The bill passed in committee, but I don't think it has come to the floor yet.

Invisible you said... most paedophiles having sex with young boys are married or divorced. They don't have to be homosexual, just paedophiles.
Ever looked it up in the dictionary?
I think not.

If you looked it up you would have seen that you misspelled it.

I don't think this topic was about whether to let pedophiles into the Boy Scouts. If it were I would have said no to that as well. Imagine that. In any case adults are not allowed to be Boy Scouts.

If you asked whether it would be acceptable to let a an adult be a scout leader I would think you were kidding. Nobody could be so dense as to see no flaw in that idea.

Gay boys in the age range of 11 to 17 are not old enough to qualify as a pedophile, considering the definition is "An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children."

Fanta's comment "Turkey's parliament last week passed a measure that enables its military to launch an incursion into northern Iraq and chase down Kurdish rebels, which it blames on a number of terrorist attacks."

This vote in Turkish parliament came one day after the democrat house committee voted to condemn Turkey for their actions 90 years ago regarding genocide of the Armenians. This vote was responsible the the Turkish government recalling their ambassador to the US and immediately decreased Turkey's interest in cooperating with the interests of the United States in this area. The vote was ill advised and the members had been cautioned about the risks and concerns. It seems that the committee had no regard for the international interests of the United States in this instance.

Personally I think sticking your thumb in the eye of someone who is helping and cooperating with you and your interests is stupid, particularly if your reason is regarding something 90 years ago.

I think Turkey has a beef in both cases, the actions by committee in the House, and the attacks by Kurds across their border.

There are two groups of Kurds in the area, one trying to develop their region including a political and social structure, and another, bend on developing a separate Kurdish state. The separatists have been actively fighting Turkish and Iran interests in the area for a long time. It seems the matter is getting much worse. Keeping the Turkish out of battles with the Kurds is in the interest of the US and Iraq. Obviously others in the region may feel differently, otherwise the insurgent Kurd groups would not be getting the funding they need.

Maybe it would be a good time to ask where their funding comes from.

ok I'll try to respond to some here even though they are very spread out. I've collected some quotes from kid and Massage to respond to.

Kid
If this was a school teacher (public or private) would it still be the same arguement Phil? Don't schools have outdoor ed. classes and field trips?

answer, usually 11 year olds do not go on overnight field trips with school. Yes it is the same argument.

question. Where do you get the idea that children are at any greater risk of ANYTHING by being around gay people?

well, straight guys are not going to try to have sex with my son. That should be obvious.

question. Do you think that homosexuality might rub off on them?

Kid, that is exactly what gays are trying to do have physical contact with other boys. So whether it rubs off on them is not the issue. The issue is whether it rubs on them at all.

Kids comment, I'm trying to understand you line of thinking here but I'm having a REALLY tough time doing so.

You are not trying to understand at all. You are being critical without regard for my opinion. Otherwise your capacity for understanding is severely limited, which I doubt so I'll chalk it up to intolerance on your part.

Kid's comment. Molestation, pedophilia, rape and things of this nature have nothing to do with being gay!DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS PHIL? A simple yes or no answer will do, thank you.

Answer, understand hell, I completely disagree. Gays are more likely to start something with boys while straights are more likely to go after girls, in my opinion. Seems obvious to me. It seems to me that your adamant insistence on your position with this is rather illogical. Even if not illogical, its woefully negligent in its disregard for the potential trouble.

comment by Kid. If one were to take the bible and toss it out the window and look at this from a human angle would that change anything?

response. I don't have such archaic values that I rely on the Bible for answers to life's questions of morality. My opinions are based on a more widespread collection of ideas and opinions. In the case of this topic it is largely opinion of course and people are welcome to disagree.




Kid, maybe you'll like my answers to Massage better.

Massage.

question. If (if! hypothetical!) the structure of scouting combined with the inclusion of homosexuals would put young boys at some kind of risk, then maybe the structure of scouting should be reconsider? Separation by ages, degree of supervision, etc. ?

Boy scout age ranges are from boys of age 11 to young men of age 17. At 17 boy scouts consider them to be young men. From a sexual perspective a 17 year old is certainly a young man when compared with an 11 year old. When a boy, at 11 years old enters boy scouts there are boys of all ranges in the group. The older boys are more advanced and the younger boys look up to them and learn from them.

