Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders

The Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest private youth organizations, is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions. If adopted by the organization’s board of directors, it would represent a profound change on an issue that has been highly controversial -- one that even went to the US Supreme Court. The new policy, now under discussion, would eliminate the ban from the national organization’s rules, leaving local sponsoring organizations free to decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts.

So this is tricky for me. On the one hand, I think this highlights society becoming more accepting of gay people, but on the other it seems like an empty gesture. I have a feeling that while the governing body is allowing (pffft) different chapters to make their own decisions regarding homosexual participants, there will be some sort of backlash against those that actually adopt the new policy. It feels like passing the buck. The leaders don't want to look bad, so they give up making an actual decision to their subordinates. Way to man up.

I think Boy Scouts is something anyone should be able to enjoy, regardless of color, creed or sexual orientation. I don't believe the courts should be involved, just that the leaders should do the right thing. It reminds me of some religious institutions where a murderer will be accepted but a gay person shunned and kicked out.

Does anyone know how they determine whether or not a scout is gay? Is it a don't ask don't tell kind of policy or does every kid with an easy bake oven get the boot?

link

Well, this will insure my Son never has a part in the Scouts if they carry this. It's not about gays. He's around gay kids in public school now. Now biggy and it's not like it's contagious or something silly like that.

It's about an organization that held beliefs worth fighting for within just the last few years suddenly deciding it's all not so important anymore, after all. Well... Losing money does that I guess. Everything is about the almighty dollar. May as well invite girls in too. Why not? It's unfair to hold them out, right?

* When I was in scouts, there were kids I figured were gay as well. It was never talked about, either way. Back then, it was possible for someone's romantic and sexual life or predispositions to NOT be a part of the common public knowledge, especially among children. What a change it's been and so quickly too.

reply to post by Domo1

Does anyone know how they determine whether or not a scout is gay? Is it a don't ask don't tell kind of policy or does every kid with an easy bake oven get the boot?

It is pretty much a don't ask, don't tell policy.

When I was in scouting I knew of two guys who were gay who I met at scout camp. They told me in confidence, and also told me they were afraid that someone would find out and they would get kicked out, they weren't at all flamboyant, and if they never told me I would have never guessed.

I'm pretty sure it is the same with Scout Masters and other leaders, but I am not sure.

Overturning the policy is definitely a good idea.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I'm really surprised by your response. You wouldn't let your son join the scouts if they admitted gay kids? You said it yourself, your son is around gay kids already. He will grow up and have to deal with gay people. In what way do you think accepting gay participants would ruin the experience of scouts? Is it really just about sticking to your guns?

reply to post by Domo1


I have a feeling that while the governing body is allowing (pffft) different chapters to make their own decisions regarding homosexual participants, there will be some sort of backlash against those that actually adopt the new policy.


Agreed...unfortunately, they model their policies after the US government.


Indian Guides was better anyways...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It's about an organization that held beliefs worth fighting for within just the last few years suddenly deciding it's all not so important anymore, after all. Well... Losing money does that I guess. Everything is about the almighty dollar.

Yeah and their so called "beliefs" discriminate, what a valuable lesson to teach young men, and lets be honest here their condemnation of homosexuality has a Christian slant that is not even supported by half the troops in the organisation.

When I was in scouts, there were kids I figured were gay as well. It was never talked about, either way. Back then, it was possible for someone's romantic and sexual life or predispositions to NOT be a part of the common public knowledge, especially among children. What a change it's been and so quickly too.

Wow, you don't understand why it is morally questionable to condemn someone for expressing their feelings, I feel sorry for you.

May as well invite girls in too. Why not? It's unfair to hold them out, right?

They already have a scouting group, are you trying to be intellectually dishonest on purpose?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Well, this will insure my Son never has a part in the Scouts if they carry this. It's not about gays. He's around gay kids in public school now. Now biggy and it's not like it's contagious or something silly like that.

