It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders

page: 2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

The Boy Scouts of America has always been a Private group that has a great deal of Religious aspects to it's rules and doctrines. There have always been Gay members although to admit to being so would be detrimental to membership.

At issue here is not whether it is right or wrong for there to be Gay members...what is at issue is whether a state or Federal Government has the right to force a private org. to admit members that do not fit criteria.

If the BSA wishes to do so then that is it's right as a private Org.

Split Infinity

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:21 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Gay community? No... I don't see the "community" as having any rights. Any more than any other 'community' has rights.

Semantics indeed. But I will be clear even though I am surprised I need to be. Same Rights as other 'communities'. Not 'special Rights'. You know...the equality speak myself and others spell out ad nauseum. Apologies for the semantics, I am not always stringent.

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

Before I can respond I need some clarity. "open display of alternative lifestyle". What aspect of their lifestyle are you isolating? What qualifies as 'display'?

have deliberately targeted the BSOA among many other groups to attack until their will has been accommodated and change forced. What right have they?

At the moment that feels like a loaded question. Mostly because I need some clarity and to work through a couple key points before understand the direction we are really coming from. That and I am tired...but I am sure I can keep up.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 02:35 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

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?

If a straight man wanted to join a gay rights group, I see no reason why he would be denied, I know quite a few heterosexual individuals in gay rights groups, and other such organisations. It would be vastly hypocritical for an oppressed section of society to oppress others, and I am more than willing to admit that this actually happens, within both the LGBT community and the Atheist community, and I would be the first to point out such hypocrisy if the issue was not addressed.

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?

Because people should be able to live their lives openly without the threat of condemnation and punishment, especially when the lives they want to live are supported by consent, and reason. You are right, the lifestyle has NOTHING to do with the BSOA, in fact NO lifestyle has anything to do with the group, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, thus there is no reason why the group should condemn it.

Scouting is about teaching young men "skills" and creating strong character (see the scout law), not about what god or non-god to worship, not about who to sleep with and who not to.

The only thing I really do not bash the BSOA for which a lot of other people strangely do is their emphasis on patriotism, which I do not think is necessarily a bad thing depending on how it is taught and viewed, because there is a fine line between patriotism and nationalism in my opinion.

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.

Well sure unions deserve as much scrutiny as any other organisation, I don't remember when they ascended beyond the realm of reality. Like I said in my previous post...

"it is perfectly acceptable for any individual or group to actively criticize any other individual or groups opinion or position on an issue"

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

Yes the "elimination" of bigotry/prejudice is pretty naive, as occlusion is very much a part of the human condition.

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.

An individuals opinion is vastly different than a group of individuals that share an opinion, if one has an opinion which is distasteful it can be discounted or ignored, but a group of people have a far more powerful voice. This is where reason and logic must be applied, in the setting of the group.

I think we can actually agree on the definition of bigotry, but there are varying degrees of it, not some black and white reality to it. The young homosexual man who is kicked out of an activity he enjoys because he is gay would disagree that this "bigotry-lite" causes no harm.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 04:53 AM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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.

I know you don't believe loaning locations to the boy scouts is government endorsement, but there are a bunch of other things:

* President Visiting
* Visting soldiers in overseas locations and news posted on official army web pages
* Pay upgrades when joining the army: persons who have completed certain badges get put on pay grade PV2 with appropriate paper work.

No private organization can compete with that level of support and, even if they did, they would be known as the 'scouts for them gay folks and atheists'. I doubt the army would be endorsing their training.

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?

I don't think children join the cubs or scouts to assert their sexuality.

They join because their friends are doing it, it's fun and it teaches life skills. Sexuality is the last thing on a person's mind when enrolling a child to an organization like that. Even then, I'm not really sure you can tell a child, 'I know you don't know what am talking about, but if you do turn out to be gay ... don't tell anyone'.

Put simply, the heterosexual vs homosexual behavior rhetoric doesn't ring true for me. Heterosexual people have never had to legalize affection between them. For America it wasn't till 2003 in every state. I wouldn't expect people to calm down for at least another generation.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 06:29 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It's okay to discriminate as long as you're sticking to your values.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:24 AM
reply to post by Openeye

I appreciate your time taken to reply and as I said in my last reply, on clarification of a few points, which you more than have by that, I take your position as one I disagree with...deeply as it happens...but I have to say I do respect it.

Now that it's perfectly clear and you've made no effort to qualify or back peddle a thing in applying the same standards to any other group, in any other area of society with what you'd see applied to the BSOA here, I have to admit that yours are some of the most intellectually honest arguments I really have run into. In general terms of this line of debate over the years, it's a rare thing where there aren't 'but.....' and 'well, that's different....' freely applied and quickly pointed to when the shoe is directly put to the other foot. I really DO have to respect how you've not done that here.

