Boy Scouts of America close to changing membership requirements

[NoBanStan]

My son recently joined scouts and I stepped up to be a leader because I was a scout and i felt that I learned plenty of lessons about citizenship, leadership and good morals. Lets not also forget all the backpacking, spelunking, hiking, camping, woodworking etc. we did (as a boy scout mind you, not a cub).

 

The scouts are a Christian organization. The handbooks even encourage the leader to talk to the children about God. No denomination or particular views, but softer topics like "look around at these autumn leaves, isn't it amazing what God created?" stuff like that. That being said, Christianity views homosexuality as being immoral. Regardless of your personal feelings, that's just the way it is....

 

So why would the scouts "come out"? To save face I suppose. Lord knows the media wouldn't ever leave it alone.

 

Personally I don't think gay belongs in scouts... because gay is a sexuality choice, not a personality. I also believe Heterosexuality doesn't belong in scouts either. SEX OVERALL SHOULD NOT BE PART OF A BOYS ORGANIZATION. 

 

I wouldn't let my boys oggle some girl or for instance, because they're scouts. They are there to learn to become something greater and have some respect.

[Oh Shoot]

The scouts are a Christian organization. The handbooks even encourage the leader to talk to the children about God. No denomination or particular views....

 
Hmm. Just as in our own constitution, you won't find "Christian" or "Jesus" mentioned anywhere in the literature, you know?
 
Baden-Powell never promoted it as a Christian organization to begin with and there are numerous official Scout populations in non-Christian countries. Indeed, Indonesia has the largest number of Scouts and is 90% Muslim so presumably the scouting population there would be at least that also.

 

because gay is a sexuality choice...

Like you and I chose to be straight?  Thank goodness our goobers agreed with our "decisions", eh?

- OS

Edited January 29, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[c.a.willard]

Personally I don't think gay belongs in scouts... because gay is a sexuality choice, not a personality. I also believe Heterosexuality doesn't belong in scouts either. SEX OVERALL SHOULD NOT BE PART OF A BOYS ORGANIZATION. 

 

Do you honestly believe that homosexuality is a choice.  Do you choose to be heterosexual or is that just part of who you are.  Even the Catholic church has recognized that homosexuality is not a choice  "men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies ... must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."^[71] Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." _Catechism of the Catholic Church  Although they do require homosexuals to remain chaste as they can not be married.  It is interesting to note that they view heterosexual sex outside of marriage equal to homosexual sexual activity. 

[wewoapsiak]

The scouts are a Christian organization....

...because gay is a sexuality choice...

[Oh Shoot]

[Smith]

Ahhhhh, yes. The only opposition has to be homophobia. What ever that asinine retort means.
There is a reason they divided boy scouts and girl scouts to begin with. I want my boys to learn how to be men from men who identify with the manhood and I want my girls to learn womanhood from women who identify as women. Same reason I don't particularly want a woman boy scout leader or a male girl scout leader.
If you take the irrational "homophobia" denouncement accusation away, does having gay leaders logically make sense?
Just asking.

[Smith]

Double Edited January 29, 2013 by Smith

[daddyo]

I posted this article to get some opinions on the matter, knowing that some would agree with this and some would not. It is newsworthy, and as a former scouter who saw his son become an Eagle Scout, I also have reservations about this, but I do understand that money talks, and the BSA has to do something to reverse their declining membership and loss of funding. I knew it was only a matter of time before they considered changing their policy on gays.

 

What I don't understand is why people want to shut down the discussion by throwing out the homophobia charge. It's really no different than calling someone a racist when there is no evidence.

 

Why can't someone disagree with this without being called a name?

[enfield]

I don't mind being called a racist and a homophobe, considering where it's coming from.

[DaveTN]

This isn’t about gay rights this is about the safety of children in the scouting organization. Gay Scout leaders? You have got to be kidding me.

 

Say goodbye to the scouts; I doubt they can afford the kind of legal liability this will bring once the molestation accusations start flowing.

 

It’s sad that this is even being discussed as being acceptable.

 

[Guest RevScottie]

Dave, Boy Scouts has had a problem with molestation for years and have attempted to cover it up:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/20/boy-scout-abuse-files/1646033/

Edited January 29, 2013 by RevScottie

[Guest RevScottie]

Scouting is all about having positive role models. Parents who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle will have a huge problem with this decision.

