Plan B Forum

Scott Walker chose to weigh in on the Boy Scouts of America's reversal of its longstanding policy against gay Scout leaders by evoking that most odious of slurs against gay people:

I was an Eagle Scout, my kids have been involved, Tonette (Walker) was a den mother.

“I have had a lifelong commitment to the Scouts and support the previous membership policy because it protected children and advanced Scout values.”

Protected children from whom, Scott? Just come right out and say it, you see all gay people as potential predators.

Walker and his spin doctors tried to walk it back almost immediately:

A spokesperson for Walker’s campaign, said in a statement on Tuesday evening: “The previous policy protected Scouts from the rancorous political debate over policy issues and culture wars. Scouts should not be used as a political football on issues that can often be heated and divisive.” And during a press conference in South Carolina today, the New York Times reports that Walker himself attempted to clarify his remarks, saying the ban protected children “from being involved in the very thing you’re talking about right now, the political and media discussion about it, instead of just focusing on what Scouts is about, which is about camping and citizenship and things of that nature.”

Excuse me? The previous policy did nothing BUT get the Scouts embroiled in "raucous political debate" for DECADES. Is Walker seriously trying to suggest that the political media discussion about the policy came to light ONLY when the BSA changed its policy?

This such completely unvarnished bullshit that it could have been intended to be as transparent as it looks. The Republican base sees every gay person as a potential child rapist, and Walker is telling them that he agrees.

And anyone who would consider voting for him clearly believes it as well.

I never thought I would be defending Rick Santorum, but at least he had the balls to come right and say that he believed there was no difference between same-sex marriage and bestiality.

Maybe he sees homosexuals as potential predators. On the other hand, perhaps he believes that protecting children involves in keeping away from them those who want to spread the message that homosexuality is just another fine choice amongst a palette of choices. That is particularly true around adolescents who are uncertain around sexual matters and can be easily persuaded in the wrong direction. And it is the wrong direction. Propaganda has done a fine job of turning the issue away from dicks up bums (etc.) and into such acceptable terms as "companionship" and "love".

keeping away from them those who want to spread the message that homosexuality is just another fine choice amongst a palette of choices.

And excluding gay scouts or scout leaders does this HOW? When I was in boy scouts at meeting we discussed camping and hiking and related things--we never sat around and discussed marriage and family living or pair bonding or even sex (except maybe among ourselves outside of meetings). There were no boy scout date nights or dances, and the organization never sponsored things like that; indeed, they fought to keep girls out and one of the arguments used was because that would change what the organization stood for.

So any concern that the scouts might become a soap box to recruit homosexuals, or people tolerant of them, is misplaced at best. It's as silly as saying that a gay math teacher would not teach math but spend his or her time discussing gay issues.

Oh, did I write that they'd not do their task but discuss homosexuality instead? No, I did not. What is of concern is the received message that homosexuality is just fine and dandy - not a perversion.

"This here is Bob - he's a homosexual"
"So . . . that's OK is it, sir?"
"Yes, of course. Just ask Bob"

Unless you are or were homosexual, I don't understand why you sitting around not discussing sex with other boy scouts is relevant at all. Was there sex back in those days?

Meade--exactly when would a conversation of the type you posted come up--when someone joins the troop? I doubt it would ever come up; ditto if someone was a leader.

I just don't see how having a homosexual member of a boy scout troop " spread the message that homosexuality is just another fine choice amongst a palette of choices" anymore than having a fat boy scout teaches boy scouts that being fat is a healthy lifestyle. Unless you think that just allowing homosexuals to exist and interact in the world somehow automatically projects that message (and I can't believe you're that short sighted).

Boy scouts are about camping and first aid and wilderness crafts, not about sexual preference, and I don't see how sexual preference should enter into a consideration of whether one should be a scout or should lose all their awards for showing mastery of these crafts. Some shortsighted people might say gays should be kept away from "normal" people, and this is where I think good old Scott Walker falls (that and probably thinking that we have to protect young boys from those pedophiles whch most (or all) gays are).

OK Big RR

Pedophiles are far more likely to be heterosexuals.

Fat boy scout leaders? Eeew! That's just nasty! Those poor kids are going to learn horrible dietary habits and get diabetes! They will become self-indulgent losers.

yrs,
rubato