It's about an organization that held beliefs worth fighting for within just the last few years suddenly deciding it's all not so important anymore, after all. Well... Losing money does that I guess. Everything is about the almighty dollar. May as well invite girls in too. Why not? It's unfair to hold them out, right?

* When I was in scouts, there were kids I figured were gay as well. It was never talked about, either way. Back then, it was possible for someone's romantic and sexual life or predispositions to NOT be a part of the common public knowledge, especially among children. What a change it's been and so quickly too.

Bigotry is a belief worth fighting for? Are you kidding me?

I would never in my life allow a gay person to lead boy scouts. No. Just no.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yeah, this is what I was thinking. It would serve to bring it more out in the open where a lot of parents will not allow their sons to participate. It's not like there have never been gay boy scouts or scout leaders... I don't know, maybe knowing with put them under more scrutiny and keep them from doing some of the bad things that have happened in the past.

I wonder if they are going to 'level the field' with regard to merit badges. I can think of a few new ones, but I'd get flamed. Um, no offense.

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

I'm really surprised by your response. You wouldn't let your son join the scouts if they admitted gay kids? You said it yourself, your son is around gay kids already. He will grow up and have to deal with gay people. In what way do you think accepting gay participants would ruin the experience of scouts? Is it really just about sticking to your guns?

Like I said...It's about values and the Scouts have stood for the very foundation of instilling unwavering values in generations of men. Some of whom have gone on to be great names in our history.

If they toss a value THEY JUST FOUGHT FOR at great expense to themselves? Well.. it's not like it's a policy change they've meant to do anyway. They've been suffering boycotts in some areas and a general cooling of State owned facilities to hold their functions in. Apparently the pressure worked.

if they throw a hard fought value out over public pressure...what of the other values and whole point I'd want my Son to be a part of the organization? How many other corners are and will be cut in the name of expediency or "going along to get along". All this does, under these circumstances, is teach their membership that values are great until they cost too much money and then EVERYTHING is a trade off in the end and noting is worth THAT much.

That's precisely what I learned was NOT the case from my own time with Scouting and what my father instilled in me for integrity and character as an Eagle Scout himself. Evolving to a new way of doing things? Maybe....it might well make sense in time. THIS fast? Yeah.. right... They caved to pressure and it makes the policy change (ANY policy change) one made for all the wrong reasons when their very mission is to instill integrity and a sense of things more important than one's own self and self interests. Just my thoughts but they run strong and deep on this.

I am a mother of a boys and girls.

I wouldn't want a son around known or unknown homosexuals nor would I want my daughters around lesbians.

I am NOT sorry, too bad. But then again I wouldn't allow my children in any organized event (alone) that I did not have control over. Yes, I even worked at my children's school. It takes a lot of trust to put your children into the hands of others for over-night or a weekly basis, surely if you cannot attend, will you regret that? Is it worth it?

My children are grown and I no longer have to worry about this, thank God. I am anti-homosexual and that is just my right. I don't want them near my children nor my grandchildren. Yeah, I know, I know..they aren't all pedophiles, but no thanks, they have the inclination to enjoy the same sex so why don't the lesbians vollunteer for the Boy Scouts and the gay guys vollunteer for the Girls?

or even better...why can't they NOT even bother with children and stay home ..since they have chosen not to breed and what they have to offer is and can be offered by those more qualified?

Where are the real men? Where are the real women? Where are the role models for the homosexuals that are in need of guidance because they were molested and didn't get help???

They shouldn't be in care of children, for sure. With the breakup of the family (loss of fathers) is what this has caused. Try your dam hardest to teach your family (children) all of these skills without an outsider group as much as possible. These 'free/cheap babysitters' are really not worth the abuse they (children) endure.

TOO BAD. www.cbc.ca...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

All this does, under these circumstances, is teach their membership that values are great until they cost too much money and then EVERYTHING is a trade off in the end and noting is worth THAT much.

No, it teaches them that certain "values" are not "valuable" and do not deserve to be supported.

