IN the entry on the Boy Scouts’ recent decision to admit boys who are openly homosexual, Bartholomew says I am wrong to condemn the decision. He writes:

Including youth as “homosexuals” and excluding youth as “homosexuals” sends them the same message — that they are, in fact, “homosexuals.” The only difference is that the Includers think the Scouts should celebrate “homosexuals,” while the Excluders think the Scouts should quarantine them. Either way, Includers and Excluders agree that a) there is a specific kind of youth called a “homosexual” and b) these youthful “homosexuals” should be treated differently (Includers preferentially, Excluders discriminatorily) than normal youths.

Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as a “homosexual.” There are only boys and girls who are supposed to become men and women. Some nineteenth-century crackpots invented the “homosexual” third sex out of thin air, and in the twentieth century the rest of the world, including the Boy Scouts, lost their minds and ceded the point. Yeah, that ban should go, along with every other worthless idea about sex that came from that demented century.

Institutions like the Boy Scouts exist to help boys to become men. A boy who acts as if he were a girl is obviously a boy who could use the help. These are the kids you ‘d exclude from what might be their last, best hope? What else would you do with them? Have them join the Girl Scouts? Start a separate Gay Scouts? Lock them up in their rooms and wait for the gun shot? Seriously, what?

And anyway, why should I or any other man waste his time helping boys who already know how to become men? Isn’t the entire point to teach those who don’t know? I don’t think you’ll find a boy more ignorant of manhood than the one who says he wants to grow up to be treated like a woman.

It’s been said before that the Church is not a showcase for saints but a hospital for sinners. Jesus didn’t come for the whole, but for the sick. Should you stop sending your kids to church because they might pick up the sins of all those adulterers, fornicators, thieves and murderers sitting around them? Should you stop sending your kids to the hospital because they might pick up a staph infection?

How should a Christian Boy Scout troop leader react to a youth who walks in calling himself a “homosexual”? Tell him sternly there are only boys here, and he, along with the others, will be expected to act like one. Give him lots of remedial instruction in the basics. Make it clear you know he has what it takes to do it. Then, give him hell ’til he either conforms or leaves. Call in reinforcements if you need it. The leader is supposed to be fighting for that and every other boy’s masculine soul.

And what if the boy tries to seduce another? He’ll probably get his ass kicked. Come on, do you really think the healthier boys are going to have a problem approaching him as a girl? I think they’ll probably just keep their distance until he shapes up. A deficiency in manhood is like any other deficiency–it leads to sickness. Sickness repulses; it doesn’t attract. And as for its being contagious, it’s at least as likely to “spread” at a church youth group sleepover as around a campfire.

I guess we could completely isolate “homosexual” kids from their peers–ban them from Church, sports camps, after-school hang-outs and well, life. And then when the kid commits suicide–and, as claimed by Chesterton, “refus[es] to take an interest in existence, kills all men…wipes out the world…destroys all buildings…insults all women” at least he can do so honestly. For after having been thoroughly quarantined and shut out of all but the most banal of interactions with his peers (to keep his “gayness” from spreading), he really will have been “killed” by all men, “wiped” clean from the world around him, shut out from all “buildings”/institutions and “insulted” by all women, and in that case his suicide, his “dynamiting” them all would be nothing worse than their own hostility returned.

I urge you and your readers in the strongest possible terms to rethink your position. You are seriously mistaken if you think you are justified in cutting off any little one from seeking the Kingdom of God, which is, I think, what the “homosexual” youth trying to join the Boy Scouts is, in some feeble, stumbling way, trying to do.

In that entry, I respond to some of his points. I agree that there is no such thing as a “homosexual” in the sense of a category of people inherently incapable of engaging with the opposite sex. But there is such a thing as a homosexual in the sense of someone who acts upon desires for the same sex. Bartholomew says boys who identify themselves as homosexuals should be admitted and then told to reject homosexual behavior and the homosexual identity. If the Boy Scouts of America had said that’s what it intended to do, then I would be all for it.

— Comments —

Steve D. writes:

I think Bartholomew is gravely mistaken in almost everything he writes. To say that homosexuals don’t exist is pretty much the same as saying that traditionalists don’t exist: you won’t find it graven on their DNA anywhere, but they are real nevertheless. A homosexual is simply a man or woman who has chosen to indulge an attraction to members of the same sex; why that attraction exists is not the determining factor of its reality. The determining factor is the indulgence. Unless you’re willing to say that the indulgence doesn’t exist, it’s foolish to say that homosexuals don’t exist.

