Boy Scouts being discriminated against?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Interesting how the so-called conservatives keep falling all over themselves to give government handouts to groups they agree with. Tax the public to give to the privates. You damn libruls.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Don't fool yourself. This has nothing to do with public monies going to the Boy Scouts. It has everything to do with the Boy Scouts not allowing gamy men as leaders. If they would only let the gays have access to the boys all would be fine. The public monies is just the means to an end for the Leftist Thought Police.

This is somehow different from the dimocrats in Massachusetts not allowing Catholics to run adoption agencies how? This has nothing to do with what is right for the children and everything to do with the dims pandering to gay rights activist. All you dims admit it, children don't mean $hit to the dims, they can't vote. The only time children mean anything to the dims is when they are running a whiney ad and want the sympathy vote.

First of all, all gays aren't pedophiles and all pedophiles aren't attracted to the same gender. No one is saying the Scouts can't get their handout because they want to keep out pedophiles.

Second of all, you routinely oppose handouts to poor kids, including healthcare, but support handouts to groups who think like you do and hate the same groups you do.

Third of all, it's not just gay leaders, it's gay members-- do you care about gay kids? Think they might benefit from all this good the scouts are doing, or does a kid having the "right" sexual orientation trump every other "good" thing on the scout agenda?

Fourth, frankly, even if they didn't discriminate against gays, I wouldn't want my tax dollars giving ANY private group prime real estate for a $1 a year-- a reasonable rent on the low end of the market maybe, but not virtually free. See-- I'm more fiscally conservative than most of you Repugs.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Why not build white and colored restrooms in there while you're at it?

Because being white/black/Asian/Hispanic and being gay are not equivalent for one.

[otterinbham 0]

Why not build white and colored restrooms in there while you're at it?

Because being white/black/Asian/Hispanic and being gay are not equivalent for one.

What if homosexuality is genetic? I'm on the fence on that issue. But if it is, then you really have no argument.

[AFTiger 282]

Why not build white and colored restrooms in there while you're at it?

Because being white/black/Asian/Hispanic and being gay are not equivalent for one.

What if homosexuality is genetic? I'm on the fence on that issue. But if it is, then you really have no argument.

What if pedophelia is genetic. It is about behavior.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Why not build white and colored restrooms in there while you're at it?

Because being white/black/Asian/Hispanic and being gay are not equivalent for one.

What if homosexuality is genetic? I'm on the fence on that issue. But if it is, then you really have no argument.

They've been searching for that Easter egg for quite a while now. You can't make law based on those kinds of what ifs.

Besides, my issue isn't with same sex attraction or leanings. It's with one's actions.

[otterinbham 0]

Why not build white and colored restrooms in there while you're at it?

Because being white/black/Asian/Hispanic and being gay are not equivalent for one.

What if homosexuality is genetic? I'm on the fence on that issue. But if it is, then you really have no argument.

What if pedophelia is genetic. It is about behavior.

Sorry...homosexuality and pedophilia just aren't the same thing. After all, male pedophiles molest girls, too.

But, really and truly, the argument is a very simple one, one that I'm really surprised that you alleged conservative cannot fathom: Government should not be in the business of funding private organizations, especially those that are exclusionary.

As I said before. My sons are both active in Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts. Can anybody else in this forum say the same? I really don't have a problem with the charter of the organization preventing gay scoutmasters, simply because there have been problems in the past. But, we do not rely on government handouts. Period.

Yet you guys are very selective in how conservative principles may be applied. You're totally in favor of one group getting government kibble, but are against another group getting it. What gives? Can you guys at least be consistent? Personally, I don't think the Boy Scouts should get special treatment from the government. Neither should the local ballet company. Neither should the Wal Mart that's eyeing relocation.

And please don't hand me some shopworn argument that Boy Scouts is necessary to stem inner city violence. That argument has zero to do with the issue at hand. The Boy Scouts in Philadelphia could find any number of inner city churches in which to base their operations. Instead, they decided to hop on the gravy train like everybody else--thereby exposing their membership charter and operations to scrutiny by every ward heel in the city limits.