There is no value in discrimination against homosexual, or Atheists for that matter.

I just do not understand how you can think that an organisation giving up its archaic beliefs somehow degrades their image.

What next, would you condemn al-Qaeda for changing their "values" for the better, you know like not killing people in the name of god?

Originally posted by Openeye
Wow, you don't understand why it is morally questionable to condemn someone for expressing their feelings, I feel sorry for you.

May as well invite girls in too. Why not? It's unfair to hold them out, right?

They already have a scouting group, are you trying to be intellectually dishonest on purpose?

edit on 28-1-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

Homosexuality represents WELL UNDER 10% of the population in the United States today. I have NO problem with their receiving respect and equality in *LEGAL RIGHTS* as any other American enjoys them. In the end though, they are a special interest group to an extreme minority whether they'll ever admit that or not. Some of their own studies back the figures and many from others go further in the low numbers than they will. Whatever the true state of the minority, it is one.

Now that doesn't mean it's okay to hate on them. Not by ANY stretch of the imagination.

However, I'm sick and tired of every single PRIVATE organization in this nation having to bend to the breaking point or BE outright broken to accommodate them. As I noted and others have as well, there have undoubtedly been gay scouts and scoutmasters. I have *NO* doubt of that. None. Take that to mean what you want but it hasn't been made a public statement with boycotts and worse to impose change on a privately run group until recently.

I have no problem at all with gays being accepted but it's not something to FORCE BY LAW or by pressure of threat and financial damage. That's extortion under any OTHER circumstances and I don't see the real big difference here anymore. It's not just the Scouts...they're just one of the last to cave to the extreme pressure brought to bear on them.

* funny how every point of view MUST be not only tolerated but welcome with open arms and a big hug...and woe be those who don't, unless of course, that point of view disagrees with the extreme activists. Then it's evil, even if only held to the way a private group runs it's own membership and affairs.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

However, I'm sick and tired of every single PRIVATE organization in this nation having to bend to the breaking point or BE outright broken to accommodate them.

The BSOA claim to be a private organisation, but in all honesty they are not, and they receive a lot of support from government

Support our scouts act

I have no problem at all with gays being accepted but it's not something to FORCE BY LAW or by pressure of threat and financial damage. That's extortion under any OTHER circumstances and I don't see the real big difference here anymore. It's not just the Scouts...they're just one of the last to cave to the extreme pressure brought to bear on them.

No one is forcing the BSOA by the "force of law" to allow homosexuals into scouting, if anything government has repeatedly ruled in their favor, public pressure/boycott is what is changing their minds. Is this immoral to you? The people actually condemning an institution for bigotry is now somehow reprehensible? I thought that is how stuff actually changes in reality, people standing up against something, and making others actually try and use logic and empathy.

reply to post by dianashay

I am anti-homosexual and that is just my right.

It's your right to be the person you aim to be.

I don't want them near my children nor my grandchildren. Yeah, I know, I know..they aren't all pedophiles

In fact none of them are. Pedophiles are pedophiles. Lets not tarnish other orientations with that stain. Whether it be homosexuals or heterosexuals... Their sexual attraction belongs in their own group.

they have the inclination to enjoy the same sex so why don't the lesbians vollunteer for the Boy Scouts and the gay guys vollunteer for the Girls?

Because that implies the scout leaders are there for reasons other than leading. Assuming the leaders are there for sexual reasons is unfounded and is guilty until proven innocent.

since they have chosen not to breed

They didn't choose their anatomy.

or even better...why can't they NOT even bother with children and stay home ..

I am a bisexual. People trust their youngins with me all the time. Both genders. Why? Because I am not attracted to children. And I am excellent with children. I was raised in a care home and developed lots and lots of skills and experience. I enjoy playing games and being youthful and having a good time with kids who are so full of wonder and positivity. Is that so strange? Why do you enjoy the company of kids?

and what they have to offer is and can be offered by those more qualified?

