Boy Scouts Allow Gays

[Mike.357]

There have been gay scouts as long as there has been scouting is my guess.   I don't think this will affect much of anything.  But sooner or later there are going to be gay adult leaders openly involved.  And that must be why allowing openly gay scouting ever came to a vote.

[Smith]

There have been gay scouts as long as there has been scouting is my guess.   I don't think this will affect much of anything.  But sooner or later there are going to be gay adult leaders openly involved.  And that must be why allowing openly gay scouting ever came to a vote.

Yep. As has been said the sexuality issue is a non issue and always has been. Leadership is what they are really pushing for in the long term. Liberal fanatics will eat the elephant one bite at a time. Just like they try to do with gun restrictions.

[RobertNashville]

There have been gay scouts as long as there has been scouting is my guess.   I don't think this will affect much of anything.  But sooner or later there are going to be gay adult leaders openly involved.  And that must be why allowing openly gay scouting ever came to a vote.

There have probably also been "gay" leaders as long as there has been scouting too.

 

I do expect that at some point, the prohibition against gay scout leaders will be dropped as well and I think that will also have little affect on anything.  I care about what people do; not what which sex they find attractive especially when, with regards to scouting, sexual activity shouldn't be any part of it in the first place.

 

If the BSA was/always was a formal part of a church/denomination/specific religion with long and deeply held religious beliefs then I'd be just as upset as anyone that any group would come along and tell them they have to change.  However, BSA isn't that; their policy against gays was just that, a policy they adopted and adopted relatively recently at that.

[RichardR]

You must have over-looked or ignored the "de-facto" part of my reply, anyway I am not really intersted in splitting hairs or arguing about it, I was just offering up an explaination to the question of why the BSA had implimented the "no gays" policy when they did.

Really? Homosexuality is/was “illegal”? Care to name a state where that is or was true?? I’m not an expert on each state’s laws but I suspect that what you are actually referring to are old, outdated and repealed (or ignored) sodomy laws that declared certain sexual ACTS as crimes (oral sex, anal sex to name two). Being homosexual (attracted to the same sex) has never been “illegal” any more than being a heterosexual any more than "thinking" about punching an asshole in the nose is NOT illegal; actually punching the asshole in the nose IS). And as a matter of law, the sexual acts courts included under these laws applied EQUALLY to homosexuals and heterosexuals (although no doubt their primary use, as evidenced by how they were applied, was clearly to go after homosexuals). More to the point, what possible difference could the existence or absence of these laws have on the BSA or any other organization where sexual acts are absolutely not permitted and have no place EVER?

“Mental Disorder”…yes, homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder but no longer which is as it should be. However, even if you believe it is a mental disorder and should be classified as such, why did or why should the BSA not have similar prohibitions against all mental disorders as they did about homosexual boys? Why single out one particular disorder and ignore all others? This line of thought also begs the question of how would they know that ANY boy had been “diagnosed” as having the “mental disorder” of homosexuality?

I submit that the BSA adopted its policy against homosexual boys out of unfounded fear, prejudice and pressure from certain religious groups seeking to impose their morality…they’ve now abandoned that policy likely because of pressure from homosexual rights groups. In my opinion, the adoption of the restriction and now that abandonment of the restriction shows a significant lack of character, backbone or any core “moral” beliefs at all within the BSA.

[RobertNashville]

You must have over-looked or ignored the "de-facto" part of my reply, anyway I am not really intersted in splitting hairs or arguing about it, I was just offering up an explaination to the question of why the BSA had implimented the "no gays" policy when they did.
 

I didn't ignore it; I just don't think your your premise, "de-facto" included, applies since "homosexuality" isn't and never has been illegal. As such, the illegality you were referring to doesn't seem to explain that lack of a policy against gay scouts until the late 70's. Even more so since those "sodomy laws" in most jurisdictions had been ignored long before the 70s and the change in policy..

 

The "mental disorder" is more pertinent but it still begs of question of why "single out" that one (alleged) mental disorder while ignoring all others. To me, singling out homosexuality evidences a fairly repugnant bit of prejudice.

Edited May 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RichardR]

*shrug* a lot of people find homosexuality "repugnant".

But hey those folks are just bigots & homophobes so their feelings & religious convictions shouldn't matter, slap a label on them & then dismiss them.

That whole freedom of association thing was way over-rated anyway, eh comrade?

I didn't ignore it; I just don't think your your premise, "de-facto" included, applies since "homosexuality" isn't and never has been illegal. As such, the illegality you were referring to doesn't seem to explain that lack of a policy against gay scouts until the late 70's. Even more so since those "sodomy laws" in most jurisdictions had been ignored long before the 70s and the change in policy..

