President Obama sat down with CBS's Scott Pelley for a pre-game interview before Super Bowl XLVII, and gave a pretty firm answer on the question of gay Boy Scouts.
"Yes," said the POTUS, when asked if the scouts should allow gay members. "Gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does in every institution and walk of life," he added.
More political pandering to "groups"! More divide and conquer. More stirring up controversey, because controversey can generate revenue and political contributions. More politics and usual. Nothing new here.
To quote a comment on The Atlantic Wire's website:
"Obama is proving that a politician will say anything to get someone's vote. I don't believe that Obama actually supports gays. He's just saying what he needs to say. If he did support them, it would have been his stance all along."
Wouldn't surprise me if BO would recomend a 'Larry Sinclair Merit Badge '. To earn it , one must take a ride in a limo , do some blow (as BO said in his own book) & allow an 'alternative lifestyle' individual to perform certain acts upon your 'person'. LMAO.
Are not these interviews supose to be light hearted about the game? Why would Scotty ask a question like this? Was he given the questions to ask by the administration prior to the interview? I Have a great question for Obama. Did Ray Lewis act stupidly when he fled the country with the bloody suit he was wearing after participating in a double murder in 2000?
The questions for the POTUS at Superbowl should of been about football. I have one I know would have stumped Obama...."Mr. President, which end of the football should you hold when making a pass?"........<silence ....blank stare>
Yes, but is there a questionaire that asks about ones sexuality? Are Scouts now required to announce whether they are gay or straight in order to get into Boy Scouts? Are there badges for being gay or straight? Gays have always been in the Scouts and it was nobodies concern. What happen? Do gays want to rub it in the face of everyone who is not gay?
Why can't they start their own club? Cat lovers don't join a dog club. Bird watchers don't join the butterfly club. If they are gay or lesbian, can't they make their own lesbian girl scouts and gay boy scout clubs and leave the others alone?
@harold_lloyd What I'm saying is that I'm tired of all of the P.C. bull crap. Oh little Johnny's feelings is hurt so you have to change your rules. B.S! We've had groups who have been doing things the same way for years and why should they have to change because of a few? Once again. If they want a group like the boy scouts, then start their own club.
I think any private organization should be allowed to set their own guidelines and not be controllled by public policy. Have you saw the tv ad for the dating website only for black people I think it was "black people meet." Has anyone protested this, I have no problem with it but a white only dating website would be called racist and bigotted. The Boy Scouts should als be allowed to set guidelines for admission.
"a white only dating website would be called racist and bigotted." http://www.idating4you.com/white-dating/ Amazing what you can find if you Google huh? Also interesting to note that I haven't heard anything in the news calling this a racist or bigoted website.
@Fishbone345 This site is not advertised nor is it the whole site www.iDating4you.com says on its homepage that it is for everyone but you can have subgroups based upon your preferences. The home page actually shows pictures of minorities as well as whites. Therefore the site that is not advertised on national television allows you select white only, black only whatever else you are or are interested in. It is not white only and does not advertise that it is, it actually advertises its diversity. Go back and look at the site after you delete the / and everything after that. Then learn about website extensions and how they differ from the whole website itself.
I guess we'll see how deeply committed the Scouts are to fair treatment. Fox is reporting 40 some churches have published a letter warning against the recent decision or face loss of financial support.
Even though I support this for all human boys (and girls), let's see if the well to do Gay men and women step up and support the BSA's new values....both emotional and financially! Now, that would be valuable support!
Mind you, there hasn't been a decision made yet. They are just going to be bringing up the issue at the next Council meeting and then voting on it. Likely those 40 some churches will have some influence on how that discussion and resulting vote turn out.
@Fishbone345 I just read an article on it. There is so much BS and pressure going on from both sides. You have the churches "morally right" saying they have to say no to all of it or else. You have the otherside saying they have to say yes to all of it or else. Both throwing their stupid tantrums and threats. Everyone forgeting it's a private oranization and has the right to choose if and how for themselves. No one is leaving any room for compromise what so ever, and they are robbing the organization of their oppertunity of doing the right thing their own best way possible. At this point if they do allow it, or any part of it, I bet they won't even get any credit for it. It will probably be credited to Obama or any number of vile advocacy groups that believe in their right to choose for themselves and for others above anybody else. And that goes the same for anti-gay advocates. As it is going right now it would be hard to ascertain their genuine geniality as to any decision either way. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves! I hope they do, do the right thing LOCALLY, respecting both sides as THEY best see fit, and the hell with everything else.
@AlexMIA I honestly couldn't care less what they decide. My expressed my feelings about BSA in a few posts below this one. I hope the group dies off into obscurity personally. I just don't want to see the Government tell them what to do. If they decide it themselves, then more power to them. Some would argue with bills passed saying they could use Government buildings that they aren't as Private a group as they'd have us believe. And there is also some concern how much HUD has to do with them. Again, not my concern. I just don't want to see the Government dictate policy for them. That is wrong. Hopefully they vote to allow Gays in and the churches all pull sponsorship and they fail to exist after a few years pass. Good riddance I say.
Until it is clearly established that there is no relationship with pedophilia and homosexuality, gays should not be in the Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts of America and parents have an obligation to be cautious. This isn't about votes, campaign funding, and feel good legislation.
It's already been established that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexuals. Do you remember a few years ago when the Boy Scouts resisted releasing those files of sexual abuse of boys by adult leaders? Ummm, they were mostly Married heterosexuals. There is a bigger risk with straight men becoming predatory.
Well, in that case, there are gay teachers, gay parents, gay nurses, gay doctors, etc. If parents are worried about gay Boy Scout leaders, they are being naive as to how much exposure their kids already have to gay people. Being gay does not make a person a pedophile.
@Keyjo 90% of the population is straight. It would stand to reason that most pedophiles are straight. Yet this is something that greatly bothers me about the gay community. You insist that "straight men" are molesting boys. You have no proof of that. Straight men don't want sex with boys or men. It's just that simple. Just because someone is a married person does make them hetrosexual. They are, at the very most, bi-sexual and as such are considered your peers in the LGBT. Just because a predator is hiding behind his marriage, gay or straight does not change their basic sexual orientation. If they changed the laws tomorrow that sex was fine with 10 year olds and up, and I was massively pursued by 10 year boys and girls I would not have any interest in the boys. I wouldn't in the girls either because they're too young but my point is that I am straight and if it was legal and societal acceptable and "everyone did it", I still would have no interest in boys. Those are bi sexual that you call "married heterosexuals".
As a sister of a gay pedophile and a victim of his friends, I can say whatever I want. The public feels the same way but are too intimidated to say it out loud. This is a forum for free speech. Listen and take your own counsel.
I'd rather have a bunch of queers around my children than some pedophiles. Boy Scout leaders are just a bunch of pedophiles who lets their children be around grown men alone in the woods doing who knows what to them...anyone who allows their children to be in a situation where there alone with grown men needs to be shot dead were they stand
Is everything you say vile nonsense? Your average troop now a days has more than fifty percent parent participation, both mothers or fathers. The last time I went scouting with my son if there wasn't atleast 1 parent(leaders) for every 4-5 kids, a camping trip would be scrapped! And the policy was never one parent alone with one kid unless it was your own. That meant that if one kid had to go to the bathroom, you took two or three at a time, or another parent went with you! You're right about one thing though, the BSA is not a day care, it's a journey you are supposed to take with your kids, and if you can't be a part of that atleast some of the times you are a.........