[10-Ring]

As an Eagle scout I'm glad to see this move being made, but I still have mixed emotions for one reason; overnight trips.  Just as I would not send my scout aged son on an overnight trip with a girl, I would not feel comfortable sending my son on an overnight event with a gay boy.  Otherwise it is about tolerance.  Gay kids like any other kids in scouting will either be accepted or they won't.  I know from experience if a kid comes in and no one else wants him around he will not last long.  Gay people are not going away, to shield your children from them and teach them that gays are not worthy of doing the same things that straight people do will only lead to a future with  more hate.  I see no difference in keeping your children away from homosexuals because you don't like them than keeping your children away from minorities because you don't like them.

[UncleJak]

I am a Girl Scout leader, one of the few men that are in it.  The rules are super strict on being a man in a troop full of girls.  There are a lot of things I cannot do that the women can and a lot of steps put in place to keep the men from being alone with a girl at any time.  Do I think some of them are overly cautious? Sure, but I understand they have to protect the girls at all costs. They have foreseen the liability issue and have done everything in their power to prevent it.  I figure the boy scouts could do the same.  If a parent doesn't want their child in a troop because of the leaders sexual orientation, religion, or other reasons, they have that right to choose.  But if the BSA puts barriers in place, it probably wouldn't ever be a issue. 

[daddyo]

One of the BSA's rules is two-deep leadership, meaning that under no circumstances should an adult be alone with a scout who is not his/her own child. Our troop was very strict about this, but, unfortunately, that's not the case in every unit. That's how molestation occurs.

[mikegideon]

This isn’t about gay rights this is about the safety of children in the scouting organization. Gay Scout leaders? You have got to be kidding me.

 

Say goodbye to the scouts; I doubt they can afford the kind of legal liability this will bring once the molestation accusations start flowing.

 

It’s sad that this is even being discussed as being acceptable.

 

Bull. Being homosexual doesn't make you a pervert.

[mikegideon]

Ahhhhh, yes. The only opposition has to be homophobia. What ever that asinine retort means.
There is a reason they divided boy scouts and girl scouts to begin with. I want my boys to learn how to be men from men who identify with the manhood and I want my girls to learn womanhood from women who identify as women. Same reason I don't particularly want a woman boy scout leader or a male girl scout leader.
If you take the irrational "homophobia" denouncement accusation away, does having gay leaders logically make sense?
Just asking.

 

When folks spout stuff about gays that's totally WRONG, then they have one of two problems. Phobic is the gentler of the two.

[enfield]

Deleted - didn't want to pour gas on the fire.  :D

Edited January 29, 2013 by enfield

[10-Ring]

This isn’t about gay rights this is about the safety of children in the scouting organization. Gay Scout leaders? You have got to be kidding me.

 

Say goodbye to the scouts; I doubt they can afford the kind of legal liability this will bring once the molestation accusations start flowing.

 

It’s sad that this is even being discussed as being acceptable.

 

 

Bull. Being homosexual doesn't make you a pervert.

Agreed, assuming that someone is a pervert just because they are a homosexual is no different than assuming that everyone that owns a 30 round magazine is a mass murderer.  Homosexuals are no more or less perverted than straight people are.  I see a lot of double standards here, it seems like it is fine to attack gays without knowing much about them but if some ignorant politician attacks our gun rights we get mad.

[enfield]

I haven't seen any attacks, just statements of personal opinion. 

 

There's been a little name-calling, but that's just the natural first response from small-minded people.  :D

[Lumber_Jack]

My question is how w're gay boys and leaders being excluded before? Was there a strict "no gay" policy?

I understand there are gays in society, it's reality. And personally I associate with some and have at least one family member who is gay. They are just people like everyone else. With that said I completely disagree with their lifestyle and believe its wrong. But I also believe heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage is wrong, no more or less than me telling a lie or using foul language, both of which probably happens more than if like to admit. As a Christian sin and morality are explained in close detail, and they are not weighed on a scale, it's simply black or white.

I believe your children should see their patents as role models, but some children don't have good parents so sometimes scout leaders and others serve as their interim role models. Does that mean a Gay man can't be a good role model? No, but it doesn't mean he is a good one either. I think the troop needs to reserve the right to vet leaders as they see fit without scrutiny from the media machine. It's the only way to somewhat ensure the integrity of the program. Will some people be unjustly excluded? Probably, but that's life, deal with it.