Nor do I believe that homosexual teens want to join the Boy Scouts because they are, in some fashion, stumbling toward the Kingdom of God. Of course, neither Bartholomew nor I can know for certain why another person does anything; but my own belief is that politicized gays want to join the Boy Scouts for the same reasons Nazis wanted to occupy Poland: because it was there, and they could. Their goal was to spread their control over every territory possible, and they were never satisfied. Nor will the homosexual lobby be satisfied now that the Boy Scouts have fallen. The only reasonable approach is resistance.

In the end, as you point out, the banning of homosexuals is a rule, and it’s meant to send a message: make your choice. You can indulge your sexual whims, and set yourself apart, or you can accept the standards of society and be accepted by it in turn. That’s how societies function. That’s what makes them societies. Allowing anyone to join the Scouts, hoping that once they’ve done so you can use your influence to “turn them around,” is no different from the current Republican notion that anyone should be allowed to immigrate legally, in the hope that the offscourings of the world can be turned into Americans if we’re just open-minded enough.

Terry Morris writes:

We’ll see what Bartholomew thinks when the BSA starts passing out merit badges for “exploring gay sexuality,” and such. In the meantime he needs to get a grip on reality. Does he think homosexualizers are going to be satisfied with this relatively minor infiltration, regardless of what the BSA says its intentions are? If so, he’s wrong. They won’t be satisfied until the BSA accepts into its ranks openly homosexual scout leaders. I recommend this post by Scott Lively on the history of the scouting movement.

Mary writes:

The decision should absolutely be condemned. Some of Bartholomew’s points are interesting but more are wrong-headed.

From his original post:”….What about the difference between student and teacher, layman and pastor, child and adult? There is no way men claiming to be “homosexual” should be allowed to teach anyone else, let alone boys, how to be men. They wouldn’t know what they were talking about. And that’s why excluding them or their confused juniors from the teaching and instruction they obviously need is a sin. For the very same reason we should try to go out and invite “homosexual” youths to our church groups, Boy Scout troops, and yeah, even into our homes, we should keep “homosexual” men (and women) out of leadership and direct them, sternly if need be, back to the pew, the football field or anywhere else men (or women) gather, to listen and learn from their manlier (or more feminine) peers…”

Bartholomew thinks the issue of homosexual leaders can be severed from that of homosexual boys. The critical puzzle piece he  is missing is that integration of homosexual boys into the BSA is merely a stepping stone: this decision will pave the way for the BSA to accept homosexual leaders in a few short years. It is the logical outcome and inevitable. Why would they let these boys in only to stop them in their tracks when they want to continue in scouting? It will never be allowed. Homosexual activists view this new policy as a major win, which should give any right-thinking person pause. The two issues cannot be separated. As for “sternly directing them” anywhere, it would be completely ineffectual.

Bartholomew wrote: “…You are seriously mistaken if you think you are justified in cutting off any little one from seeking the Kingdom of God, which is, I think, what the “homosexual” youth trying to join the Boy Scouts is, in some feeble, stumbling way, trying to do…”

The BSA wouldn’t be cutting off “any little one.” The majority of boys join when they are 11 or 12, way before they are making decisions about their sexuality. Most boys are quitting scouts by the time the teenage years hit due to sports, driving and dating. The image of the 15-year-old with same-sex attraction who is longing to join the scouts but is thwarted by the BSA’s draconian rules is a fallacy, but one that worked beautifully on the leaders who voted for this preposterous change in policy.

Bartholomew wrote: “I guess we could completely isolate “homosexual” kids from their peers–ban them from Church, sports camps, after-school hang-outs and well, life.”

They are already fully integrated with their peers through the public school system. Postponing the announcement of one’s homosexuality until after high school graduation or attaining Eagle Scout is not the great suffering it is being made out to be; coming out undoubtedly causes much more suffering, in fact, than waiting. Some would have us believe homosexual teens experience the greatest suffering, but many teens suffer for a great variety of reasons, some self-imposed, others not. They are encouraged to come out earlier and earlier by homosexual activists, way too soon for such decisions to be finalized. [Laura writes: Such decisions should never be final.]

Bartholomew wrote: “And anyway, why should I or any other man waste his time helping boys who already know how to become men?”