Give it to any that wants it and is qualified. Don't pick a homosexual over a heterosexual if that's the case. But sexual orientation is just completely irrelevant here.

Where are the real men? Where are the real women?

Have you checked at the end of the rainbow?

Where are the role models for the homosexuals that are in need of guidance because they were molested and didn't get help???

I was never molested so I can't give insight here.

reply to post by Openeye

You might notice I said "but it's not something to FORCE BY LAW or by pressure of threat and financial damage." In the Boy Scouts case, it's that second part that came to land on them and land like a 300lb Gorilla.

It's one thing to work to bring change within a private group or organization. It;s quite another to hammer them relentlessly for however long it takes to force change whether those being hammered agree with it or not. I've heard and read nothing documented about systemic bigotry against anyone by the Boy Scouts. In fact, if you've been a Scout, you know well that is contrary to the core of what is taught.

At the same time though, they should never need to apologize or bend to the will of those outside their group like this because their own deeply held values are contrary to those with nothing to do with them. Now you can say there have been issues within the Scouts among individuals and that would be true. There have been issues with Atheists too. Some handled well and some not, as I've followed it. That's a whole different issue to take apart and see about how each was treated from simply forcing change over the group as a whole.

Also, I'd note here that while the BSOA has received some support from Government, mostly in the form of state and local, and generally in the way of places to meet and hold events, it doesn't make them any less a private organization.

^^^ By that logic anyone who receives any benefit derived by Government can no longer be termed a private organization. Now I might like that concept if you'd apply it equally and across the board. Lets see here.... How much aid, general help and support in various ways do National Unions get for instance? I've never considered them a Public/Government entity, although they carry much for public policy influence. If you'd like to redefine the terms of what makes public vs. private though, that could be very interesting in the changes which could be forced all over, eh?

(Or...of course..we could respect the freedom of private groups to operate as they see fit, so long as they aren't directly violating the law or rights of others)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

(Or...of course..we could respect the freedom of private groups to operate as they see fit, so long as they aren't directly violating the law or rights of others)

I agree!

Although there might be instances, where we might disagree on the rights of the gay community being violated concerning those private organizations. Maybe? I can't recall enough conversation with you to know. I am speaking generally, not targeting BSOA.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

You might notice I said "but it's not something to FORCE BY LAW or by pressure of threat and financial damage." In the Boy Scouts case, it's that second part that came to land on them and land like a 300lb Gorilla.

It's one thing to work to bring change within a private group or organization. It;s quite another to hammer them relentlessly for however long it takes to force change whether those being hammered agree with it or not. I've heard and read nothing documented about systemic bigotry against anyone by the Boy Scouts. In fact, if you've been a Scout, you know well that is contrary to the core of what is taught.

No, it is perfectly acceptable for any individual or group to actively criticize any other individual or groups opinion or position on an issue, especially if that issue effects the very foundations of personal freedom.

You say that there is no documented bigotry against anyone by the Boy Scouts, you are flat out wrong, because they refuse to allow openly gay, or atheist men, join their organisation, this is very well documented. How is that not bigotry, or intolerance?

And yes I was a scout, and that is why I stand oppose them now, because through them I learned to be ,trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, but because I'm a bisexual, atheist their "organisation" deems me incapable of adhering to such principles, B...S...

I can not be involved in scouting anymore because of "who I am", again I ask, how is this not bigotry?

Also, I'd note here that while the BSOA has received some support from Government, mostly in the form of state and local, and generally in the way of places to meet and hold events, it doesn't make them any less a private organization.

^^^ By that logic anyone who receives any benefit derived by Government can no longer be termed a private organization. Now I might like that concept if you'd apply it equally and across the board. Lets see here.... How much aid, general help and support in various ways do National Unions get for instance? I've never considered them a Public/Government entity, although they carry much for public policy influence. If you'd like to redefine the terms of what makes public vs. private though, that could be very interesting in the changes which could be forced all over, eh?

Well it is my honest opinion that if you receive funding from the sate, you cease to be a "truly" private organisation, and yes this includes unions.

