http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bush-rubio-immigration-reform/2013/01/28/id/487716


The Boy Scouts of America may soon give sponsors of troops the authority to decide whether to accept gays as scouts and leaders - a potentially dramatic retreat from a nationwide no-gays policy that has provoked relentless protests.

Under the change now being discussed, the different religious and civic groups that sponsor Scout units would be able to decide for themselves how to address the issue — either maintaining an exclusion of gays, as is now required of all units, or opening up their membership.

Gay-rights activists were elated at the prospect of change, sensing another milestone to go along with recent advances for same-sex marriage and the end of the ban on gays serving openly in the military.

However, Southern Baptist leaders — who consider homosexuality a sin — were furious about the possible change and said its approval might encourage Southern Baptist churches to support other boys' organizations instead of the BSA.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boy-scouts-may-allow-homosexual-scout-masters

So if NAMBLA wants to sponsor, that's OK?

Nambla rights will be assured when states that allow under legal age marriage accept gays have the right to marry. If under age girls have the protection under the law of not revealing pregnancy or abortion to their parents,  under age boys by default have the right to not have hospitals reveal the evidence of their sexual activities either.

Nambla does not need the scouts, but they will support any movement that makes what they do seem "acceptable" in our society.

Nothing shocks me any longer...

Like all of industry, these freaks have infiltrated the top echelons of management and boards of directorship.
It's time to look at who is running ruining BSA.

Quite a few religious groups have given up on the scouts (both boy and girl) long ago and created local groups of their own.  The Royal Rangers have been around for a long  time and though the AG church started it, all denominations are welcome.  I can't remember the name of the girls group.

Good or bad idea?  Our scouts were divided by school district and met at the school.  If the scouts are public, it is pretty hard to exclude people, though one could argue that girls ate seperate from boys, so it would logically follow that a seperate sexual orientation would have its own troop.

Not sure I am all that comfortable with groups at that age forcing these children to declare their sexual preference.   I was a scout and while I probably knew I liked girls, I was not even near the age where I had any experience with a girl.  I just think that defining someone by sexual orientation is screwed up.  People that I grew up with since grade school age and I now know they are gay is a very small number and I can honestly say that it was pretty obvious that they were gay as long as I knew them. I also know a few guys that are gay but except for them being admittedly gay you would never guess it.  Of course there are some gays that are just outrageous about it but I think that has to be some kind of mental thing to help them cope with a life that has to be very difficult.

I just cannot imagine that god would create someone who from birth is oriented towards someone of the same sex and then send them to hell for acting on one of our strongest drives. 

I think I implied that in my prior post.  We need to get to a point where being gay is nothing that gives you a special status.  No one should be forced to associate with those who they do not want to be around. By that I do not mean that gays should stay to their area so that they do not mix with those who do not want to be around them.  I mean that if an organization allows gays to participate that you have a choice to join or not.  At the same time I think a group should be allowed to decide who their members are.  There are often blow ups where the libs get their panties in a wad about this group or that being restrictive. 

Many country clubs are restrictive on their membership.  You can't walk up and pay your money to get in.  A member has to sponsor you and then the membership gets to vote if you get in or not. I just do not see how there can be an issue that some group might not allow someone for what ever reason into their group.  A better question is why that person would want to belong to a group where they are not wanted.  There is only one logical explanation that I can think of and destroying a group does not sound like a good reason let that person in. 

If govt funds are involved then I think all bets are off.

I enjoy throwing the things that the left pushes, back in their faces.

Homosexuality is marked by a certain behavior; a behavior that some people find disgusting, and yet, it must be accepted.

How would the little leftists react if I was to become a scout leader, and smoked cigarettes and drank beer during every meeting?

Their little heads would explode.

Yeah, well screw you pinkos!!! Smoking and drinking is my RIGHT!!!! You must accept me! You can't judge me on my behavior!