A boy 17 years old in this position if he were gay would be in an unsupervised position of authority of young boys. So a question comes up in my mind, how do you keep the 17 year olds with their greater sex drive and more well developed sexual interests from becoming interested in the younger boys who are entrusted to their care? Even if it would not fall into the classic definition of rape, there would still be the opportunity and the motive for something to happen. An 11 year old boy, or for that matter a 12 or 13 year old, is not in a position to know what to do in such circumstances. Certainly he would not be able to defend himself in case of an assault.

question. maybe the structure of scouting should be reconsider? Separation by ages, degree of supervision, etc. ?

answer, well, that is exactly what the boy scouts are trying to do. In this thread any hate this simple protection offered to children, it seems. Odd in my opinion.

question. Hell, maybe its time to make scouting itself co-ed - so many males get special recognition in our society for making 'eagle' - women have no chance for that


Boy scouts is an organization built for boys. While I don't like to exclude girls from anything, they have girl scouts and they have a lot of the same activities in place. Boys and girls have a lot of differences. Maybe they might run as fast and build a campfire as well and all that stuff, but surely it would change the nature of the group from a boys group to a coed group. I don't have an argument here in favor of leaving out girls. I think it would complicate things on the sexual issue, and like you suggested before regarding gays, certainly there would have to be some separation and in this case chaperoning. As a young boy scout I probably would have spent an enormous amount of time trying to become really close with the girls if they had been there. (Another issue regarding gays in boy scouts).

Massage's comment - special recognition in our society for making 'eagle' - women have no chance for that.

Women certainly get special recognition for being in girl scouts. I see it on resumes and it always gives me just a little extra respect, not that they were girl scouts exactly, but that they were members of a conscientious group of girls who did things to improve themselves and contribute to those around them, and that they had high values in the case of important matters. Like boy scouts, and other similar organizations, such activities reflect better on a person than just staying home and not contributing and participating in productive social organizations.

Final question. f (if!) careless encouragement of gays in an all male spend-the-night-paired-in-tents-away-from-home organization placed boys at risk, which is better:

a) Carefully examining the actual risk factors and addressing them, protecting against malicious -individuals-, or

b) categorically excluding a set of people...

answer. Its a tough call, but think of it like this. When you have a young child who wants to be a scout and you have to choose to let him join or not, if you know that you will be sending your kid off with gay supervisors maybe up to 6 years older than he, are you not a little leery about the matter? I would suggest that many parents would simply not let their kids join the group at all. So by admitting a small number of gays, the organization may be spoiled for many others.

Now is it reasonable to deny so many children, those with protective parents, the right to be in a safe environment where they can learn and develop, or is it better to restrict access to the ones likely to create such problems in the first place?

I would not be pleased to see the organization become so tolerant as to jeopardize the wholesome nature of the organization. I think the boy scouts would go down in infamy if parents held their kids out because of concern for the sexual protection of their children.

I'm surprised to see Fanta in agreement with me on this one, cheers adversary. Ordinarily we disagree on everything. Boy Scouts is an important institution, let's not make it a sexual playground where we send our kids to throw them in the sexual lake and see if they sink or swim.

Arrrrrrggggghhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Do you think you can speak equally accurately for boys as well as girls in this instance? Are 11 and 12 year old boys out there looking for love? I don't think they are whether they are gay or straight.

Gay lifestyles are not something I want to oppose in particular. I just want some care taken with the children and their influences. When someone is a young adult they transition into a phase where they gradually become responsible for their own choices. But as children, their parents are responsible as well.

Somebody step in here. I don't want to be the lone voice supporting the children.

Red, school is not scouts. In school they go for the day and they are out by 3 or so. Scouts they go sleep in tents for weekend camp trips. Camping is actually a lot of fun. I just don't think sex belongs there among the children. Gay scout masters and gay scouts may be just fine, but a lot more people than me think they shouldn't be handed the children for the weekend.

I'm not a bit confused. I just don't want gays managing my children for weekends away from home. As for the difference of child predators and gays, remember that a characteristic of child predators is that they often try to get themselves in positions of trust, managing, working or playing with kids. So gay scout leaders may or may not fall into that category.