Now we're just left in disagreement over the rights of any group, of any kind to interfere or pressure change in the way it's been done here for a private organization.


I sometimes HATE the examples this area of law and policy make best to use....but hey, some of the people defending a parade in Skokie, Illinois probably threw up after finishing the court hearings too.... Principle is an inconvenient thing in that we can't pick and choose to fit as we'd like it, right? You sound as principled as I am here, albeit from different directions entirely.

In that look at the extreme for how this has always functioned in the Untied States for the rights of a private organization to function within it's own bylaws and internal values (or complete lack of them, depending on the group), the best examples to show this CANNOT be done this way and be called anything like right happens to be the Klu Klux Klan, Aryan Nations and Black Panthers (of the 1960's/1970's vintage if not today) All 3 made racism core and central to their entire purpose for existing.

All 3 are or have been untouchable in any sense ...until laws were broken. The fall of the first version of the Black Panthers is rather epic to read about in multiple instances of out right urban warfare as some would term it. The KKK STILL peddles their hate freely and even picks up Adopt-A-HIghway signs. The Aryan Nations, at least as represented by Butler and his 'klan' in Northern Idaho stood for years until their guards mistreated the wrong innocent black family who simply made a wrong turn. THAT finally cost them the whole compound they'd been based in for the settlement of the lawsuit which followed. (sounds of cheering and applause)

UNTIL those overt legal lines were crossed? Even the MOST VILE of hate and objectionable purpose imaginable to me ....are still 100% and correctly protected to operate how they want, where they choose within their own property or that lent them for the purpose ...or the public square (Skokie) as they see fit.

Given that, how can one suggest the equally private BSOA ...having NO comparison on any level to that kind of hate forming the very purpose of their denied the very same protection and respect for their right to function as they and their membership consider right to their own way of thinking?


It really is a 100% principled stand with me and my thinking here. Gay boys/men, as such, are secondary to this entirely but for the fact it is the center of the issue used to crack this group open or ruin it ..whichever came first. It's the tactics, goals and now, outcomes that I object to. Under less combative and different circumstances, I'd even tend to agree that society is changing and changes really have to come at all levels. I don't have to like that change to see it's happening and no one asked us older folk what we thought of it.

Those changes need to come at the pace of what is natural to any given group or organization, when it's a private one though. Not forced by attempts to economically damage and isolate on every level, IMO.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:37 AM
reply to post by Pinke

No private organization can compete with that level of support and, even if they did, they would be known as the 'scouts for them gay folks and atheists'. I doubt the army would be endorsing their training.

Now you bring up a couple points there I did not know. I was about to get downright mad about the Service considerations given to mere merit badge accomplishment until I read your source material to see what was being talked about.

(This is Page 4 by literal count and Pg 16 by document count for those wanting to look it up on the second link cited above)

(12) Has been awarded the Boy Scout Eagle certificate as a member of the Boy Scouts of America (Form 58–708)
or the Sea Scout Quartermaster Award Certificate or the Venturing Scout Silver Award may enlist at any time at pay
grade PV2, a combination of these awards to enlist at the pay grade of E–3 is not authorized.

(13) Has earned the Girl Scout Gold Award Certificate as a member of the Girl Scouts of America may enlist at any
time at pay grade PV2.

I'd note, Eagle Scout is no mere merit badge but a pinnacle of achievement I think every Scout aspires to someday earn and few ever actually do, relative to membership numbers. I have no idea what the Girl Scout mention here is but wonder if it isn't the same level in their organization?

I'd DO see that as different because of the level of accomplishment in life skills and all over efforts it represents and it's the final stage. It's something of a very High honor as I learned very young in seeing how people changed their demeanor upon learning my Father was among the number to have earned the status. I wish I'd had what it took to make that level. Few do. If ANY external and private accomplishments should rate consideration to service enlistment? That one should.

Although, I'll say there are a few things in that section that gave me pause and a couple outright caused me to catch my breath. I have research to do on some things they reference for enlistment status upgrades, as it appears there. Definitely more research.

In line to being fair and honest with this whole debate ... if public policy should determine that private awards not be considered in that way, the BSOA Eagle Scout achievement should be dropped with all the rest. IF however, others are accepted (and some of what is there for context) then the policy of welcoming (or not) openly gay people in reference to their internal stated values as an organization shouldn't be a factor to deny that.

edit on 29-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Please tell me, how is sexual orientation a "belief"?

