The Boy Scouts of America

Remove all ads!

I agree with your point DR. But maybe the BSA's stance comes from historical numbers and their stance, though that would be a narrow minded and limited stance, is predicated from those numbers? It's possible I suppose.

 

Hang on...halfway there? Did you really mean to say that?

Please tell me you don't actually give someone's sexual orientation the same heft as destructive, criminal, and predatory behavior, and this was just clumsy wording. I have a feeling that isn't what you meant, but please clarify. To put it another way...

Does a straight man leading a girl scout troop get you halfway to the girls being in danger of sexual abuse?

If a rolled-up newspaper and a lit match are two conditions necessary for a burned-down house, are the paper and the match equally dangerous? Does that make the neighborhood paperboy a halfway arsonist?

 

Silvery, the LDS faith has been associated with Scouting for a long time. Now, to be clear, up until now, all LDS youth groups for boys have been Scout groups*, but thousands of other Scout troops exist that are sponsored by other faith groups or by secular community organizations. Outside of Utah, a boy who wishes to experience Scouting has plenty of options that are non-LDS. In Utah, non- LDS troops may be rare, but no law prohibits them and their is no plot spearheaded by an LDS cabal to stifle them so as to dominate the Scouting scene in Utah.

Quite a while ago in Canada, girls were admitted into Scout troops. An exception was made for troops sponsored by religious groups like LDS troops who felt it inappropriate for camping trips to be made co-Ed. I do not know what the status is in the US.

Lest anyone make a stupid, uneducated remark about LDS treatment of females, as I mentioned the faith has a vibrant program for the young ladies ages 12 to 17. They go on camps and hikes and have an achievement program analogous to the badge system of Scouting. Often the camps and hikes are MORE intense as the girls want to demonstrate their toughness! So any ignorant, bigoted comments from the usual suspects can be inserted in the nearest tan track.

I hope that answered your Question, Silvery!

 

I believe there are more Mormon sponsored Boy Scout troops than any other religious sponsorship (perhaps even all other religions combined). The Mormons have been associated with scouting since 1913 and are not going to abandon Boy Scouts. In fact, the Mormon church actually came out in support of the inclusion of gays into scouting.

You imagined wrong LKD ... you should put more faith in your ... umm ... faith.

When I was growing up the vibrant young ladies ... wait ... the "vibrant program for young ladies" was held conveniently at the same time and place as the scout meetings.

 

Apologies for breaking the serious tone here, but the OP seriously sounds like it ought to be the basis of a South Park episode.

And I am also in furious agreement with everybody here. Then again, I don't think I personally know anybody who wouldn't agree. Which raises the question: where the hell are all these supposed homophobes, and why have they got such a big voice?

BTA, being gay in no way makes you half-way a paedophile who molests boys. The evidence points to paedophiles being seriously messed up psychologically, and the predation on children being barely or even not related to a sexual attraction to them--often they were molested themselves, as children.

 

It was a South Park episode, wasn't it? I'm sure it was Big Gay Al!

---------- Added 0 hours, 0 minutes and 35 seconds later... ----------

And thanks for clearing that up LKD

 

And now I take this thread in a different direction...

So last night I was involved in a very spirited discussion with someone who was not in "furious agreement" with everyone. It hasn't changed my mind, but it has made me question how strongly I feel about this. I wish I had his argument in writing or video, but I don't so I will do my best to paraphrase. Where I have put some of the below inside [ ] are my observations.

This is a case of tyranny of the majority. Polling numbers show that 60% of the population is in favor of "gay marriage". Therefore it is assumed that 60% of the people are also in favor of gay scouts and gay scout leaders. However, the population of people who are interested and participate in scouting do not have the same mix as the general population. [A valid point as here in MA we are probably 70/30 in Dem to GOP, but in our troop we are probably 65/35 GOP to Dem] In addition scout troops are not legal entities on their own. Instead they are wholly owned and governed by their chartering organization which in many cases are religious organizations that oppose homosexuality [this is very true, as mentioned above LDS sponsors many of them. Here in MA we don't have a large LDS community, so many troops are instead sponsored by Catholic parishes. Our troop is sponsored by the Veterans of Foreign Wars so we don't have the religious component.]

Therefore we in essence have the general population dictating to a private organization and frequently a religious organization what they are allowed to do and what they cannot. Should Mosques be forced to admit Jewish people as members? If pork was deemed to be the "perfect meat" [no disagreement from me ] should Jews be forced to eat it?

He then went on to other non religious examples. The only one I remember was that overwhelmingly the rest of the country bowls using the big balls. It is only small parts of the country that actually have Candlepin or Duck Pin bowling. Should those alleys be forced to change to "Ten Pin"?

Lastly, the media made a big deal about scouts who were sending back their eagle scouts in protests of the policy. However, that percentage wise was a very small percentage of the total eagle scouts. What if with the change in the policy, they have vast numbers of Eagle scouts that now send in their Eagles in protest. Will the media cover that or will they ignore it and say "Mission Accomplished"?

/end his argument.

So now I'm in a bit of a moral quandary. My libertarian values have always been "People should be allowed to do what they want, as long as it doesn't prohibit others from doing what they want". I have always looked at this situation as if the gay person wants to somehow participate in scouting they should be allowed too. However, the opposite is also a valid argument that if people want to do something without a gay person they should be allowed to also.

I know in my troop no matter what National says we will keep our existing policy of "non caring about sexual orientation". But, that is just the morals of my general area and probably the convictions of 90+ percent of the troop. What about areas of the country that are the complete opposite? I don't feel correct in saying that I'm right and your wrong. That is too black and white to me. Especially when they are way more passionate about it than I am.

Why should people without a vested interest have a say in what Scouting does? I guess that is what his argument boiled down to. I know that logic has always been my abortion argument. I'm a guy, so it isn't something I could ever do, so I always figured the issue should be left up to the women. How many people in GLAD really give a **** about scouting, yet how many member of GLAD are determined to change the policy?

 

Silvery, of course! That's why I must have made the association. Man, I love that show.

TGS, you are quite right that they should be allowed to make whatever entrance criteria they desire. However that shouldn't stop us from deriding them for said criteria, if we believe they are unethical/immoral/ridiculous. Free speech, and all that jazz.

There was a reasonably similar thing about half a year ago here in the UK... I'll try and find the article...aha! Hmm, once again, religion's involved.

 

ROFL! Oh, I would so rep you if I could. Since you can't be gay in scouts after age 18, all our Queen Scouts are out!

 

Substitute "gay" for "black". Or "Jewish". Or "short". Or "fat".

 

I think Splunge just won the universe...

 

The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, why should the liberal media care? You're right though, it's an even dumber policy to ban gay scouts from being leaders.

What I want to know is this, the Boy Scouts are about children, so why should sexuality have anything to do with it to begin with?

I'm right there with you, being socially liberal and fiscally conservative, and not necessarily belonging in either party.

 

Splunge got in before me. Discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation is no more acceptable than discriminating on the basis of race.

 

It's not acceptable, but it's still the right of an individual or a private organisation.

 

I said the same thing in my initial reply. While I know there are scouts that stay with the organization and become eagle scouts, most kids don't. Most of the scouts I know (or knew as a child) stopped prior to hitting puberty. Most didn't even know whether or not they were gay when they were with the scouts.

 

Not really. Pedophiles are usually indiscriminate where gender is concerned, so a heterosexual pedophile is still likely to be interested in little boys.

 

So the US can go back to banning black people from bars and stuff? Well that's a giant step forward...