[Tigermike 3,041]

Don't fool yourself. This has nothing to do with public monies going to the Boy Scouts. It has everything to do with the Boy Scouts not allowing gamy men as leaders. If they would only let the gays have access to the boys all would be fine. The public monies is just the means to an end for the Leftist Thought Police.

This is somehow different from the dimocrats in Massachusetts not allowing Catholics to run adoption agencies how? This has nothing to do with what is right for the children and everything to do with the dims pandering to gay rights activist. All you dims admit it, children don't mean $hit to the dims, they can't vote. The only time children mean anything to the dims is when they are running a whiney ad and want the sympathy vote.

Another excellent rebuttal by TigerMike, oh wait no never mind. See TigerMike you just like to fool yourself into thinking that anytime someone sticks up the for the gays then it can't be good in any way for the country or it can't be right by our law(not your religon, but by the US law) But see here is one of those situations that the government makes the right call and you shoot it down. Tax payer money should not go to pay for a private organization that discriminates against people. It really isn't a difficult subject. If you want to say that you agree with the discrimination of gays based on your religon then that is of course fine, donate to the boy scouts, but the government shouldn't positively enforce the discrimination.

Another example of autiger4life reading and it going completely over his head. Another example of autiger4life trying to make a point and really making a fool of himself. Try again.

Just for you I will type real slow. If you think this is about tax payer money you are a bigger fool than many think. This is no more about tax payer money than Islam is the religion of peace.

BTW - It's religion not religon. See my only goal is education.

[Tigermike 3,041]

Don't fool yourself. This has nothing to do with public monies going to the Boy Scouts. It has everything to do with the Boy Scouts not allowing gamy men as leaders. If they would only let the gays have access to the boys all would be fine. The public monies is just the means to an end for the Leftist Thought Police.

This is somehow different from the dimocrats in Massachusetts not allowing Catholics to run adoption agencies how? This has nothing to do with what is right for the children and everything to do with the dims pandering to gay rights activist. All you dims admit it, children don't mean $hit to the dims, they can't vote. The only time children mean anything to the dims is when they are running a whiney ad and want the sympathy vote.

First of all, all gays aren't pedophiles and all pedophiles aren't attracted to the same gender. No one is saying the Scouts can't get their handout because they want to keep out pedophiles.

Second of all, you routinely oppose handouts to poor kids, including healthcare, but support handouts to groups who think like you do and hate the same groups you do.

Third of all, it's not just gay leaders, it's gay members-- do you care about gay kids? Think they might benefit from all this good the scouts are doing, or does a kid having the "right" sexual orientation trump every other "good" thing on the scout agenda?

Fourth, frankly, even if they didn't discriminate against gays, I wouldn't want my tax dollars giving ANY private group prime real estate for a $1 a year-- a reasonable rent on the low end of the market maybe, but not virtually free. See-- I'm more fiscally conservative than most of you Repugs.

First I never said anything about pedophiles. Are you saying that gaybos never are attracted to young men? Teenagers? Preteens? Don't fool yourself. No you aren't fooling yourself, just trying to fool everyone else.

Second show me one instance where I have opposed help to poor kids.

Third of all, if they don't want gays in the Scouts then they don't want gays in he Scouts. No one is wanting to change their way of thinking or their way of doing things.

Fourth, have local and state governments given groups tax breaks and rent breaks in the past? Are they giving groups tax breaks and rent breaks now?

There is a hierarchy to the libs groups and child welfare is trumped by the gay rights agenda every time.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Sorry...homosexuality and pedophilia just aren't the same thing. After all, male pedophiles molest girls, too.

Actually, if the argument is about being genetic factors, "being born that way" or whatever, the pedophiles make the same arguments the homosexuals do: it's an inate trait, they didn't "choose" to feel this way, blah, blah, blah. The aren't the same, but the situations are analogous.

[CCTAU 3,336]

There is a hierarchy to the libs groups and child welfare is trumped by the gay rights agenda every time.

Finally someone comes out and says it. My whole purpose for posting this was to expose the fact that we seem to be, as a society, putting gayness in front of everything. Especially the children. No, it's not about money. Many local governments give many organizations a tax/estate break because of the positive things that the organizations bring to the city/community. But here we have a good thing getting hammered because, once again, they are not GAY enough.