Most of the leaders are fathers of boys in the troop, who, contrary to wasting their time are reinforcing masculinity for their sons in an all-male environment – one of the last such environments left – without the distraction of girls. Obviously the presence of a boy who is known to have attraction to other boys would detract from such an environment, as the other boys would be put in the awkward position of fearing romantic evaluation on the part of that boy, whether during swimming , in sharing a tent, etc. It is patently unfair to the other boys in the troop to be put in this situation, not to mention that it steals a piece of their innocence – the new scouts each year are only 11, just out of fifth grade.

We are meant to practice charity at all times, but it is not true but misplaced charity to lift common sense policies put in place to afford protection from immorality. I found Thomas Fleming’s post on this topic unnecessarily cynical but he did make the good point that any child or teen who claims to be homosexual is already corrupted, often by his own parents, and that that is real child abuse.

Joe A., a former scout, writes:

With all due respect to Bartholomew, who makes an honorable point suitable for an honorable age, my late, lamented Episcopal church was deceived by rhetoric much like his defense of “out” homosexuals in the Boy Scouts.

Episcopalians were scolded to “listen” to the “stories” of “suffering” gays who felt the “sting” and “otherness” of their particular “sin” but who deserved to be “heard” and “affirmed” because our God is “love” and all love is “good and from God.”  We were to “break bread around the Table” with them even as Jesus consorted with sinners.

And the Episcopalian’s frozen chosen in the pews drank this heresy like a bottle of VSOP.  Sure felt warm and fuzzy going down but, oy the hangover.

Now the Episcopal church has left the realm of Christianity to embrace not only “open and notorious sinners” at the Lord’s Table but even people who are not Christian.

Homosexuals – whatever the source of the term and I agree with him that it is idiotic and self-contradictory – became the dominant voice within the former church and worked militantly and rudely to silence all opposition within a matter of a few years.  Outspoken opponents were driven out in ruins, sometimes precipitating their very deaths through heart-attacks and the hastening of disease by the wicked attacks and stresses on body and soul.  Normal people fled the organization, such as our family, understanding that continued association was tantamount to being an accomplice to the wickedness not only of the presenting homosexuality but the outright evil perpetrated in its name.

Look, a good friend from my last Episcopal parish had same-sex inclinations as he himself would tell you if you asked.  But with God’s grace and the understanding of the parish, he vanquished them enough that he did no corporeal sin.  Even he left the former church recognizing that it was now a creature dedicated to his destruction.  (He swam the Tiber while many others fled to other church homes.  A small minority elected to remain and “work within the system” but to little avail.)

Those attacking the Boy Scouts know full well a number of scouting families will reason with Bartholomew that “it’s all good” and further for the ultimate Glory of God.

Bollocks.

This is an invasion force that currently overwhelms our limited spiritual warfare capabilities and the mission now must be an orderly retreat such that we might live to fight another day, when God ordains we have come to terms sufficiently with our own culpability in creating this unholy mess in the first place.

Unlike the situation in the Episcopal church which is, by virtue of the scorched earth legal strategy of TEC, wrapped up in property deeds, beneficial trusts, and generations of our dead buried in their graveyards, Scouts and their families have only sentimental attachments.  There is nothing to stop them from reforming as “The Reformed Boy Scouts of America” tomorrow with the same uniforms, same handbooks, same mission and same morals – less the corrupting influence of metrosexual and devious “leadership” from Pinko Corporate America.

If my experience with the Episcopalians is of any benefit, it is to encourage such a reformation without delay.  Entreating with the enemy will only embolden them and endanger our boys who face needless “soul-murder” much the same as they did in “The Second Mile” of Penn State shame.

Carolyn writes:

Bartholomew is so correct and there is so much ignorance here on the development of a young boy with same-sex attraction.

First of all, or course, they are just little boys. Then they suddenly hear other boys talking about girls and notice they don’t feel the same way. Sometimes they like to fantasize about boys. They are probably wonderful scouts. And they suffer day after day in confusion.

So, kick the little boy out! Of course! Don’t give him a chance to learn to be a man….sorry, but you are all making me sick!! He’s not going to hurt your sons!

 Laura writes:

The purpose of declining to admit a boy who announces at, say, 13 that he is homosexual is not just to protect others, but to protect him. The likelihood of such a boy being drawn into the homosexual lifestyle, which presents grave dangers to his health and welfare, is a major concern. Your charge of insensitivity is very unfair.

