Letters: Homosexuals are no danger

Fear, hate and separate — this odious triumvirate drives the intolerance that pollutes our religious and political landscape, as exhibited by Michael Chol’s exhortation to fear the malevolent influence homosexuals would have on the Boy Scouts (The Advocate, July 5 letter).

Fear exacerbated by its constant companion misinformation — fear that somehow association with a boy, or leader of a different sexual orientation, would “confuse” the presumably innocent child by “injecting” homosexuality (like a noxious venom), putting some sort of pressure on the boy. In short, Chol exhibits the religious right’s fear of, obsession with and drive to control sex.

Let us examine that position. Homosexuals make up a small minority of the population. This means that homosexual activity is unattractive to most persons, and strongly suggests (although it may not be provable scientifically) that homosexual orientation is not contagious. On this basis, there is little likelihood that one’s sexual proclivity would be changed by any relationship with anyone.

But let us grant that some boys do have genuine personal confusion about their sexual orientation. It seems reasonable that a mentoring relationship with a caring adult, including a Scout leader, might help an adolescent discover, understand and cope with his feelings without endangering anyone, unless he tries to indoctrinate his scouts with his personal religious, political or sexual views. Does Chol fit that description?

But what of his anti-gay bias? The good news is that Cokie and Steve Roberts (July 9, op-ed page) state that the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll shows that 53 percent of Americans now favor legalizing gay marriage, and quote Mark DeCamillo that “the numbers are inexorably moving in one direction,” due to old people dying. As an old person not quite dead yet, I am not enamored with that statistic, but am pleased that Cokie and Steve attribute that change to experience.

I can personally agree with that. I was one of four adolescent acolytes (altar boys) in my church, one of whom was “openly gay” long before that term was invented. In any event, we and the church accepted him, as did most everyone else, which may be why I have found nothing to fear (or hate) in homosexual persons.

The good news of late is that a staunch conservative with whom I trade friendly barbs, has recently confessed that after working with a homosexual man, he has changed his previously negative opinion of homosexuality.

In summary, I am sure that homosexuals pose no danger to the Boy Scouts, but I am not so sure about Scoutmaster Chol.

Herb Dyer

retired physician

Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by Chucky - 01/08/2012

As in the past i agree with nimby?

2) Comment by Whatnow - 01/08/2012

@nimby?, Dr. King and I would agree with you.

3) Comment by nimby? - 01/08/2012

"Why don't we just afford everyone the same rights and be done with it?" I couldn't agree more ; everyone standing on their own, achievement based on individual merit , what you do rather than who/what you are . perhaps we could start by doing away with affirmative action .,...

4) Comment by DMJ - 01/08/2012

Who's talking about gays becoming a "protected class"? What does that even mean? If by "protected" do you mean having the same rights as everyone else and protected from arbitrary discrimination? If so, then why would a gay person, or anyone, need to prove their status? Why don't we just afford everyone the same rights and be done with it? Am I missing something?

5) Comment by InPVille - 31/07/2012

@nimby: That clears up my confusion.

6) Comment by nimby? - 31/07/2012

InPVille , maybe I wasn't clear enough . gays are white , black , yellow , red . they are rich , poor , religious , atheist , educated , illiterate , etc. , they are representative of the worlds population , nothing to distinguish them from the rest . in short I'm asking how gays will prove they are . a question to your answer ; will there be a new line on the forms we fill out ?

7) Comment by InPVille - 31/07/2012

@TeaSlayer: The open letter refers to more than one study and makes other points including but not limited to the state of the study of the topic - in it's infancy. -[**]- @nimby: "if gays become a protected class, how will they verify (prove) their status ?" - - - probably the same way married heterosexuals prove their status

8) Comment by nimby? - 31/07/2012

there is a question I've asked many times , yet I've never received a serious , logical answer . one more time ; since there are no defining physical characteristics , if gays become a protected class how will they verify (prove) their status ?

9) Comment by gofigger - 31/07/2012

@DMJ - whatever floats your boat

10) Comment by DMJ - 31/07/2012

gofigger, it sounds like you're admitting you are on the losing side of this argument. At least I think that's what you meant....

11) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 31/07/2012

Your "open letter" still relies on the false comparison of the 200 respondents whose parent(s) had "ever have a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex". Of those 200, only around 4 or 5 actually lived with their father ( or mother) and their partner for more than three years. So, how can a comparison be made between this group and a group of children who lived their entire childhood with both parents? It can't. That is why the study reaches false conclusions. I guess you didn't even read the article I mentioned or you would not have posted this ridiculous open letter as a retort.

12) Comment by gofigger - 31/07/2012

@DMJ - We were talking about personal feelings, not right or wrong. We have laws legalizing actions today, that were once illegal. The trend that's popular with the masses is, sometimes unfortunately, the direction this country will be led.

13) Comment by InPVille - 31/07/2012

---[ CAPITALIZATIONS ADDED NEAR END OF TEXT ]--- From June 20, 2012 OPEN LETTER "Although Regnerus’s article in Social Science Research is not without its limitations, as social scientists, we think much of the public criticism Regnerus has received is unwarranted for three reasons. -[parag]- First, there are limitations with prior research on this subject that have seldom been discussed by the media. The vast majority of studies published before 2012 on this subject have relied upon small, nonrepresentative samples that do not represent children in typical gay and lesbian families in the United States. [2] By contrast, Regnerus relies on a large, random, and representative sample of more than 200 children raised by parents who have had same-sex relationships, comparing them to a random sample of more than 2,000 children raised in heterosexual families, to reach his conclusions. This is why sociology professor Paul Amato, chair of the Family section of the American Sociological Association and president of the National Council on Family Relations, wrote that the Regnerus study was “better situated than virtually all previous studies to detect differences between these [different family] groups in the population.”[3] We are disappointed that many media outlets have not done their due diligence in investigating the scientific validity of prior studies, and acknowledging the superiority of Regnerus’s sample to most previous research. -[parag]- Second, Regnerus has been chided for comparing young adults from gay and lesbian families that experienced high levels of family instability to young adults from stable heterosexual married families. This is not an ideal comparison. (Indeed, Regnerus himself acknowledges this point in his article, and calls for additional research on a representative sample of planned gay and lesbian families; such families may be more stable but are very difficult to locate in the population at large.[4]) But what his critics fail to appreciate is that Regnerus chose his categories on the basis of young adults’ characterizations of their own families growing up, and the young adults whose parents had same-sex romantic relationships also happened to have high levels of instability in their families of origin. This instability may well be an artifact of the social stigma and marginalization that often faced gay and lesbian couples during the time (extending back to the 1970s, in some cases) that many of these young adults came of age. It is also worth noting that Regnerus’s findings related to instability are consistent with recent studies of gay and lesbian couples in countries such as the Netherlands and Sweden, which find similarly high patterns of instability among same-sex couples.[5] Even Judith Stacey, a prominent critic of Regnerus’s study, elsewhere acknowledges that studies suggest that lesbian “relationships may prove less durable” than heterosexual marriages.[6] Thus, Regnerus should not be faulted for drawing a random, representative sample of young-adult children of parents who have had same-sex romantic relationships and also happened to have experienced high levels of family instability growing up. -[parag ]- Third, another study[7] published this month in the Journal of Marriage and Family comes to conclusions that parallel those of Regnerus’s study. This study finds that “children in same-sex parent families scored lower than their peers in married, 2-biological parent households” on two academic outcomes, and that these baseline differences can probably be attributed in part to higher levels of family instability in same-sex families, compared to intact, biological married families. This study was also based on a large, nationally representative, and random survey of school-age children; moreover, the same-sex parents in this study lived together. The parallels between the findings in this study and Regnerus’s study call into question the New Republic’s claim that the Regnerus study “gets everything wrong.” -[parag]- To be clear: We do not think that these new studies settle the nation’s ongoing debate about gay parenting, same-sex marriage, and the welfare of children. In fact, research on same-sex parenting based on nationally representative samples is still in its infancy. But we think that the Regnerus study, which is one of the first to rely on a large, random, and representative sample of children from parents who have experienced same-sex relationships, has helped to inform the ongoing scholarly and public conversation about same-sex families in America. INDEED, IT IS POSSIBLE TO INTERPRET REGNERUS’S FINDINGS AS EVIDENCE FOR THE NEED FOR LEGALIZED GAY MARRIABE, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE SOCIAL STABILITY OF SUCH RELATIONSHIPS. As social scientists, our hope is that more such studies will be forthcoming shortly, and that future journalistic coverage of such studies, and this contentious topic, will be more civil, thorough, and thoughtful than has been the coverage of the new study by Professor Mark Regnerus." signed Byron Johnson, Baylor University; Douglas Allen, Simon Fraser University; Peter Arcidiacono, Duke University; John Bartkowski, University of Texas at San Antonio; David Eggebeen, Penn State University; Michael Emerson, Rice University; Ana Cecilia Fieler, University of Pennsylvania; Alan Hawkins, Brigham Young University; William Jeynes, California State University at Long Beach; Loren Marks, Louisiana State University; Margarita Mooney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; Stephen Robinson, University of North Carolina at Wilmington; Christian Smith, University of Notre Dame; Rodney Stark, Baylor University; James Stoner, Louisiana State University; Peter Uhlenberg, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; W. Bradford Wilcox, University of Virginia; Bradley Wright, University of Connecticut