You are suggesting that I should trust the judgment of others in this matter, and in fact that your judgment is better than mine. I'm surprised by this because for one thing, when it comes to the care of my kids, it is my judgment that matters, not the judgment of others or you.

I support the boy scouts for trying to keep sex out of their organization. The group is not about sex, its about learning and growth. Anyone who wants to turn it into a sexual playing field is missing the entire point and trying to corrupt a fine organization.

Seems to me they are trying to instill values and build character in the kids. Its up to the kids to learn and improve themselves ultimately.

I may be with you in one regard. I wouldn't hand my kids off to strangers either, gay or not. Its not all about who is gay and who is not, its about protecting your children. Trouble is, at some point you have to let your kids go and learn on their own. You can't watch and protect them forever. The best you can do is mitigate the risks by making careful choices. Still it seems to me that the risks go up when you let unsupervised children have weekend sleepovers with gays. Besides that, what has sex got to do with any of the values they are trying to engender? I just don't think it belongs in the organization.

Maybe a hundred years from not everyone will be gay and society's mores will be changed. You all want to do your part by promoting change now, for your own reasons, maybe in the name of tolerance. But I don't see a lot of tolerance here for me stating I would like to watch out for my own kids and the kids of others. Maybe in a hundred years there will be more tolerance for people who want to care for their children and nobody will be gay. Howzat?


Red you may be right that they should not be afforded tax free status. I hardly consider them to be a religious group. Personally I think they should get regular governmental grants to support the group, just for the nobility of their cause, which has nothing to do with sex.

Scatter brain, do you object to these?
Scout Motto
Be Prepared
Scout Slogan
Do a Good Turn Daily
I'm wondering which points you found so objectionable.