The "mental disorder" is more pertinent but it still begs of question of why "single out" that one (alleged) mental disorder while ignoring all others. To me, singling out homosexuality evidences a fairly repugnant bit of prejudice.

[RobertNashville]

*shrug* a lot of people find homosexuality "repugnant".

But hey those folks are just bigots & homophobes so their feelings & religious convictions shouldn't matter, slap a label on them & then dismiss them.

That whole freedom of association thing was way over-rated anyway, eh comrade?
 

Who is denying the ability of the BSA to freely associate?  They caved...pure and simple...that choice was theirs and theirs alone.

 

I find homosexual acts repugnant.  I don't find a person repugnant just because he or she happens to be a homosexual so long as he/she maintains appropriate public decorum and so long as he/she treats me with the same respect and courtesy they expect of me.

 

There appear to be quite a lot of people with "religious convictions" who will go outright apoplectic over a homosexual but their BP won't even rise a point about such people as adulterers, alcoholics, gluttons, or the sexually promiscuous (as long as it's "normal" sex of course). I find that inconsistency in dealing with people repugnant too.

[c.a.willard]

most do not care if you find homosexuality repugnant. People do care when because of your personal feelings you exclude an entire group of people from participating as part of our society.  Why shouldn't homosexuals be outspoken about their rights being violated.  Why shouldn't homosexuals be outspoken about being excluded from a group that should have nothing to do with sex on the sole basis of their sexual orientation.  No one is forcing you to like it but you will have to put up with it because it is happening. 

 

 

As it pertains to the BSA, the way I see it is that those opposed to this have 3 basic choices.  Fight to change it back which is your right to do, accept that it is happening whether you like it or not and move on, or form your own non secular scouting organization. 

 

Lets not forget that the majority of the BSA voting membership approved this change

[Oh Shoot]

*shrug* a lot of people find homosexuality "repugnant".

 

I find homosexual acts repugnant.

 

Oh, I'd bet you both likely get boners watching pretty female homosexuals go at it, I'd opine most straight men do, jest sayin.....

 

Hell, I've often thought I must be part lesbian, myself.

 

But seriously, that tightening in your pants is a sign of the sexual "relativism" most all of us embody. Or something.

 

- OS

Edited May 29, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[RobertNashville]

Oh, I'd bet you both likely get boners watching pretty female homosexuals go at it, I'd opine most straight men do, jest sayin.....

 

Hell, I've often thought I must be part lesbian, myself.

 

But seriously, that tightening in your pants is a sign of the sexual "relativism" most all of us embody. Or something.

 

- OS

I get hot seeing beautiful, naked women...I'm not sure I really care what they are doing to each other or even if they are doing anything to each other. ;)

[RichardR]

The BSA has been relentlessly hammered by the homosexual activist organizations for the last 30 or so years, defending themselves from lawsuit after lawsuit, along with any corporations or organization that dared to donate any funds to the BSA have also been under constant assault, but the biggest hit to the BSA has been the homosexual activists success at keeping the BSA from being able to use public parks, land & buildings for their activities & meetings.

Well congratulations comrades! the BSA was finally brought to their knees &"forced" to capitulate to the homosexual agenda, now the handful of openly gays who want to join the Scouts can, and (guestimating) hundreds of thousands of devote Christian children can't.

[TrickyNicky]

The BSA has been relentlessly hammered by the homosexual activist organizations for the last 30 or so years, defending themselves from lawsuit after lawsuit, along with any corporations or organization that dared to donate any funds to the BSA have also been under constant assault, but the biggest hit to the BSA has been the homosexual activists success at keeping the BSA from being able to use public parks, land & buildings for their activities & meetings.
Well congratulations comrades! the BSA was finally brought to their knees &"forced" to capitulate to the homosexual agenda, now the handful of openly gays who want to join the Scouts can, and (guestimating) hundreds of thousands of devote Christian children can't.

Sorry, no dice. There is a world of difference from "can't" and "won't". To put it into perspective gays 'can't' join under the old rules. Christian children 'won't' under the new. Though I suspect its more to do with the parents than the children.

This is the same crowd who had some not very cristianly things to say about that Muslim that wanted his pig farming neighbor shut down because it offended his religion right?

So if your Muslim and something offends you, tough $hit but if your cristian and something offends you, then I should care? Got it.

[RobertNashville]

The BSA has been relentlessly hammered by the homosexual activist organizations for the last 30 or so years, defending themselves from lawsuit after lawsuit, along with any corporations or organization that dared to donate any funds to the BSA have also been under constant assault, but the biggest hit to the BSA has been the homosexual activists success at keeping the BSA from being able to use public parks, land & buildings for their activities & meetings.

