly the same thing, there are many parallels between the discrimination experienced by blacks and that experienced by gays. Exactly how similar depends largely on whether you think homosexuality is a choice or an inherent trait, I think. If you think it's inherent, the discrimination looks much the same. If you don't, then it's easier to draw a distinction between the two. Chosen behavior vs. inherent characteristics.
as there is no potential for mutual sexual attraction between 2 persons of opposite sexual orientation.
The jury's still out on you, Sharpie, but they may be coming back in soon. Doesn't look good.
Elephant in the room, Murphys law, etc.
And for the record, just because someone is gay does not make them a rapist, but being a rapist is not limited to being straight. An event will happen and the decision will come under fire again.
Should they ban blacks too?