(Or...of course..we could respect the freedom of private groups to operate as they see fit, so long as they aren't directly violating the law or rights of others).

I agree a private entity should not be able to restrict the rights of others; i.e. their sexual, or religious preference, which is exactly what the BSOA does.

reply to post by Openeye

Well, perhaps you are 100% consistent and intellectually honest about your position and it's something I don't encounter often in the activist side of the gay community. You would have the forfeiture of the rights of a private organization to run it's affairs how it sees fit extend to Unions or any other group who receives any assistance from Government though, as I'm reading you. That does make for consistency and a position I'll never agree with on deep principle as I've explained extensively here but....I'll will respect for the honesty in it.

I'd ask this though, because it really is the ultimate extension of your stated position of this and necessary enough if it's to be entirely consistent.

May strong willed and extremely vocal heterosexuals join traditionally gay groups, regularly display as well as voice their opinions of their own sexuality and the acceptance of it by others to the point of being outspoken about it and have every right to remain a part of that group whether the group's values are consistent with the mindset being presented or not? (This is precisely and 100% what is being championed here and elsewhere)

Your positions would say yes, unless I've badly misread you and in that case, I'd ask for some elaboration on where I may have misunderstood.

I would wonder on the face of it, just why a heterosexual would want to join a predominantly gay group to voice and/or display their own choices for sexual peference assertively and often? However, I also wonder why gays who have likely always been in places like the BSOA now insist that quietly being a part of it is no longer enough but must be welcomed in full open glory of a lifestyle that has nothing whatsoever to do with the purpose of the group itself?

I'm curious how you answer on this because you're either one of the more truly sincere people I've run into on this debate or you're putting me on with the bit about Unions deserving as much outside scrutiny and pressure to change as you'd have put upon the BSOA.


* Incidentally. I didn't say bigotry didn't exist in the Scouts. Of course it does. That exists in ANY group of human beings of sufficient size. Prejudice is a thing to control not eliminate in most normal people. Sociologists spend careers studying it and it's a fascinating thing to read about at that level. It simply can not be done on an individual basis short of education...which is a very long process if it's required to start and not accomplished this way, anyway. What I said was it isn't systemic.

If you equate a difference of values and ways of living life by them as bigotry, then on that point, we're miles apart to even agree on the definition of terms. True bigotry is an UGLY UGLY and often violent thing which, even without violence, does great harm. That is something I don't see and have never seen among the Scouts.

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

(Or...of course..we could respect the freedom of private groups to operate as they see fit, so long as they aren't directly violating the law or rights of others)

I agree!

Although there might be instances, where we might disagree on the rights of the gay community being violated concerning those private organizations. Maybe? I can't recall enough conversation with you to know. I am speaking generally, not targeting BSOA.

Gay community? No... I don't see the "community" as having any rights. Any more than any other 'community' has rights. Now that may sound like semantics, but it's really not for the next point.

I DO think each instance of mistreatment or open violation of rights (including simple public humiliation) be handled on the merits of the circumstances to that case. If it's proven that someone...anyone...went out of their way to single someone out for abuse or mistreatment ..for WHATEVER reason, they ought to suffer for that. Whether financially (fines), professionally (You're fired!) or criminally in the extreme cases (you have the right to remain.....).

Specific to topic though, some would define mistreatment and a violation of rights as simply seeing an organization exist which doesn't openly embrace public display of alternative lifestyles or even makes it policy that such displays not happen. That would be where I think the line rests, at least for one of them in life, as well as where both sides need respect it.

The BSOA (to stay with this example) would be wrong to inquire, directly, as to someone's sexuality as some litmus test for membership. They'd also be wrong to encourage the display of something outright offensive to some and very uncomfortable to a great many that have chosen to be a part of that organization for private meetings and events.

At the same time, I don't see it any more right that gay activists have deliberately targeted the BSOA among many other groups to attack until their will has been accommodated and change forced. What right have they?