14) Comment by DMJ - 31/07/2012

Pedophilia involves children, not consenting adults. I feel dumber for even having to point this out.

15) Comment by gofigger - 31/07/2012

@DMJ -A pedophile might feel the same way.

16) Comment by nimby? - 31/07/2012

wears ...

17) Comment by nimby? - 31/07/2012

the perceived "homosexual or gay life style" is stereotypically prevalent on the big and small screen . gay pride events , as reported by the media are usually attended by flamboyantly dressed characters . just because a man where's a dress doesn't mean he's gay , but it does tend to gather attention . guess I'm saying the media is a direct accomplice in the 'homosexual or gay life style" myth .....

18) Comment by lovemykids - 31/07/2012

I keep hearing about the "homosexual or gay life style" and I still do know what that means. Unless they are obsessed with the bedroom. I do not care about other people's bedrooms.

19) Comment by DMJ - 31/07/2012

Obviously, gay people don't feel they are any different. I'm inclined to agree. And I'll continue to call out anyone who discriminates. I'll call them a bigot...accurately. Think about it....if you were a victim of discrimination, would you sit idly by and agree with the people who seek to relegate you to 2nd class citizenship? Of course not. Or would you actually do something about it? Right. Starting to make sense, or should I start over?

20) Comment by ABayouBoy - 31/07/2012

Homosexuality exists, yes. But it is a statistical abnormality.

21) Comment by Whatnow - 31/07/2012

@DMJ, as usual, putting down the opposing side will always bring them to your side, right? They Boy Scouts base their morality on the Church and Bible. I agree with teacherguy. Why do gays insist on pushing everyone into thinking they are like everyone else? They aren't and never will be. Just as you dislike "Bible Thumpers" lifestyle, why should everyone like the homosexual lifestyle? We all think differently. And I agree, to each his own. But, putting each other down is not going to solve anything. It just makes the person doing the name calling and putting down seem narrow minded, too.

22) Comment by DMJ - 31/07/2012

There's nothing wrong with being gay. It has no bearing whatsoever on one's morality. Eventually, social conservatives will come around, though most likely kicking and screaming, like always. You'd think social conservatives would have learned their lesson by now, seeing as they've never once been on the right side of history when it comes to social issues. Oh well...I guess when your whole idealology is based on having a closed mind, you can expect to be on the losing side of the silly progress vs. "tradition" debate. And why would the Boy Scouts, of all people, have a problem with gayness? I mean, come on..... all male camping trips, sewing merit badges on their sashes, wearing kerchiefs....