The Boy Scouts shouldn’t exclude any boys simply because they have desires for other boys or because they are effeminate. But did that happen under the previous policy? Correct me if I’m wrong. The previous policy which prohibited open homosexuality, as I understand it, did not end up in bans of boys who were simply effeminate or who were struggling with attractions to other boys. Boys weren’t grilled or interrogated as to their secret fantasies. In my experience in recent years, the Scouts often attracted nerdy boys, as it was no longer very cool. These boys were never made to feel uncomfortable if they were not spending time with girls.

What the policy did was warn all boys that desires for other boys are dangerous.

Does Carolyn know if anything worse routinely happened under the old policy? Were the sort of boys she describes kicked out?

If this did not occur, and the previous policy was really directed at an explicit, open homosexual identity, then may I ask Carolyn whether she does not think that this rule was not best for the type of boy she describes? Did it not help him become a man and discourage his weakness?

The Boy Scouts new policy can be read here. It states:

No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

While no boy should be denied membership to scouting simply because he is attracted to or has desires for other boys, the use of the language of “sexual orientation or preference” here is precisely the sort of labeling of homosexuality that angers Bartholomew. The Boy Scouts policy prohibits any sexual conduct, but why would the issue of “sexual orientation” come up unless a boy was openly identifying himself as a homosexual, which is a form of sexual conduct?

Also, when reading through the study conducted by the Boy Scouts and the summary of the results, one sees many words expended on changing attitudes toward homosexuality. For instance, the report includes a graph showing wide approval of same-sex marriage and polls of teenagers, which show their approval of homosexuality. It also includes this comment by a former scout:

As an openly gay Eagle Scout I felt extremely conflicted in attaining my rank. I had been raised since starting as a Tiger Cub with all of the values of scouting. I also had the goal of attaining eagle since a very young age. So when I realized I was same sex attracted I almost decided to give up. Why do the leadership project if I won’t receive credit? How could I honestly go into my board and disobey a rule? A Scout is obedient. But a Scout also tried to change the rules of his community in a kindly manner if he disagrees with those rules. I just think homosexuality is not something that dictates one’s ability to be trustworthy loyal helpful friendly courteous kind obedient cheerful thrifty brave clean or reverent. I think by keeping out an entire group of people we are actually breaking many of those values. Most importantly the organization is excluding an entire group of boys. That means a lot of talented young boys. Which is just so unfortunate for the organization as a whole.”

This is precisely the sort of individual who is going to use the scouts as a public platform for his “orientation,” with great enthusiasm by the media. For this boy, homosexual conduct is unrelated to the character development the Boy Scouts champions.

Bartholomew writes:

Laura writes,

“I never said that adolescents who are confused or who have homosexual desires should be excluded from the Boy Scouts.”

Unfortunately, today this is a distinction without a difference. Boys who have not grown up in the Church won’t have any idea that you can have sexual desires for someone of the same sex and not be a “homosexual.” Ask the average person on the street if you have to commit sodomy before you can be a “homosexual,” and see what they say. Look, a lot of guys in prison commit sodomy and then go home to their wives and would flat out deny being “homosexual” because they are romantically interested in women. Your Boy Scouts policy would admit boys with the mentality of a prison rapist, but reject the sensitive artist type who is scared of his own shadow.

[Laura writes: Does Bartholomew have any evidence that the previous policy of the Boy Scouts led to the rejection of sensitive artist types? I disagree that there are not boys who have illicit desires and who shun the homosexual identity.]

This is why you don’t base policy on made-up social constructs like “homosexuality”, and you base it on hard, cold facts instead. Has the kid sodomized any of the neighbor boys? No? Give him a badge. The Scouts will fix the rest.

“Bartholomew says boys who identify themselves as homosexuals should be admitted and then told to reject homosexual behavior and the homosexual identity. If the Boy Scouts of America had said that’s what it intended to do, then I would be all for it.”

Where was your counterpart in 1913 (or whenever this ban came into effect)? Back then the Boy Scouts certainly had the moral authority to demand that “homosexuals” act like the boys they really are, and expect society’s backing. Why did they choose to ban the temptation rather than the sin? Well, “homosexuality” hasn’t gone away, and an exasperated public has withdrawn its backing. Now what?

“We should forbid children who are openly using this label to participate in an organized group like the scouts”

Really? What if they say the F word? How about just delivering swift punishment and leaving it at that? And what if he starts talking about doing gross things with the other boys? I don’t know, what if he starts talking about killing baby animals? You pull him aside, tell him that’s not acceptable, and then tell his father.