Merit Badges Which Are In Current Use And Their Predecessor

American Business (15) 1967-present (Business 1911-66)
American Cultures (17) 1979-present
American Heritage (16) 1975-present
American Labor (121) 1987-present
Animal Science (18) 1975-present (Animal Industry 1928-75)
Archeology (132) 1997-present
Archery ~~ (19) 1911-present
Architecture (20) 1911-present
Art (21) 1911-present
Astronomy (22) 1911-present
Athletics ~~ (23) 1911-present
Auto Mechanics (127) 1992-present
Aviation (25) 1911-42 & 1952-present (Aerodynamics, etc. 1942-52)
Backpacking (26) 1982-present
Basketry (27) 1927-present (Craftsmanship 1911-26)
Bird Study (29) 1914-present (Ornithology 1911-13)
Bugling (32) 1911-present
Camping * (1) 1911-present
Canoeing (33) 1927-present
Chemistry (34) 1911-present
Cinematography (126) 1990-present
Citizenship in the Community * (2) 1952-present (Citizenship (Civics) 1947-51)
Citizenship in the Nation * (3) 1951-present (Citizenship (Civics) 1947-51)
Citizenship in the World * (4) 1972-present (World Brotherhood 1952-72)
Climbing (133) 1997-present
Coin Collecting (35) 1938-present
Collections (128) 1991-present
Communications * (5) 1965-present
Composite Materials (137) 2006-present
Computers (36) 1967-present
Cooking ~ (38) 1911-present
Crime Prevention (131) 1996-present
Cycling *** ~~ (39) 1911-present (Cyclist ~~~ 1910-11)
Dentistry (40) 1975-present
Disabilities Awareness (60) 1993-present (Handicap Awareness (60) 1985-93)
Dog Care (41) 1938-present
Drafting (42) 1965-present (Mechanical Drawing 1933-64)
Electricity (43) 1911-present (Electrician ~~~ 1910-11)
Electronics (44) 1963-present
Emergency Preparedness ** (6) 1972-present
Energy (45) 1976-present
Engineering (46) 1967-present
Entrepreneurship (134) 1997-present (Business 1911-66)
Environmental Science * (7) 1972-present(Conservation of Natural Resources 1966-72)
Family Life * (129) 1991-present (Citizenship in the Home 1952-72)
Farm Mechanics (48) 1928-present
Fingerprinting (49) 1938-present
Fire Safety (50) 1995-present (Firemanship (50) 1911-95)
First Aid * (8) 1911-present (Ambulance 1910)
Fish & Wildlife Mgmt.(51) 1972-present (Wildlife Mgmt. 1952-72)
Fishing ~~ (52) 1952-present (Angling 1911-51)
Fly Fishing (136) 2002-present (Fishing merit badge still exists)
Forestry ~~ (54) 1911-present
Gardening (55) 1911-present (Gardener ~~~ 1910-11)
Genealogy (56) 1972-present
Geology (58) 1953-present (Rocks & Minerals 1937-53)
Golf (59) 1976-present
Graphic Arts (122) 1987-present (Printing/Communications (88) 1982-88)
Hiking *** ~~ (61) 1921-present
Home Repairs (62) 1943-present (Handicraft 1911-42)
Horsemanship ~~ (63) 1911-present (Horseman ~~~ 1910-11)
Indian Lore (64) 1931-present
Insect Study (65) 1987-present (Insect Life 1923-86)
Journalism (66) 1927-present
Landscape Architecture (67) 1967-present (Landscaping 1959-66)
Law (68) 1974-present
Leatherwork (69) 1951-present (Leather Work 1928-51)
Lifesaving ** ~ (9) 1911-present
Mammal Study (71) 1987-present (Mammals 1972-86)
Medicine (130) 1991-present
Metalwork (74) 1927-present (Craftsmanship 1911-26)
Model Design & Building (75) 1963-present
Motorboating ~~ (76) 1961-present
Music (77) 1911-present (Musician ~~~ 1910-11)
Nature ~ (78) 1952-present
Nuclear Science (24) 2005-present (Atomic Energy 1963-04)
Oceanography (79) 1964-present
Orienteering (80) 1973-present (Pathfinding 1911-52)
Painting (81) 1911-present
Personal Fitness * ~~ ~(10) 1952-present (Physical Development 1914-52
& Personal Health 1911-52)
Personal Management * (11) 1972-present (Personal Finances 1962-71)
Pets (82) 1958-present
Photography (83) 1911-present
Pioneering (84) 1911-present (Pioneer ~~~ 1910-11)
Plant Science (85) 1974-present
Plumbing (86) 1911-present
Pottery (87) 1927-present (Craftsmanship 1911-26)
Public Health ~ (89) 1911-present
Public Speaking (90) 1932-present
Pulp & Paper (91) 1972-present
Radio (93) 1923-present (Wireless 1919-23)
Railroading (94) 1952-present
Reading (95) 1929-present
Reptile & Amphibian Study (96) 1993-present (Reptile Study (96) 1927-93)
Rifle Shooting (123) 1987-present (Rifle & Shotgun Shooting (97) 1967-87)
Rowing (98) 1933-present
Safety ~ (12) 1927-present (Safety First 1916-26)
Salesmanship (99) 1927-present
Scholarship (100) 1911-present
Sculpture (101) 1911-present
Shotgun Shooting (124) 1987-present (Rifle & Shotgun Shooting (97) 1967-87)
Skating (103) 1973-present
Small Boat Sailing (105) 1964-present (Seamanship 1911-64)
Snow Sports (135) 1999-present (Skiing (104) 1938-99)
Soil & Water Conservation ~ (106)1952-present (Soil Management 1928-52)
Space Exploration (107) 1965-present
Sports ~~ (13) 1972-present
Stamp Collecting (108) 1931-present
Surveying (109) 1911-present
Swimming *** ~ (14) 1911-present
Textile (110) 1973-present (Textiles 1927-72)
Theater (111) 1967-present (Dramatics 1932-66)
Traffic Safety (112) 1975-present (Automotive Safety 1962-74)
Truck Transportation (113) 1973-present
Veterinary Medicine (114) 1995-present (Veterinary Science (114) 1973-95)
Waterskiing (115) 1969-present
Weather (116) 1927-present
Whitewater (125) 1987-present
Wilderness Survival (117) 1973-present
Wood Carving (118) 1927-present (Craftsmanship 1911-26)
Woodwork (119) 1927-present (Craftsmanship 1911-26)

