Also See Homosexuals in the Military?
This point relates to privacy as a policy issue and it doesn't relate to morality at all.
One need not say homosexuality is immoral to see that the values of Boy Scouts as a group are more lofty than the values of homosexuals as a group.
One would hope that the banks wouldn't have to choose between the two, that they could say, "I believe in certain aspects of both groups, the high ideals of the Boy Scouts and also the rights of homosexuals not to be discriminated against." But circumstances have eliminated that option. Once the option is eliminated, it's interesting to sit back and see which group, when forced to, these businesses will side with. Circumstances have forced them to make a choice, and choose they did. To put it simply, Wells Fargo made a choice to throw in their personal and moral support, if not their financial, with one group over against another--the homosexuals over the Boy Scouts.
Now, that strikes me as a very strange decision. One might argue that homosexuals have a right to pursue the lifestyle of their choice. But why would one choose--if the choice is forced, as it is in this case--to stand with homosexuals rather than with Boy Scouts? One need not say homosexuality is immoral to see that the values of Boy Scouts as a group are more lofty than the values of homosexuals as a group. It seems to me that if one has to choose up sides he'd throw his lot in with the group with the highest ideals and the finest goals and objectives.
What kind of group is the Boy Scouts? These are people who pledge with an oath to help other people at all times, to keep themselves physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight. Their guiding law is to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Their daily goal is to do a good turn to another person. As a group they have a long history of building strong, capable leaders with personal integrity and moral strength.
What do we know about homosexuals as a group? In their sexual life homosexuals abhor restraint. As a group they are promiscuous. Sadomasochism for many is a way of life. When they enter politics they are aggressive, often offensive, frequently abusive and sometimes violent. They are unique as a social group for how thoroughly and rapidly they spread disease. They champion a lifestyle that a significant portion of the psychological community view as mal-adaptive and destructive. Please observe that I'm trying to keep moral judgment out of this; these are objective observations that can be supported by statistics.
Yes, there are great men who have been homosexuals just as there have been great men who have been Boy Scouts. But which of those great men who had been homosexuals would attribute their greatness to their homosexuality? Yet thousands of great men have looked back on their experience with the Scouts and have credited scouting with their success and valuable contribution to society as adults.
You tell me, which group does it make more sense to promote, if you must choose between the two, homosexuality or scouting? To put it simply, would you rather have your child in a bath house or a scout tent? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
It's about time to dispense with the self-righteous and high-minded language about discrimination; both sides discriminate. In this case, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Levi Strauss, and First Interstate Bank have all chosen to discriminate against the Boy Scouts and to link ideological arms with homosexuals. In so doing they're saying that the ideals of homosexuality are more worthy of support than the ideals of the Boy Scouts. It's just that simple.
The distinctions here are so astronomical that it makes the bank's decision morally absurd. But that's their discriminating choice. And it's not the moral high ground. It's about as morally confused, befuddled, and blind as one can possibly get.
At least, that's the way I see it.
©1992 Gregory Koukl. This is a transcript of a commentary from the radio show "Stand to Reason," with Gregory Koukl. Reproduction permitted for non-commercial use only.