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It wasn't just public pressure, it was under the pressure of all the local troops to change this idiotic policy.

Maybe you should read "Who Moved My Cheese?" It is about dealing with change.

But since then, a scouting official said, local chapters have been urging a reconsideration. "We're a grassroots organization. This is a response to what's happening at the local level," the official said.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Homosexuality represents WELL UNDER 10% of the population in the United States today.

Which isn't as low as you think, as the black population is 13%.

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.

Since when is it the number in your minority group determine how important your cause is?

Now you are going to get schooled.

The reason the US is a republic and not a democracy is because the Founding Fathers did not want the majority to overrule the minority.

“All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal laws must protect, and to violate which would be oppression.” ~Thomas Jefferson

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.

Really? Like who?

As I noted and others have as well, there have undoubtedly been gay scouts and scoutmasters. I have *NO* doubt of that. None.
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.

So when amendments were passed allowing women to get an education and black people to be able to vote, it was extortion?

* 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.

Then you are ranting against the very foundations that this country is based upon. What were you saying about values, again?
edit on 29-1-2013 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 03:10 PM
Well with all of the "straight" members having sex with young boys and all maybe they decided to let in some gays to have someone to blame it on. Or also they figured lets let all the gays in and we can have sex with them too. Who knows. I think that any adults in this group before joining should have to go through a background check, mental health checks and references. No that it will definitely fix the problem but probably help things.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 03:33 PM
Okay I only work with beaver scouts (the youngest 6-8 year olds) but for this age and to a certain extent cubs, if you start discussing your sexuality - whatever it is - with the kids, the kids will get bored very quickly and the parents will get angry. We only have the kids for say 2 -3 hours a week and certain subjects are for me "untouchable" [if I am honest, road safety worries me far more at this age].

Most leaders get into scouting as parents who help out with their child. So if a gay couple bringing up a child took a more active interest in helping out each week, then I would have no problem working with them subject to the standard (as for everyone) CRB checks. One thing I have learned is that good parents - who take an interest in their kids - cut across all social strata.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 04:29 PM
reply to post by dianashay

Adult homosexuals do NOT molest children. Pedophiles molest children. They are not the same thing at all.

I have no issues trusting my children around the adult homosexuals that I know. They are not a danger to children in any way, shape or form. Men who molest little boys are NOT homosexuals, they are pedophiles. Most of the men who molest little boys have sexual relations with women, not with men. They have a sickness, a mental disorder that makes them lust after children. They are disgusting and terrible and I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, but gay men are not pedophiles. They want other gay men, not children.

This is one of the worst forms of propoganda that has ever been spread in modern times. It is the equivalent of the salem witch hunts. It has been drummed into people's minds that gay's are after the kids. They aren't. They are interested in other adults. If you are a man, does that mean that you lust after young girls? If you are a woman, does that mean you lust after young boys? It's the same with homosexuals, they don't lust after children any more than you or I do. They just don't. The ones who lust after children are pedophiles, not gays. The gender of the child is not a determinant in any way of heterosexuality or homosexuality, it is in and of itself.

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 05:28 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Yeah Wrabbit I do not think we will ever agree 100% on this issue. However, as you respect my opinion, I respect yours as well.

I do not believe the BSOA have done anything illegal, and despite my opinion that they should not be considered a private organisation, they are, thus they have a legal right to exclude who they want.

Again I do not agree with it, but I am not the dictator of reality, all I can do is protest, and encourage those in the leadership to change their minds.

Honestly I do not think they are completely caving to public pressure, I think they have simply had enough logical debate, and determined (supposedly) that individual troops should be able to decide who they allow in and who they exclude, which I think is a pretty good policy.

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:12 AM

Originally posted by dianashay
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.


okay first off homosexuals and lesbians are real men/women just that they have the inclinations to "mate" with the same sex that does not make them less than a man or woman, secondly not allowing a child to take small risks like joining any form of a club has some negative affects on their self esteem to what degree i do not know and finally isn't it illegal to teach your own child?

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

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
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? 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.

They run "Deep"? Pretty immodest fallacy, it's one of the shallowest things I've heard in years.

Boy scouts in Canada have had no such "ban on homosexuals", so where does this "too soon" nonsense even come from? Any intellectual would ponder why there was ever a ban in the first place. Because of what? I'm assuming a few isolated molestation cases? Yea, I bet those perps were openly gay alright
. Couldn't possibly be sexually repressed straight men; don't see any of those around these days.

You people crack me up.