23) Comment by TheTardis - 31/07/2012

Actually my albino comparison was way off. There are way more gay folks than albino people. Anyway, my point was it may not be the norm, as in most folks aren't gay, but it's a normal occurrence in nature.

24) Comment by TheTardis - 31/07/2012

Thanks LMK for sharing your story. Your kids are lucky to have parents who care. Being gay is at least as normal as being albino and probably more so. Some folks just don't like those who are different and love to say so in public. Then they tell us gay folks to shut up. It's kinda hilarious really. Change is coming. More and more people are realizing they have gay relatives or friends and once they understand what a gay person is, they soften their stance. We'll get there!

25) Comment by lovemykids - 31/07/2012

Abayouboy lots of heterosexual people who can not procreate have children. How did they do it? As far as the rest of your comment, just keep your head buried in the sand with the people that believe that blacks are not equal to whites and the two should not procreate.

26) Comment by ABayouBoy - 31/07/2012

@lovemykids, My question to you is that how, within your perfectly "normal" lifestyle, did you and your spouse "procreate" and have two 12 yr. old twins? And, how do you explain your sexual proclivities to those two? I think that "your" kids may have some "issues" down the road. You can bury your head in the sand for as long as you like, but society will never accept a homosexual lifestyle as normal. Do it behind closed doors, but don't expect the vast majority to accept your personal views of what "you" consider to be acceptable behavior.

27) Comment by lovemykids - 30/07/2012

Teacherguy, I am not sure what you mean by "the homosexual lifestyle". I am a man and my spouse is a man. We have been together over 18 years and we have twelve year old twins. I get up early in the morning make coffee and then fix breakfast for the kids while my spouse gets ready for work. I then bring the kids to school (except in summer) come home and get ready to go to my part time weekday job. On the weekends I go to my other part time job and grocery shopping while my spouse does something with the kids (usually homework and piano lessons). We try to let the kids visit with the grandparents as much as possible, usually, when we are doing housework or working in the yard. Is that lifestyle all that different from yours? Or are you one of those people obsessed with others bedrooms?

28) Comment by chem - 30/07/2012

Slavery was a huge part of the Civil War. It was painted in economic terms by the South, but there was a large and growing abolitionist movement that, of course, wanted to outlaw slavery. The Missouri Compromise and the Wilmot Proviso banned slavery in the new territories. Slavery was not the only reason, but it was a major one.

29) Comment by teacherguy - 30/07/2012

@chem - The North did not attack the South due to slavery issues, as evidenced in North's declaration of war. With the coming of technology, slavery would soon be more expensive and slow producing than tractors and the like as evidenced by Robert E. Lee's writings. Slavery was not a live and let live mentality as slaves had no choice where they would work, where they would live, etc, as homosexuals can choose today. However, the South had a point in saying that treating everyone equally would allow the minority to rule the majority. A compromise between the two philosophies is what America needs...everyone should be able to live how they want to live...but forcing people to become what they are not is not the definition of "freedom" either.

30) Comment by teacherguy - 30/07/2012

I don't agree with my wife all the time, this doesn't mean I hate her. There are some topics of discussion she and I have chosen to discuss as little as possible (past relationships, why she spends money on clothes and me on technology, professional decisions that only makes sense to someone at work, etc.). My love for her is stronger today than it was the day we married despite our differences. And just because I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle, and would prefer to not even discuss it, doesn't mean I hate them. The problem is both agendas are ALWAYS looking for supporters and locating "the enemy" for political reasons. If you ask most practicing Christians/homosexuals their views on homosexuality, is it too complicated to expect them to not agree? Instead of insisting everyone think the same...why can't we insist on letting each other think differently? There are not many Whites in the NAACP, "Black" churches, and China Town. People willingly, by choice, segregate themselves as forced segregation has not changed people...I'm not discussing hate here...I'm just saying people are different. Why can't homosexuals start their on answer to Boy Scouts, chicken shack, bar, neighborhood, church, etc. and let those that disagree with that lifestyle have their niche, too without forcing people to become something they are not?

31) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 30/07/2012

Please read Amy Davidson's article in the New Yorker, "A Faulty 'Gay Parenting' Study", for a more detailed analysis of the shotty "study".

32) Comment by Tea_Slayer - 30/07/2012

To say that the Regnerus study is "under a cloud" is an extreme understatement. He falsely compares children whose parents "ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex" (not those in a committed homosexual relationship) to those whose parents were married throughout their their childhood. Just from that simple fact, his entire conclusion is specious.

33) Comment by InPVille - 30/07/2012

Of course the Regnerus study is much criticized. It goes counter to the "consensus". Fair enough! That doesn't mean it is totally invalid. Time will tell. As Einstein said: All of the scientists couldn't prove him right. But it only would take one of them to prove him wrong. As I indicated before. . . statistics. Then there is politics.

34) Comment by chem - 30/07/2012

I am not in the business of, nor do I have the credentials to do, a bone fide study on socialogical studies. However, it does not take much imagination to understand that if people are subjected to hatred everyday that it will have a negative effect on them. And by the way, the Regnerus study is under a cloud right now. I would not take that paper seriously at this point.

35) Comment by ABayouBoy - 30/07/2012

I have to agree with [e-mail]. His position on the subject reflects my views 100%.

36) Comment by InPVille - 30/07/2012

@chem: "Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a negative affect on children in a gay marriage family. What is the reason for that negative affect? Well, it seems likely that it is all the condemnation they get from those that are bigoted toward gay people. If we did not have that, there would be no difference." -[**]- You have your hypothesis. Now develop a theory and a proof.

37) Comment by chem - 30/07/2012

Correction: BEAR instead of BARE in previous post.

38) Comment by chem - 30/07/2012

Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is a negative affect on children in a gay marriage family. What is the reason for that negative affect? Well, it seems likely that it is all the condemnation they get from those that are bigoted toward gay people. If we did not have that, there would be no difference.

39) Comment by InPVille - 30/07/2012

FROM: http://phys.org/news/2012-06-views-children-gay-lesbian-parents.html -[**]- A ". . . review by Dr. Loren Marks from Louisiana State University finds that much of the science that forms the basis for the highly regarded 2005 official brief on same-sex parenting by the American Psychological Association (APA) (www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/parenting-full.pdf>) does not stand up to scrutiny. The new study by University of Texas sociologist and professor Mark Regnerus, provides compelling new evidence that numerous differences in social and emotional well-being do exist between young adults raised by women who have had a lesbian relationship and those who have grown up in a nuclear family. . . ." -[**]- LINK TO REGNERUS' STUDY: http://www.baylorisr.org/wp-content/uploads/Regnerus.pdf "Concern has arisen, however, about the methodological quality of many studies focusing on same-sex parents. In particular, most are based on non-random, non-representative data often employing small samples that do not allow for generalization to the larger population of gay and lesbian families. . ." -[**]- Our species is emotional and easily biased. Social science conclusions are based on statistics, an inexact science, and not always used by scientists in consultation with statistical experts who claim that it is usually possible to find some statistic which doesn't falsify what you are trying to demonstrate. -[**]- Short version: "social differences" resulting from different family compositions are uncertain, IMHO. However, in my own experience while working with and along side gay and lesbian people over the course of 30+ years with the state, as far as the work place was concerned. . . no difference.

40) Comment by nimby? - 30/07/2012

chem , there is a misnomer that gays do nothing but have deviant s e x ... for the past 10/12 years I've been enjoying coffee every tuesday morning with two young ladies , 83 and 79 . they've been together over 50 years , never seen a happier couple . always been a believer in the right for gays to marry , especially if there will be children involved . a legally binding relationship would seem to demonstrate more of an obligation on both parts ....

41) Comment by nimby? - 30/07/2012

I like what teacher guy said . if possible I try to avoid situations where I know I will be uncomfortable . if not I say as little as possible , out of respect . I deserve the same respect . if you enter my space , don't step on my toes or I'll push back ....