Key: * indicates Eagle required
** indicates one of 2 is Eagle required
*** indicates one of 3 is Eagle required
~ indicates formerly Eagle required
~~ indicates formerly an Eagle multiple choice.
~~~ indicates from the 1910 BSA Handbook (called the book of organization)
by Chief Scout, Ernest Thompson Seton, had 14 Badges of Merit. The
first Handbook recognized presently by the BSA was in 1911.

Return to top.
Merit Badges Which Are No Longer In Use and Their Predecessor

Aerodynamics 1942-52 (Aviation 1911-42)
Aeronautics 1942-52 (Aviation 1911-42)
Agribusiness (120) 1987-95 (Farm & Ranch Management (47) 1980-87)
Agriculture 1911-75
Airplane Design 1942-52 (Aviation 1911-42)
Airplane Structure 1942-52 (Aviation 1911-42)
Ambulance ~~~ 1910-11
Angling 1911-51
Animal Industry 1928-75
Atomic Energy (24) 1963-04
Automobiling 1911-63
Automotive Safety 1962-74 (Automobiling 1911-63)
Bee Keeping 1915-55 (Beefarming 1911-14)
Beef Production 1928-75
Beefarming 1911-14
Beekeeping (28) 1956-95 (Bee Keeping 1915-55)
Blacksmithing 1911-52
Bookbinding (30) 1927-87 (Craftsmanship 1911-26)
Botany (31) 1921-95
Business 1911-66 (Clerk ~~~ 1910-11)
Carpentry 1911-52
Cement Work 1927-52 (Craftsmanship 1911-26)
Citizenship (Civics) 1947-51 (Civics 1911-46)
Citizenship in the Home 1952-72 (Citizenship (Civics) 1947-51)
Citrus Fruit Culture 1931-52
Civics 1911-46
Clerk ~~~ 1910-11
Conservation 1911-52
Conservation of Natural Resources ~ 1966-72 (Conservation 1911-52)
Consumer Buying (37) 1975-95
Corn Farming 1928-75
Cotton Farming 1931-75
Craftsmanship 1911-26
Cyclist ~~~ 1910-11
Dairying 1911-75
Dramatics 1932-66
Electrician ~~~ 1910-11
Farm & Ranch Management (47) 1980-87 (Farm Records 1959-80)
Farm Arrangement 1960-73 (Farm Home & Its Planning 1928-59)
Farm Arrangements 1974-79 (Farm Arrangement 1960-73)
Farm Home & Its Planning 1928-59
Farm Layout & Building Arrangements 1928-59
Farm Records & Bookkeeping 1928-58
Farm Records 1959-80 (Farm Records & Bookkeeping 1928-58)
Firemanship ~ (50) 1911-95 (Fireman ~~~ 1910-11)
First Aid To Animals 1911-72
Food Systems (53) 1978-87 (Agriculture 1911-75)
Forage Crops 1959-75 (Grasses, Legumes, & Forage Crops 1938-58)
Foundry Practice 1923-52
Fruit & Nut Growing 1953-75 (Fruit Culture/Nut Culture 1928-54
& Citrus Fruit Culture 1931-52)
Fruit Culture 1928-54
Gardener ~~~ 1910-11
General Science (57) 1972-95 (Zoology 1930-72)
Grasses, Legumes, & Forage Crops 1938-58
Handicap Awareness (60) 1985-93 (Handicapped Awareness 1980-85)
Handicapped Awareness 1980-85
Handicraft 1911-42
Hog & Pork Production 1928-58
Hog Production 1959-75 (Hog & Pork Production 1928-58)
Horseman ~~~ 1910-11
Insect Life 1923-86
Interpreting 1911-52
Invention 1911-17
Landscape Gardening 1930-58
Landscaping 1959-66 (Landscape Gardening 1930-58)
Leather Work 1928-51 (Leatherworking 1911-27)
Leathercraft 1927-52 (Craftsmanship 1911-26)
Leatherworking 1911-27
Machinery (70) 1911-95
Mammals 1972-86
Marksman ~~~ 1910-11
Marksmanship ~~ 1911-66 (Marksman ~~~ 1910-11)
Masonry (72) 1911-95
Master-at-Arms ~~~ 1910-11 (consisted of single stick, boxing, ju jitsu,
wrestling, quarter staff and fencing.)
Mechanical Drawing 1933-64
Metallurgy 1965-71
Metals Engineering (73) 1972-95 (Metallurgy 1965-71)
Mining 1911-37
Musician ~~~ 1910-11
Nut Culture 1928-54
Ornithology 1911-13
Pathfinding 1911-52
Personal Finances 1962-71
Personal Health 1911-52
Physical Development 1914-52
Pigeon Raising 1933-80
Pioneer ~~~ 1910-11
Poultry Farming 1911-13
Poultry Keeping 1914-75 (Poultry Farming 1911-13)
Printing 1911-81
Printing/Communications (88) 1982-87 (Printing 1911-81)
Rabbit Raising (92) 1943-93
Reptile Study (96) 1927-93 (Reptiles 1926)
Reptiles 1926
Rifle & Shotgun Shooting (97) 1967-87 (Marksmanship 1911-66)
Rocks & Minerals 1937-53 (Mining 1911-37)
Safety First 1916-26
Seaman ~~~ 1910-11
Seamanship 1911-64 (Seaman ~~~ 1910-11)
Sheep Farming 1928-75
Signaller ~~~ 1910-11
Signaling (103) 1911-91 (Signaller ~~~ 1910-11)
Skiing (104) 1938-99
Small Grains & Cereal Foods 1943-1958
Small Grains 1959-75 (Small Grains & Cereal Foods 1943-1958)
Soil Management 1928-52
Stalker ~~~ 1910-11
Stalking 1911-52 (Stalker ~~~ 1910-11)
Taxidermy 1911-52
Textiles 1927-72
Veterinary Science (114) 1973-95 (First Aid To Animals 1911-72)
Wildlife Management ~~ 1952-72 (Conservation 1911-52)
Wireless 1919-23
Wood Turning 1930-52
World Brotherhood 1952-72 (Citizenship (Civics) 1947-51)
Zoology 1930-72

Scout Oath (or Promise)

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law

TRUSTWORTHY
A Scout tells the truth. He keeps his promises. Honesty is part of his code of conduct. People can depend on him.

LOYAL
A Scout is true to his family, Scout leaders, friends, school, and nation.