AND. The genetic argument that is always used was blown out of the water years ago. The controls and the situations were manipulated making the study inaccurate and inconclusive. Therefore making it ONLY an opinion. NOT FACT.

[autiger4life 3]

Another example of autiger4life reading and it going completely over his head. Another example of autiger4life trying to make a point and really making a fool of himself. Try again.

Just for you I will type real slow. If you think this is about tax payer money you are a bigger fool than many think. This is no more about tax payer money than Islam is the religion of peace.

BTW - It's religion not religon. See my only goal is education.

See, all you do is sit here and say, "It isn't about the money, its about the gays." Yet you give no substance. I can't speak for the city of Philadelphia, I can only speak for myself, and I personally don't want tax money going to private organizations that discriminate based upon membership. For instance I don't want my private money going to a club that only black people can be a part of, I don't want my money going to a club that only white people can be a part of, I don't want my money going to a group on homosexuals can be a part of and vice-versa. For me it is about publicly funding discriminatory groups. If they want to be a discriminatory group, then fine but I don't want to support it.

[AFTiger 282]

But should we give taxpayer money to heterophobic groups?

[Tigermike 3,041]

Another example of autiger4life reading and it going completely over his head. Another example of autiger4life trying to make a point and really making a fool of himself. Try again.

Just for you I will type real slow. If you think this is about tax payer money you are a bigger fool than many think. This is no more about tax payer money than Islam is the religion of peace.

BTW - It's religion not religon. See my only goal is education.

See, all you do is sit here and say, "It isn't about the money, its about the gays." Yet you give no substance. I can't speak for the city of Philadelphia, I can only speak for myself, and I personally don't want tax money going to private organizations that discriminate based upon membership. For instance I don't want my private money going to a club that only black people can be a part of, I don't want my money going to a club that only white people can be a part of, I don't want my money going to a group on homosexuals can be a part of and vice-versa. For me it is about publicly funding discriminatory groups. If they want to be a discriminatory group, then fine but I don't want to support it.

But you do support discriminatory groups. The gay lobby is one of the most discriminatory groups around. There is now room for anyone who disagrees with them. And you start the name calling and start making accusatory statements about anyone who disagrees with you. But that is just typical dimocrat behavior.

This controversy is NOT about the money. It is about the dims and the gay lobby continuing an all out war on the Boy Scouts because they have the audacity to stand up for what they believe in. The national gay lobby and the Dims are only using this in Philadelphia to attack the Boy Scouts once again. What are they saying? You will bow down to our agenda and you will capitulate to our way of thinking or else! Or else we will destroy you.

It's not discriminatory to not allow gays to be scout leaders. Why do they want to be Scout leaders in the first place?

You say I give no substance, I ask you what is their agenda? Is this the only or the first place they have attacked the Boy Scouts? Not by a long shot. Their attacks on the Boy Scouts has been systematic for years. And don't dare speak up against them. What makes you think this is only about the tax money?

[autiger4life 3]

But you do support discriminatory groups. The gay lobby is one of the most discriminatory groups around. There is now room for anyone who disagrees with them. And you start the name calling and start making accusatory statements about anyone who disagrees with you. But that is just typical dimocrat behavior.

This controversy is NOT about the money. It is about the dims and the gay lobby continuing an all out war on the Boy Scouts because they have the audacity to stand up for what they believe in. The national gay lobby and the Dims are only using this in Philadelphia to attack the Boy Scouts once again. What are they saying? You will bow down to our agenda and you will capitulate to our way of thinking or else! Or else we will destroy you.

It's not discriminatory to not allow gays to be scout leaders. Why do they want to be Scout leaders in the first place?

You say I give no substance, I ask you what is their agenda? Is this the only or the first place they have attacked the Boy Scouts? Not by a long shot. Their attacks on the Boy Scouts has been systematic for years. And don't dare speak up against them. What makes you think this is only about the tax money?