I think sexual preference shouldn't be discussed in any form in scouting. That means boys to leaders, leaders to leaders or vice versa. I dont think your going to see an influx of gay leaders or an increase of pedophelia, they are separate issues.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Spend a few hours here if you will. You might find there are other reasons than calling someone homophobic. You "New

Worlders" are amazing. Like Smith said, you just want to close the argument down because you think it is now acceptable.

It is alright if you want to accept it, but forcing a private organization to change their policies isn't. They were forced to do

this by public pressure from places that have no business doing it. It is and has been part of a multi-pronged approach to

destroy this country. And that really has nothing to do with gays, who are nothing more than useful idiots.

 

I'm not interesting in restricting gays from anything that has anything to do with life, by calling something a right, or not,

and I'm not interested in the gay marriage argument. Another ruse some people fall for. Individuals can do as they choose,

on their own, but political groups should not frame the debate on a private organization.

 

Of course, if you don't believe that source, I don't have a neat catch phrase to call you.

Edited January 29, 2013 by 6.8 AR

[mikegideon]

I posted this article to get some opinions on the matter, knowing that some would agree with this and some would not. It is newsworthy, and as a former scouter who saw his son become an Eagle Scout, I also have reservations about this, but I do understand that money talks, and the BSA has to do something to reverse their declining membership and loss of funding. I knew it was only a matter of time before they considered changing their policy on gays.

 

What I don't understand is why people want to shut down the discussion by throwing out the homophobia charge. It's really no different than calling someone a racist when there is no evidence.

 

Why can't someone disagree with this without being called a name?

 

Tough subject. I'm pretty outspoken about it, because I know enough homos to staff a large Las Vegas show. :) I knew some of them for almost a decade before I knew they were gay. Don't mean to call names. The ONLY common denominator I can find with gays is their sexual orientation. Outside of that, morals, character, professionalism kinda falls in with the general population. There is one fairly common trait. Most gays are pretty asexual with their social interaction. If they're in mixed company (with straight guys), it doesn't come up.

[NoBanStan]

The scouts are a Christian organization....

...because gay is a sexuality choice...

Gah! You've broken my comment down like a CNN headline.

 

All I'm saying is that God, country and self growth are at the core of scouting. That's what it should be and nothing more. Scout leaders are there to be role models for those values. Your personal lifestyle/sexual preferences shouldn't make an appearance.

 

A good example: I was speaking with an assistant scoutmaster not long ago who discovered one of his boys showing pictures of a partially clothed woman on his phone. He put a stop to it and had a talk with the childs parents about the behavior. This, to me, is a firm example of holding children to morals.

 

Was it wrong for the child to be interested in women? No not at all. 

Does it have any place in the Scouts? Absolutely not, it's our responsiblity as role models to help hold the children to higher standards.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I suspect the majority of those who do molest boys are not openly gay. All the cases that come to mind were men with families and living a heterosexual lifestyle and not those who live an openly gay lifestyle.

 

Implying gays are perverts is crazy. Outside of the bedroom they are just like any one of us. They have the same goals in life and even aspire to be better people. There is not a single thing you can say about a gay person, outside of the bedroom, that can't be said for any straight person. And who are we to judge someone based on what they do in the privacy of their own home.

 

Public pressure is what drives change. We have all used public pressure to try to secure our gun rights. We use public pressure to elect who best represents us. When we remove the public from the equation then it becomes a dictatorship.

 

As far as gay being a lifestyle I will agree to a point. For me there are varying degrees of being gay.

First we have the women who look and act like men. They have a body structure similar to most mean and generally assume the role. These people I genuinely believe there is something in the DNA that makes them like this. There is no amount of societal pressure that is going to change them.

Second there are men who dress like women and most want to use surgery to correct what they feel is wrong. They are feminine and have been since they were very, very young. And these too I believe have something in their DNA that is askew.

And both of these generally want to live out a normal life without all the drama.

And then there is the final one. The "boys" that know they are men, proud to be a man yet love the attention of other men. The are the "hey look at me" types and this group I believe has nothing to do with DNA and has more to do with getting attention or for some sort of self satisfaction. They are the ones we see on television with the flamboyant mannerisms and dress. And it is these ones that are the most outspoken as well. I am not sure I would want them teaching values to impressionable kids but if they are qualified and truly care about the kids I would not have a problem.

 

For the two previous categories I would have ZERO issue with them teaching children as long as they are qualified and care about the kids.

 

Dolomite