HELPFUL
A Scout is concerned about other people. He does things willingly for others without pay or reward.

FRIENDLY
A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He seeks to understand others. He respects those with ideas and customs other than his own.

COURTEOUS
A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows good manners make it easier for people to get along together.

KIND
A Scout understands there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. He does not hurt or kill harmless things without reason.

OBEDIENT
A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobey them.

CHEERFUL
A Scout looks for the bright side of things. He cheerfully does tasks that come his way. He tries to make others happy.

THRIFTY
A Scout works to pay his way and to help others. He saves for unforeseen needs. He protects and conserves natural resources. He carefully uses time and property.

BRAVE
A Scout can face danger even if he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right even if others laugh at or threaten him.

CLEAN
A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.

REVERENT
A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

Scout Motto

Be Prepared

Scout Slogan

Do a Good Turn Daily

Red, gays don't hide because of me. I know people who are gay and I would never insult them. Most of them have enough self respect to stay away from children too. But once in a while you might meet someone who just doesn't have the look of someone you can trust. Its a matter of instinct. It might be right or it might not. But if you feel that instinctive feeling that you should keep your kids from this person or that, what do you do?

Your post is not too clear so maybe you can clarify a little for me. Do you think I should hand my kids over to gays for weekend fun? Is that what you are saying? Because if it is I would be surprised. Do you think I should encourage others to hand their kids over to gays for the weekend? Because it so I would be surprised about that as well.

So if you think somewhere in philosophy there is some written word that a person has to hand their children unsupervised to gay strangers, and I've somehow crossed the line by not abiding, get over it, it doesn't taste so bad from here to watch out for my kids.

Scatterbrain, let me see. Did you say "it is well known that heterosexual men are most often responsible for molesting boys"?
Because if that is what you said, then isn't it contradictory? Wouldn't they be gay if they were molesting boys rather than girls? While I'm asking you questions, would you send your kids off to be supervised by gays for the weekend?

Davinci, in response to your post. Yes it has the appearance that talks with Iran were never intended to succeed.

But do you think the hard-liners were wrong when they said "They keep building more centrifuges, they're sending this IED stuff over into Iraq that's killing American soldiers, the human-rights internal political situation has gotten more repressive"?

Because if those words are wrong, then this article gains a lot of weight. But if they are correct, then it may in fact be the case that the hard-liners are making an important point here.

Did you ever consider that the agenda being pursued by the administration might have been placed in their hands by events prior to their offices. Have any of you here considered that the administration's position is not simply the will of George W. but a culmination of opinions developed by a rather large group of people, including the state department and foreign affairs offices?

I do not think any of you have offered a serious solution to the problem Iran poses to peace in the world. I don't see war mongering in it. There is discussion, negotiation, pressure, and ultimately war if nothing else can succeed. This is not about forcing will on the unwilling. It is about preventing their will from crushing your own.

I suppose many here would like to say that wait and see would be a better choice, but some will see that as we wait things might get worse rather than better. For some there is never a point worth fighting over. In which position do you find yourself?

Hell, reading some of these posts it looks like the Americans already hate the US. Its hardly like they are last in line.

Fanta, the country has always been controlled by a minority.

A majority elects a minority and the minority makes the rules until another minority is elected. When you get a scrambled brain like Harry Reid in control of such a body as the senate, you know there is not much hope. From listening to clear plain words (Rush) to misinterpreting them and creating a lying censure with a collection of senator's signatures is a small step for a pea brain. Any child could make more sense out of the situation.