I feel like I’m beating a dead horse here. I guess I could keep responding point by point, but it all comes down to a pretty basic fundamental of jurisprudence: You punish actions, not desires. Since the word “homosexual” does not connote actions, but desires, it can’t be the basis of judgment.

[Laura writes: I agree. Punish actions, not desires. Publicly flaunting a homosexual identity is an action. It is not enough to exclude those who have actually committed sodomy. One should exclude those who are openly promoting it, with the backing of an entrenched adult establishment that wants to normalize it. The others — those sensitive artist types who have illicit desires — are not going to come to the attention of scout leaders.]

I guess you can punish people for saying the word or using it to describe themselves, but punishment by expulsion seems kind of harsh. Some ghetto kid might call himself a thug, which usually connotes a desire to do all kinds of evil things. You don’t kick him out of the Boy Scouts. You teach him to want to be something better, and you punish him severely if he ever acts like something worse.

Don’t you know that that’s exactly what every white nation used to do prior to the 20th century? They banned sodomy, the act, not “homosexuality.” Everyone knew what we all have forgotten–it’s pointless to ban a desire because no one can enforce it until it’s acted upon anyway.

 [Laura writes: You are ignoring the social context here. You make no reference to the adults who are using children to further their political agenda. Again, the former Scout policy didn’t just ban desires, it banned the homosexual identity.]

Steve writes,

“A homosexual is simply a man or woman who has chosen to indulge an attraction to members of the same sex; why that attraction exists is not the determining factor of its reality. The determining factor is the indulgence. Unless you’re willing to say that the indulgence doesn’t exist, it’s foolish to say that homosexuals don’t exist.”

This doesn’t make sense. You’re saying that you start to want something only after you’ve already tried to get it. Why would you try to get something you don’t already want? You’ve got the cart in front of the horse.

[Laura writes: Steve’s point is that desires are not the issue. I don’t understand why you say that makes no sense. The indulgence of those desires and the normalization of them are the real issues. The Boy Scouts in the past was not ferreting out sensitive artistic types who had homosexual desires. Good heavens, it was glad to take anyone. The issue is the type of boy whom I quoted above, a boy who champions homosexuality and says he wants to spend his life as a homosexual.]

Laura writes:

By announcing that no “sexual orientation or preference” — and we know that “sexual orientation” is not just a private inclination but a full-blown public identity — is adequate reason for excluding someone from the Scouts, the Boy Scouts has lost the authority to prohibit all the assorted actions that go with proclaiming one’s “sexual orientation.”

Bartholomew raises the example of a boy who uses vulgar language. Punish him when he curses, he says. But the Scouts will not be able to punish a boy for endorsing homosexuality in front of other boys. It will not be able to punish him for, say, stating that he plans to marry another man someday or doing a scouting project on homosexuality in America because to do so would be to reject his “orientation.” Any boy who has gone so far as to proclaim a “sexual orientation,” any boy who has parents who have gone so far as to declare him as having a fixed “sexual orientation,” is already too approving of homosexuality and entrenched in a political project to be worthy of an organization with the mission of high virtue and character development. All such a boy needed to do under the old policy was reject the label. I don’t see how that was such a terrible imposition, even for a boy afflicted with homosexual desires.

I do not think this new policy necessarily leads to homosexual scout leaders. The Boy Scouts may very well hold out on that issue. But it will now be close to impossible for the Scouts to help struggling boys resist homosexual conduct.

Mary writes:

Like many of those who voted for this change in policy, Caroline falls into the trap: she doesn’t see that for the activists behind this it is not about being kind to little boys who are confused about their sexuality but strictly about allowing open homosexuals into the BSA at all levels. It is radical change that they want and nothing less. This policy change is huge leap forward in achieving that goal.

I mean it truly: it is lovely that Bartholomew and Caroline are kind-hearted enough to worry about these confused little boys but they must accept that the activists are not the least bit concerned with the little boys except for the role the boys can play in manipulating hearts in the activists favor. Those who miss the big picture out of naivete or innocence unwittingly help the enemy. Bartholomew himself strongly advised against allowing homosexual leaders into troops, not understanding that this new policy was the stepping stone to exactly that and that by calling for help for these little boys he is advancing what he decries. The boys do need help but the BSA is not the appropriate venue.