Well congratulations comrades! the BSA was finally brought to their knees &"forced" to capitulate to the homosexual agenda, now the handful of openly gays who want to join the Scouts can, and (guestimating) hundreds of thousands of devote Christian children can't.

Well, assuming that your characterization about being "hammered" and under constant assault, etc. is correct (not saying it isn't but I don't have all the history sitting in front of me); that still doesn't constitute being "forced" to change their policy.

 

As to the "devout Christian children, it's been my experience that most children simply follow their parent's religious beliefs until they are mature enough to make up their own minds about what they believe or don't believe about god. Further, I doubt very many give a rat's behind if there are gay boys in scouts and in any case, maybe they should get used to the idea because unless they are going to go live alone in a cave they are likely to run into homosexual men and women in all the places they live and work throughout their lives.

[RichardR]

Hey you guys won, I'm just pointing out the consequences of that victory.

You can argue semantics & split hairs all day long, but the fact is that the BSA's majority of supporters, leadership & membership pool are of the Christian faith.

It's no secret to anyone that homosexuality is a "sin" in Christianity (as well as in most other major religions) & the two lifestyles simply are not compatible, no matter how "unfair" you think that it was for the BSA to have banned openly gay homosexuals from participating.

Now that the BSA is yours, do with it what ever you want, we (those of us who actually participated in Scouting prior to this decision) don't care anymore, we are just sad to see everything that Scouting once stood for destroyed.

[DaveTN]

Now that the BSA is yours, do with it what ever you want, we (those of us who actually participated in Scouting prior to this decision) don't care anymore, we are just sad to see everything that Scouting once stood for destroyed.

I predict that you don’t see it destroyed. The parents and the Scouts run the BSA; not the counsel. I suspect they are about to find that out.

[RichardR]

I predict that you don’t see it destroyed. The parents and the Scouts run the BSA; not the counsel. I suspect they are about to find that out.

That will depend on how many of the folks who supported this decision will actually put their children, their money & their time into the Scouts.

Because a great number of folks who opposed the decision are going to withdraw their children, their money & their time from the Scouting program.

My guess is that (by a very very large margin) many more families & host organizations will withdraw their kids & resources from the BSA than the hand-full who will join it.

We shall see.

[RobertNashville]

That will depend on how many of the folks who supported this decision will actually put their children, their money & their time into the Scouts.

Because a great number of folks who opposed the decision are going to withdraw their children, their money & their time from the Scouting program.

My guess is that (by a very very large margin) many more families & host organizations will withdraw their kids & resources from the BSA than the hand-full who will join it.

We shall see.

That's funny...all the theological training I've had taught me that it's the engaging in homosexual sex that was the sin, not simply "being" a homosexual. Somehow, however, Christians never seem to differentiate even though they have no problem doing so with regards to heterosexuals.

 

But I'm probably wrong; just like I've never understood why "homosexuality" send Christians screaming for the hills but other "sins" hardly get a reaction form anyone.   :shrug: 

[RichardR]

That's funny...all the theological training I've had taught me that it's the engaging in homosexual sex that was the sin, not simply "being" a homosexual. Somehow, however, Christians never seem to differentiate even though they have no problem doing so with regards to heterosexuals.

But I'm probably wrong; just like I've never understood why "homosexuality" send Christians screaming for the hills but other "sins" hardly get a reaction form anyone. :shrug:

Robert, probably because homosexuals always seem to be unrepentent about their sinful lifestyle, in fact they (the openly gay homosexuals) tend to be very vocal about advertising, promoting and defending their sexual proclivities.

I cannot think of any other Biblical sin which is promoted and defended by it's sinners so vehemently as homosexuality is, so if I had to guess, that is what I'd say the reason for that is.

[45guy]

That's funny...all the theological training I've had taught me that it's the engaging in homosexual sex that was the sin, not simply "being" a homosexual. Somehow, however, Christians never seem to differentiate even though they have no problem doing so with regards to heterosexuals.

 

But I'm probably wrong; just like I've never understood why "homosexuality" send Christians screaming for the hills but other "sins" hardly get a reaction form anyone.   :shrug: 

What other sins would you be referring to as not getting a reaction from anyone?

Edited May 30, 2013 by 45guy

[RobertNashville]

What other sins would you be referring to as not getting a reaction from anyone?

I've mentioned several of them in various places through the thread; I'd really rather not try and go into them with my iPhone!

Edited May 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Robert, probably because homosexuals always seem to be unrepentent about their sinful lifestyle, in fact they (the openly gay homosexuals) tend to be very vocal about advertising, promoting and defending their sexual proclivities.

I cannot think of any other Biblical sin which is promoted and defended by it's sinners so vehemently as homosexuality is, so if I had to guess, that is what I'd say the reason for that is.

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that you simply cannot (or will not) see the difference between someone being a homosexual and someone "living" a homosexual lifestyle.