So bash Bush, you don't like his politics, but there are plenty idiots in congress and the senate that might just as well be your target.

Ha Ha Ha. You guys are making me laugh.

Voil, city officials can rent property to anyone for any price they want. Just some city council member or some such has a bone to pick there is suddenly am issue. Maybe the person who stirred up the mess with the city in the first place was the problem.

All you guys/girls who want your 11 to 17 year old boys to be handed over to gays to satisfy the agenda of a sideline activist group might consider starting your own scout group, if you are so offended. You could call it Gay scouts, for example. They could all sit around talking about how they feel about each other's private parts or something. They can give out merit badges for creative sex with young children or whatever.

As for me, scouts is not about sex. Its about children learning to do things they never had a chance to learn before, developing self confidence and independence. If that is too tough for a city to understand, if it is not worth the support of the city by reduced rent on a meeting hall, the city should take a hard look at itself, and get its eyes off each other's pants.

If you have a problem with my comments, tough luck. I'm happy, well adjusted, and I support the boy scouts in whatever they have to do to keep their group about development and not about sex. Gay kids can do whatever they want, I don't care, but nobody should tell me they have a right to sleep in a tent, unsupervised, with my children or the children of others for that matter.

Why don't parents support something called coed scouts, where 11 to 17 years old children, girls and boys mixed are sent to camp in tents with each other and no adult supervision? Why? Would you send your 12 year old daughter to sleep in tents on camping trips with boys who might be up to 17 years old?

Nobody else sees the ridiculousness in this? Nobody else sees the similarity to mixing gays into a group of young boys? You don't have to hate gays to not want your 11 year old having sex.

I'm shaking my head and rolling my eyes here.

I don't hate gays. That's not the point at all. Just love my children. If you don't love yours, or if your particular kind of tough love for your children is sink or swim, go for it, toss them in the water with a bunch of adolescent gays and wait and see how they behave when they come home. See if you can determine if they have or have not been abused sexually. If they have you can help them adjust by supporting them in their choice, whether it was accidental, coerced or forced upon them.

Are you people in this topic aware of the age range in the organization, from 11 to 17 years? To an 11 year old, a 17 year old is twice his size and much more well educated and sexually developed. Its lambs and lions.

Here's to your tough love.

Kid, I'm not suggesting they can't control themselves, I'm suggesting their particular motivation might well not be to control themselves, but to have a little fun with the children. Would you approve of that?

Invisible, what part of my post are you disgusted with? Maybe I can make the point a little more clear for you. Its not my imagination that is so bad. What is so bad is that people have on rose colored glasses so that they don't see the need to watch out for their children.

Let me tell you this. You don't send your children to play on the freeway. There are cars moving fast there and it is dangerous. It does not take a sick imagination to think of what might happen top them if you send them out to play on the freeway. For those who lack the imagination, others should remind them. Or they could just let people send their kids to play on the freeway, after all a person does not have to be concerned about the children of others.

So now that I have thwarted all of your personal versions of logic I hope you will all take a lesson from this and quit trying to debate this ridiculous point.

You're whipping a froth out of egg whites there Voil. Who cares.

You refer to the issue of gays in scouts as a first amendment issue, and I'm pointing out that it is not. My example was good for illustrating the point.

So basically your attack against my comments makes it apparent that you were unable to dispute the content of the matter. I'm surprised you couldn't do a little better on this one. But then I was right after all. It is not a first amendment issue, so what could you possibly say?