First off, the general point behind groups like gays lobbys or black lobbys is to make sure that there are equal rights for minorties and they are treated fairly by the government. Philly is calling for the Boy Scouts to leave, they are just saying they aren't going to support a group who discriminates against gays. If there were a gay Boy Scout group then I would say no money for them if they won't allow straights in.

It is completely discriminatory to not allow gays to be scout leaders, legal sure, discriminatory yes. Why do they want to be scout leaders, well I assume it is because they feel like they have something positive to offer young people. Why does anyone want to be a scout leader, probably because they care about the young. I don't see how someone being gay would change their reason for wanting to be a boy scout leader.

As for your third point I will repeat myself because you continue to ignore what I say, I CAN ONLY SPEAK FOR MYSELF, but the issue for me is not about the past, it isn't about an agenda for gays or against them, it is simply that I don't want federal funds supporting an private organization that discriminates, that includes race or sexual orientation. As I said I wouldn't fund a gay Boy Scout group either, it isn't about standing up for gays, it is about what federal funds should go towards.

[CCTAU 3,336]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

[channonc 466]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Who fits into your definition of "true minority"?

[CCTAU 3,336]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Who fits into your definition of "true minority"?

Doesn't much matter. Libruls are intent on giving gays a minority status. Insures more votes go their way. The real issue continues to be things like this:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=42293

[autiger4life 3]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Here are a few definitions for you:

a group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment; the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole

Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So as gays and Blacks are often treated differently(both in good and bad ways) and they fit the description of being the smaller part(straight vs. gay white vs. Black) then they fit my definition of minority.

As far as trying to eliminate the good to appease the gays, I think they are trying to limit giving funds to private groups that discriminate, as they should. What the Boy Scouts do should not be an issue, they are not equal opportunity and thus should not get finacial assistance from the government.

[WinCrimson 61]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Who fits into your definition of "true minority"?

Doesn't much matter. Libruls are intent on giving gays a minority status. Insures more votes go their way. The real issue continues to be things like this:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=42293

Any reasons as to why gays shouldn't be considered a minority? Conspiracy theories based on Falwell's drivel not included, of course.

What percentage of the country do they constitute? I don't have a concrete number, but I would guess it's between 5-10%.

[Tigermike 3,041]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Here are a few definitions for you:

a group of people who differ racially or politically from a larger group of which it is a part

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

a part of a population differing from others in some characteristics and often subjected to differential treatment; the smaller in number of two groups constituting a whole

Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So as gays and Blacks are often treated differently(both in good and bad ways) and they fit the description of being the smaller part(straight vs. gay white vs. Black) then they fit my definition of minority.

As far as trying to eliminate the good to appease the gays, I think they are trying to limit giving funds to private groups that discriminate, as they should. What the Boy Scouts do should not be an issue, they are not equal opportunity and thus should not get finacial assistance from the government.

Are you a member of any church? If so which denomination?

That is not a hard question and there is absolutely no judgment involved in the question.

[Tigermike 3,041]

“The Boy Scouts’ Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, had been renting the Beaux Arts building, which stands on city-owned land, for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a ‘fair market’ rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders...The Boy Scouts, who require a belief in God and therefore also ‘discriminate’ against atheists, are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the majority), upheld the group’s right to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association... But the state, or in this case the city of Philadelphia, apparently doesn’t have to give the Scouts a break on their rent. Isn’t it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it’s wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?... If America is about anything, it’s about the right to hold beliefs and views with which others disagree, the right to express and act on those views, and the right to freely associate with others holding similar views. That’s not bigotry; it’s true diversity. So a venerable, well-regarded youth group that has done nothing worse than instill formerly uncontroversial values into the millions of young men it has prepared for responsible adulthood is being successfully demonized.” — Investor’s Business Daily

[channonc 466]