To see this issue clearly we need to focus on what is (was) unique about the boy scouts. The answer is the absence of girls, who represent the potential for romantic evaluation, etc. The absence of this potential allows the boys to behave unselfconsciously, to flourish and thrive in a very healthy and, unfortunately today, unique way – unique because we have been sexualized to such a degree as a society that we have forgotten the freedom both men and women feel when they are alone with their own kind, unfettered by the undercurrent of sexuality. This was natural and sought out from the dawn of man. It changed less than a century ago.

It can be seen by anyone with a mind willing to think rationally that allowing openly homosexual boys into a scout troop changes this all this. The trust and freedom and intimacy that normal single sex environments allow is destroyed; in its place is self-consciousness, distraction, worry. It is bringing something unhealthy into something otherwise thriving. It is asking teenage boys to swim, share a tent, etc. with a boy they know sees them as a girl would see them, whether because they are good-looking, ugly, funny, fat. It is a total game-changer and is patently unjust.

In a rational world the onus would have been on those who wanted this change to prove that the environment of the boy scouts was harmful. But that would be impossible. So they trot out these poor confused children to do the dirty work for them. A tiny percentage of boys are homosexual; a tiny percent of boys in general join the scouts; less than 5 percent of those boys complete the program due to other interests. This was not the desperate and unjust situation it was made out to be. This is not for the greater good in any sense. They got the military; now they have the scouts. There is nothing left but the Church.

Laura writes:

Excellent.

Again, I ask Carolyn and Bartholomew to offer some proof that the previous policy of exclusion of open homosexuality was harmful to boys who were scouts or who wanted to be scouts. Did it worsen the situation of any boy attracted to boys? Did it drive many to despair? Do they know of any sensitive artistic types who desperately wanted to join the scouts but couldn’t because they weren’t macho enough? If so, this is entirely contrary to my own observation of the Scouts, which basically involves groups of fathers who go out of their way to welcome any boy, except those who are serious behavior problems.

Terry Morris writes:

Laura wrote:

“I do not think this policy necessarily leads to homosexual scout leaders.”

Oh, yes it does (barring its reversal). Hide and watch. The scenario is very simple – homosexual scout climbs the ranks to Eagle under new policy; homosexual Eagle Scout later decides he wants to stay active in the Scouting organization, and wants to become a scout leader. A background check is initiated on application, and nothing is found to exempt him, but the old policy to exempt openly homosexual scout leaders is still in force. Would-be scout leader enlists the help of corporate sponsors and government, and champions the cause of overturning the old policy along with others who have been so denied. You know the rest.

Laura writes:

I stand corrected. The policy excluding homosexual scout leaders is not likely to remain in place.

Alan M. writes:

Early on in our time here in California, our boys started to get involved with the Scouts through a school-based troop. However, I noticed that other than the troop leader, most of the activities were both organized by and had mothers in attendance. The sole exception were the weekend camping trips. As this didn’t square with what I wanted for our boys, we didn’t continue. I wonder if this was an isolated experience as our area is relatively wealthy and has a lot of stay-at-home moms or if it was a more general trend happening across the country. It seemed to me that the Boy Scouts were well on their way to being feminized already.

Laura writes:

Yours is not an isolated experience. That has been the trend for years.

Buck writes:

The Wikipedia entry Terminology of Homosexuality is rife with homosexualist bias and propaganda. It’s the work of “gay” and “gay friendly” academics and intellectuals, the very people who organized and led the “gay rights” movement to victory. It’s an ongoing hostile takeover of the language. Redefining unfriendly terms, changing historical meanings and appropriating them for their purposes, and the coining of friendly new terms is critical to their strategy. Without successfully defining their own terms, and controlling the public discussion, the homosexualist could not have achieved the astounding, and still growing, plethora of special rights and privileges, or achieved the almost unbelievably insidious foray into all of our public and private institutions; not assimilating, but taking power and wielding authority. This is one of the most remarkable social movements ever.

This entry demonstrates the homosexualist power, even over us. We can’t even agree on what a homosexual is. We’re sharpening our differences, while the homosexualist move their furniture in and set up house. We submit by default. They have us by the…well in hand.

I think that one issue will be settled, and there seems to be agreement on that. The Supreme Court will allow homosexualist scout leaders on the next go around. How can it not? The thin thread that allowed the court to hold against the openly gay scout leader James Dale, in the five to four decision in 2000, was (no longer) that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA’s “expressive message” and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. Obviously the BSA has formally and officially broken that thread. The whole “expressive message” argument was a withering vestigial appendage from a dead America anyway. The BSA Council removed it themselves.

Laura writes:

You point to another good reason why the prohibition against homosexual scout leaders cannot last.