 

There are plenty of Christians sitting in church on Sunday mornings and Wednesday evenings who leave service and go out and screw their mistress or get drunk or eat themselves into a heart attack so I would say that  any assertion that homosexuals have some sort of corner on the market as far as being unrepentant sinners is a bit short sighted.

Edited May 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[c.a.willard]

Heck i'd contend that my sister (now on her 4th or 5th marriage  I lost count)  has done far more to destroy the sanctity of marriage than any homosexual couple I have ever met.

[Guest Charis]

Robert, probably because homosexuals always seem to be unrepentent about their sinful lifestyle, in fact they (the openly gay homosexuals) tend to be very vocal about advertising, promoting and defending their sexual proclivities.

I cannot think of any other Biblical sin which is promoted and defended by it's sinners so vehemently as homosexuality is, so if I had to guess, that is what I'd say the reason for that is.

 

 

What other sins would you be referring to as not getting a reaction from anyone?

 

How about one of the 7 DEADLY sins... will that work?

 

Gluttony.

 

or Sloth.

 

or Wrath.

 

or... wait... how about any single one of the 7 DEADLY sins... when has any one of these WORST THING EVER sins, that require all sorts of special things to get forgiven for (if you happen to be of the catholic version of Christianity), been even half as vehemently opposed as some one having sex with someone the same gender they are?

 

Commit any of these DEADLY sins, and you can say your sorry and still get married, take care of your partners medical issues, or any number of other things... including being a boy scout or leader.

 

Now I suppose you could wrap up homosexual acts and/or homosexuality with Lust, and try very hard to go with saying that Christians are really arguing against lust, except that it is only a certain kind of lust, and almost exclusively a certain kind of lust in only the males of the species, since I don't know a single straight male that look at two women getting it on, and have the same "revulsion" reflex. I'm sure there are some, somewhere, but even having moved as much as I have, and meeting as many people as I have, I haven't met one yet, so they can't be all that common.

 

This, as far as I am concerned, is just another case of choosing your sin and lambasting the ones you DON'T participate in as if they are actually more evil than what you are doing.

 

Are you wearing anything that is made or partially of an unnatural fabric?  SIN.

Are you wearing more than one type of natural fiber? SIN.

Let's not even THINK about if you are wearing something that is poly-cotton AND leather shoes...

Have you ever touched or eaten an animal that is considered unclean? SIN. (I am forever a sinner, I refuse to give up bacon, and I am unrepentant)

Are you a person that does not pay your employees every single day? SIN.

Have you ever eaten fat? SIN.

Have you ever cut your hair or shaved your face? SIN.

Are you wearing gold, pearls, or costly clothing? SIN.

Have you been divorced, and are now remarried or have a lover? You are an adulterer, and you are to be put to death.

 

These are just a few of the over 70 sins distinctly pointed out in the same place as the single mention of something that sounds like homosexuality NOW (I'm still not convinced it meant the same thing THEN, after all, the church did just have a whole meeting to decide if "booty" should be left in the bible, because of the difference in meaning between then and now)

 

The BSA has no specific policy against any of those things, nor against murderers, child molesters (almost never homosexual according to scientific research), or those that beat their children and wives damn near to death every other day... but THIS... this is what they needed to have a solid policy about?

[daddyo]

Membership policies served the scouts and its families well up to this point. Don't forget that the vast majority of those families had no problem with the policy as it stood before the change. It was reversed to placate a minority that many people is much larger because they scream really, really loudly.

 

Just another great example of the tyranny of the minority.

[DaveTN]

The BSA has no specific policy against any of those things, nor against murderers, child molesters (almost never homosexual according to scientific research), or those that beat their children and wives damn near to death every other day... but THIS... this is what they needed to have a solid policy about?

Certainly they do. They require that you obey all laws; they do a background check, credit check, and even ask questions about your driving record. 
 

The BSA requires criminal background checks on all adult volunteers.

The BSA grants membership to an adult volunteer only after a national criminal background check is performed. The background checks are administered by LexisNexis, a nationally respected third party that also provides this service to local, state, and federal governments; educational institutions; and other nonprofits.

The BSA's Ineligible Volunteer Files provide an added layer of protection.

Scouting takes any allegations of inappropriate behavior seriously, whether or not the individual ever served as a Scout leader, and whether or not that person behaved inappropriately with a Scout or any other child. Scouting policy requires the prompt reporting of inappropriate conduct. When such issues are reported, the individual is added to the Ineligible Volunteer Files maintained by the National Council, whether or not the allegations are proven. The Ineligible Volunteer Files have successfully kept dangerous and potentially dangerous individuals out by enabling Scouting to identify those individuals who have been barred from the organization, even based on suspicion alone.