Furthermore, you ignored the logical explanation of my position on the previous post, so it seems to me that yours is not a serious commentary anyway.

So what about it Spider? Is Voil right? Is it a first amendment issue?

So you guys think they should nuke Iran? Amazing.

Don't you think it would be better to wait and let them nuke you?

Voil said "I say first and foremost, no discrimination against other human beings period, in the private just as much as the public domain. Then and only then, it would make sense to allow freedom to believe and practice, or not believe and not practice a particular religion, in a private context only."

Well,

Suppose a gay rights group wants to put on a cartoon just for kids, with explicit sex scenes in graphic detail, and demands the right to the Saturday morning time slot in broadcast television, would this be a first amendment issue? I hardly think so.

Rules of public decency are independent of religion. Even though some like to say it is only a religious matter, certain things are just so deviant as to be wholesale rejected by society as undesirable. As to whether gay behavior falls in that category, depends on your perspective.

Freedom of speech has long been subject to decency rules.

As I remember the scouts, the organization was about helping boys to learn to have new skills and to develop self confidence and encourage resourcefulness. This seems to me to have nothing to do with sex.

There are no girls in Boy scouts, so it would be difficult for heterosexual issues to distract the boys from the core materials, such as hiking, camping, knot tying, archery, astronomy, fishing, campfire cooking, and such. At the age of 11 to 13 sex is not quite prevalent enough that girls, who are not even in the organization, could distract from the core features of scouting.

Now when you toss someone gay into the mix, even giving him the right to hang in the organization until he is 17, while the new scouts who presumably would be looking up to the older scout, may be only 11 or 12 years old, the topic around the campfire turns from hunting to what the person sitting next to them has in their pants.

As a young scout around a campfire, I don't thing that would have been something I would want to deal with. I just don't see how one person in the mix trying first one then another then another boy, trying to start something sexual, until finally succeeding, is going to be productive.

If you have 20 boys on a camp out, their parents are not in the tents with them. Parents do not want to think that when they send their boys to a camp like that, other boys will be trying to seduce them in their sleeping bags.

If a girl were to sneak into the camp and try to have sex with the boys, all the parents would object on the grounds that the organization was not about sex, but about the other core values I mentioned earlier.

If they won't let the girls in to seduce the boys, why should they let a boy in to seduce them?

I see this as a group trying to pervert the scouts as an organization, from a camping, hiking, canoeing organization, to a place where boys sit around and diddle one another. I wouldn't want gays to have equal access to my son, particularly in an unsupervised camping situation.

What is homophobic about being a responsible parent? What is homophobic about an organization trying to be responsible to those parents?

So Fitness, did you like that from Putin? Did it make you feel better? I see you tending to make such posts (see remark "smacks Bush upside the head")in a manner that implies some form of glee on your part. Oh goody, somebody with power threatens the United States? That, my friend, seems a really strange outlook. Did you play with a lot of toys coated with lead paint when you were young or is this simply a natural hatred for your own country and people.

Would you mind joining the conscientious objectors and simply sitting on the sidelines rather than promoting such ideology?

It is admirable to say "love your neighbor" and to follow that doctrine religiously. When people make such a choice I think you have to honor their choice.

You don't have to follow their example though, keeping in mind that adversaries are unlikely to follow the example and somebody has to look out for your security and health.

Some of us will always stand up for those we love, and that doesn't necessarily mean everyone on earth. This form of selflessness is a strong component of character which helps to assure our continued freedom in the face of those who would take it away.

On my dad's ship in ww2 the engines from the Kamikaze planes were melted down by the machinist and made into ashtrays for the sailors. If the helmets went into the mix they may have been useful after all.