The practice of this "ban" is the most adolescent, self-centered nonsense I have heard in ages, contrary to your perception of it being some sort of "strong-valued, sturdy etc.". In reality of course it's insecurities backed up by stubbornness. Whether or not another man is gay and in your presence has no effect on your personal teamwork skills, selflessness, and hard work. No REAL man with ACTUAL values and this thing called a LIFE would present an argument against that.

I have to close with your statement "why not just let the girls in!". First of all gay men are MEN (what a shocker), so your point is incredibly unrelated and really quite juvenile. Second of all, if girls and boys both had the same scout meetings.... MY GOD, OH NO! OUR VALUES! They might sit around campfires, congregate in gymnasiums, sing songs and work together to earn badges! And some will have vaginas! The world is ending!

....Growing up -- not so hard; best of luck either way, though.
edit on 31-1-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-1-2013 by LightOrange because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 09:05 AM
reply to post by LightOrange

Well, we're all entitled to our opinions...however hard edged and hateful they may be. "you people"? Hmm... That's not a term I often here used outside of a VERY hard edge intended and very much delivered. Well, yes. Point taken.

To be blunt, your reply is why folks like me are getting awfully hard ourselves. However many times I said it and however many different ways I said it it's still not heard because the extremism on the base issue of this is so profound, discussion isn't possible. Debate isn't even possible. It's flat out argument and mean spirited at that.

Although, because the opinion of some other people on here matters to me I'll give one final stab at this...and that's it for me and this whole general topic. It's like debating abortion, I swear. So many things are these days. Someone is either 100% with the "right" side or they are not and there is NO discussion possible. Period.

In this case, a prospective scout could be Gay, they could be Atheist, they could be female, they could be outspoken against the scouts and in a way totally unrelated to ALL of the above or they could just be a person who, on *ANY* other area of relevant topic, is against something the Scouts are for. It doesn't matter the precise point and that is what you've missed and so many on this thread have chosen to flat ignore while bashing the crap out of me for my nerve to hold a view contrary to your own.

It's 110% principle. Nothing but Principle and the fact it's about gays has NOTHING to do with it. Nothing whatsoever beyond the mere fact that HAPPENED to be the issue THIS time for activists pressuring the BSOA by all means, at all levels and with absolutely no let-up until end goals were achieved. I've thought of noting specifics on WHAT I am talking about in various manner of traditional meeting places they've used for decades suddenly and without much thought, closed and slammed shut in their faces ....until they bent to the external forces they've fought on the same principle.

Now this wouldn't necessarily even BE an issue except that the BSOA DID choose to stand and fight this fight as an organization and with all the energy they could muster *VERY* recently. Now, this issue fit to fight with all that energy is one 'ehhh... not so important after all'? That, only that and NOTHING BUT that is what I find highly objectionable. Waffling and backpedaling to go sideways on something worth fighting for one minute but casually tossed aside as if never an issue to begin with ...and to those I've talked to RW and what I've read? Nothing remotely like good reasoning offered for why the 180 degree flip flop.

So..If that isn't clear through your single minded pursuit of agenda on this? There is nothing more I can EVER say or do. Direct your hate elsewhere as you truly know nothing about me and to suggest I am anti-gay in even implication shows you don't even know me by reading my posts here very much. You're a very quick draw on the sharp words and club of discontent and hate though. MIGHTY fast.

Figure this is about my last statement on this since I can't imagine how simpler I can put it short of crayons on a mural size message. PRINCIPLE doesn't CARE about SPECIFICS to justify, rationalize or otherwise say "but........." It's a pain in the butt to stand on sometimes too., A hell of a lot harder than what I'm debating, that's without doubt.
edit on 31-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

PRINCIPLE doesn't CARE about SPECIFICS to justify, rationalize or otherwise

You make it sound as though principle is impervious to error.

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 02:47 AM
nice too see freedom of choice is held in such high esteem in America. if a particular group or organization doesn't conform with popular opinion, the masses will just do what they can to force the entity to change. if they entity dosent change, they destroy it. apparently the boy scouts have decided to capitulate, some what, and give in to the demands of the masses... yay diversity?

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by david99118

nice too see freedom of choice is held in such high esteem in America.

What does freedom of choice even mean?? That's so ambiguous lol.....

Yeah America doesn't respect the 'freedom of choice' for Ted Bundy types to rape and murder women. For example.

We put limits. Just like EVERY other country.

No need to go to extremes. I was just making a point. What point were you making?....

if a particular group or organization doesn't conform with popular opinion,

If you want to call it that. I call it being modern. The world is evolving in the moral landscape. Keep up.

top topics

<< 1    3  4 >>

log in