42) Comment by chem - 30/07/2012

There are those that currently advocate being free from taxes. But more in the context of this discussion, I think that people should be free to have relationships, to marry, and raise children, regardless of the type of relationship, i.e., interracial, interfaith, heterosexual, or homosexual. For the life of me, I cannot understand how two women or two men being married in a loving, caring relationship affects anyone else. Oh, I understand the hate and bigotry that is spewed out in the name of religion, but that is imposing a relgious doctrine on people who do not share that belief. That is morally wrong. We have those on the right trying to make it harder for people to vote under the guise of "voter fraud." These people want to turn back the hands of time to a point where it was difficult for some in society to vote. That is wrong. Chik-fil-a, or its spokesman, can say whatever they want, but be prepared to bare the wrath of the public. The latest polls show 53% in favor of gay marriage/civil unions.

43) Comment by InPVille - 30/07/2012

I can agree that it is a good thing anytime hatred is decreased. However, freedom can also have a responsibility component to it which makes increasing freedom something that must be measured. What if someone were to advocate that we ALL should be free from having to pay taxes?

44) Comment by chem - 30/07/2012

So I have a question: Live and let live. Are you saying the North should have just ignored slavery in the South? I agree that if someone is doing something that is not harming others, yea, let them be, but when an action harms others, it must be stopped. If the South was against the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law) everyone else should have done nothing and let them treat all but white males as property, treating them worse than dogs. Anytime freedom is increased and hatred is decreased, that is a very good thing.

45) Comment by teacherguy - 29/07/2012

I believe if Home Depot, Disney World, etc. can openly embrace homosexuals, then Chick-fil-a, the Boy Scouts, or any other business should be able to just as openly be against them. This is one of the reasons the South were vehemently against the 14th Amendment...not simply out of hatred, or open bigotry...but more complex, out of difference of philosophy. As a history teacher, I've learned that in EVERY conflict...both sides believe to their core they are right. It is generally when one side pushes the other side to change their core belief is when conflict arises. I say embrace the differences...live and let live, and stay out of each other's way. I learned at the ripe old age of 5 years old in order to remain "comfortable in life" to surround myself with friends that are like me, embrace the differences in people that are different, and stay the hell on my side of the tracks when tensions are high! This doesn't mean I hate anyone...just have different core values. Example - it is very rare that we see church going on in a bar room and drinking copious amounts of alcohol in a church. If I don't want to see women in bikinis, I should avoid Blue Bayou. To keep distance from homosexuals, I don't go to gay pride parades. I go to Chick-fil-a for good chicken and I go to Home Depot when I need a board. If I were gay, I'd apply at Taco Bell or another place that isn't so religious that it is closed on Sunday, and if I am gay and apply at Chick-fil-a...I should expect them to be "different" employers than Home Depot. If I am Christian, I should expect Home Depot to offend my core values when they promote the gay agenda. If I'm not okay with that then I should apply at Chick-fil-a. I love an America where people are different...and I resent a gay person trying to force me accept their core value that is different than mine with the same bitterness I resent the Christian trying to force me to accept their core value that is different than mine. I don't attend Catholic churches or gay bars for a reason that no one should be allowed to force upon me to change my mind as to why.

46) Comment by nimby? - 29/07/2012

at least he was honest ....

47) Comment by TheTardis - 29/07/2012

But I do have a say in where I spend my money. If the owner had never come out publicly that he gives some of his profits to anti-gay orgs I might never have known. But he did and I do.

48) Comment by nimby? - 29/07/2012

Tardis , there's lots of money going towards people who don't deserve it , but we don't have any say in the matter .....

49) Comment by TheTardis - 29/07/2012

I also won't spend my money at Chick-fil-a. I haven't in years any way. But the point is I don't want a my money going toward bigoted organizations that Chick-fil-a donates to. If they were giving to Planned Parenthood, I'm sure others would be holding their money from them too.