“The Boy Scouts’ Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, had been renting the Beaux Arts building, which stands on city-owned land, for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a ‘fair market’ rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders...The Boy Scouts, who require a belief in God and therefore also ‘discriminate’ against atheists, are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the majority), upheld the group’s right to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association... But the state, or in this case the city of Philadelphia, apparently doesn’t have to give the Scouts a break on their rent. Isn’t it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it’s wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?... If America is about anything, it’s about the right to hold beliefs and views with which others disagree, the right to express and act on those views, and the right to freely associate with others holding similar views. That’s not bigotry; it’s true diversity. So a venerable, well-regarded youth group that has done nothing worse than instill formerly uncontroversial values into the millions of young men it has prepared for responsible adulthood is being successfully demonized.” — Investor’s Business Daily

The USSC did not give them the right to tax breaks by the federal government, state or local governments. The case only gave them the right not to admit openly gay scouts or scout leaders. The city hasn't prevented them from existing, or prevented them from deciding who can be associated with the group, or prevented their right to free speech as your quote from Investor's Business Daily suggests. Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give any group or individual the right to free (or basically free) property. If you want to have a headquarters, then have your Membership or donors pay for it-- not the taxpaying public.

I would feel this way about a church, Muslim group, country club, etc getting prime real estate from the city for only a $1/year.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

SO you equate blacks=gays=minority. I'm sure many black folks would disagree with that. To state that gays equate a true minority (in terms of how the word has been used) implies they are a separate genetic race. So to bend over backwards and cower to their groups is to give credence to this lie. I, and many others, choose not to do this. Unfortunately governments like Philly are doing their best to eliminate the good just to appease the gays. Pretty soon we'll become so accepting that anything goes. Some say that will be the ultimate in enlightenment. Most of us just agree that will be the final step toward the end. Pissing on the Boy Scouts to appease the gays is despicable.

Who fits into your definition of "true minority"?

Doesn't much matter. Libruls are intent on giving gays a minority status. Insures more votes go their way. The real issue continues to be things like this:

http://www.aunation.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=42293

Any reasons as to why gays shouldn't be considered a minority? Conspiracy theories based on Falwell's drivel not included, of course.

What percentage of the country do they constitute? I don't have a concrete number, but I would guess it's between 5-10%.

The only concrete studies on the matter peg it at around 2%. The rest is just wishful thinking and puffed up speculation on the part of gay activists.

[Tigermike 3,041]

“The Boy Scouts’ Philadelphia branch, called the Cradle of Liberty Council, had been renting the Beaux Arts building, which stands on city-owned land, for $1 a year. The city has now ordered the Scouts to pay a ‘fair market’ rent of $200,000 on the grounds that the group refuses to admit openly gay Scouts and Scout leaders...The Boy Scouts, who require a belief in God and therefore also ‘discriminate’ against atheists, are not comfortable with the idea of openly homosexual men leading young boys into the woods. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision (with justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas in the majority), upheld the group’s right to bar scoutmasters who are openly gay based on the principle of freedom of association... But the state, or in this case the city of Philadelphia, apparently doesn’t have to give the Scouts a break on their rent. Isn’t it hypocritical, though, to be intolerant in the name of tolerance, to say that it’s wrong to disapprove of the lifestyles of others but OK to condemn the religious and moral beliefs of others?... If America is about anything, it’s about the right to hold beliefs and views with which others disagree, the right to express and act on those views, and the right to freely associate with others holding similar views. That’s not bigotry; it’s true diversity. So a venerable, well-regarded youth group that has done nothing worse than instill formerly uncontroversial values into the millions of young men it has prepared for responsible adulthood is being successfully demonized.” — Investor’s Business Daily

The USSC did not give them the right to tax breaks by the federal government, state or local governments. The case only gave them the right not to admit openly gay scouts or scout leaders. The city hasn't prevented them from existing, or prevented them from deciding who can be associated with the group, or prevented their right to free speech as your quote from Investor's Business Daily suggests. Last time I checked, the Constitution does not give any group or individual the right to free (or basically free) property. If you want to have a headquarters, then have your Membership or donors pay for it-- not the taxpaying public.

I would feel this way about a church, Muslim group, country club, etc getting prime real estate from the city for only a $1/year.

channonc, you are smart enough to know the tax break angle is merely another way for the gay lobby to continue their jihad campaign against the boy scouts. Those $1/year breaks are all over. Every city, county and state do them somewhere. The $1 rent was OK until the gay lobby decided it wasn't.