50) Comment by [e-mail] - 29/07/2012

Trying to make a sow's ear into a silk purse has never worked, and no matter how the debate about homosexuality is framed the fact remains that 2% of the general population of the world is not an indication of merit. All the chatter about Chick-fil-A is just an attempt to use the same intimidation tactics that have worked with other national corporations and our famously courageous politicians. What fool puts a fox in a henhouse? What fool pretends to admire another who would do so? It's all nonsense.

51) Comment by lovemykids - 29/07/2012

Free speech is not illegal in this country and I will continue to voice my objections to the policies of the BSA and Chick-fil-a, and to not give Chick-fil-a my business. I am so glad we agree on this matter.

52) Comment by Springer98 - 28/07/2012

If you want to boycott Chick-fil-a, do it!! As for me, I will give them more of my business, because I agree with their views. Free speech is not illegal in this country YET!!!

53) Comment by TheTardis - 28/07/2012

I didn't mean to imply Chick-fil-a had directly discriminated against anyone that I know of. My point was they have become politicized due to their anti-gay marriage statements and giving lots of money to anti-gay groups. The Boy Scouts, however, have kicked people out of their organization for being gay, which is discriminatory, yet not illegal. As for whether a boycott is right or not, that's up to one's opinion, but I'll remind you that right wing organizations boycott businesses all the time based on pro-gay stances (see JCPenney). Neither of us knows whether this will hurt BSA or Chick-fil-a in the long run. BTW, I agree with the ACLU that you can't disallow Chick-fil-a from opening in a city just b/c of their opinions. Just don't shop there if you don't like them.

54) Comment by lovemykids - 28/07/2012

The Boy Scouts do have the right to discriminate against gay people just as they discriminated against blacks. The owner of Chick-Fil-A has the right to pick and choose what he follows in the bible. Other people have the right to protest and campaign against the Boy Scouts and Chick-Fil-A.

55) Comment by Whatnow - 28/07/2012

@TheTardis, I disagree. Chick-Fil-A never discriminated in the least with their customers. They just said that they don't believe in gay marriage. It's the gay minority and politicians that picked up on this and made it ugly. Just because they stated their opinion, they are discriminated against. Do we now have thought police? Has the Gay Right Movement turned into the Gestapo? I assure you that Chick-Fila-A nor the Boy Scouts are in no danger of faltering. I imagine it may have made them stronger. Boys Scouts has always been able to draw parents to bring their boys to scouting because of their high morals. That is their strength.

56) Comment by nimby? - 28/07/2012

and who is making this a political issue ? a private business owner expresses his honest opinion , is this wrong ? is this any different from the atheist expressing his honest opinion there is no god ? neither chik fil a nor the boy scouts have broken any laws . never seen a no gays allowed sign on the door of a chik fil a restaurant . private businesses/organizations are allowed to set standards and maintain them . the boy scouts is a world wide organization , children from all races , backgrounds . nothing political there ....

57) Comment by TheTardis - 28/07/2012

People have the right to try to change organizations they care about and are a part of. The Boy Scouts have the right to not change and to remain discriminatory towards gay people. Just like Chick-Fil-A, they become politicized and will be an organization that has a smaller and smaller pool of customers/members. They will eventually die out if they don't change, but that is their choice.

58) Comment by tradewinns - 28/07/2012

the boy scouts is a private organization, they should have the right to pick and choose their members. if the homosexuals want a boy scout like organization, they can start one. they do not have any right to change the existing one to fit their demands.

59) Comment by [e-mail] - 28/07/2012

What homosexuals do or don't do with one another doesn't interest or bother me; it's the idea that everybody else has to pretend to believe that their sexual proclivity is normal and either help them or turn a blind eye to their activist agenda. Why must we help them by remaking society mores into what they want them to be? I couldn't disagree with Mr. Dyer 's opinion more; saying nothing and doing nothing while a vocal minority bullies society is wrong, and watching homosexual activists tear down another American institution like the Boy Scouts is clearly wrong.

60) Comment by Bighug - 28/07/2012

There is statistical evidence that homosexuality is something people are born with, not a choice they make. To accept that, the religious right would have to admit it is a God-given condition. Of course, they do seem to ingore much of the Bible that isn't popular today.