reply to post by captaintyinknots
I wasnt thinking of boys 7th to 12th grade, when I was a kid most boys were in it from 3rd grade to about 7th. You are absolutely right, boys after
about 7th grade go into hyper-sexual mode.
The Boy scouts are comprised of a large age bracket that for eagle scouts goes all the way up to 17 with the older boys being the higher end of
enlistment than the opposite end of the younger kids. You have to consider this is probably a big reason they reached the decision that they did. A
change of policy for this particular "issue" affects many children, most in fact are in the "hyper-sexual" bracket.
It's not that big of a reach to see why that could be and most certainly would be problematic for not only the Boy Scouts but also the majority of
parents who want there sons to be a part of the boy scouts. Not necessarily because of the gay issue although I will grant you that is probably a big
part of it but by and large it introduces sexuality to the scouts and the possibility of sexual contact and exposure, something that has not
traditionally been an issue.
I wasnt thinking of boys 7th to 12th grade, when I was a kid most boys were in it from 3rd grade to about 7th.
I don't think children in the 3rd 4th or even 5th grade would know their gay, maybe there are some questions but for a parent to label a child gay in
the 5th grade is not only irresponsible, it's fantasy. That leaves a very small percentage of kids that would be in the boy scouts that are not
sexually interested. Introducing openly gay children among heterosexual children while in intimate settings such as club houses, camping sights,
tents, showers is problematic at best and not for the whole of society as the gay agenda pushers would have you believe but for the majority of
parents that enroll their children in boy scouts because of what the organization is supposed to offer their children morally. Presenting sexual
situations was not what they were founded to do.
And I agree with it to an extent, as I think the idea of sexuality being flaunted in general is silly, and generally nothing more than attention
seeking (often by people with very low self esteem). But there is a difference between not flaunting it and being forced to blatantly lie about it.
I agree with you here, absolutely. That said, would it not be best if the gay community had their own program that is similar? I say this because if
one of my children were gay, say, one of my sons perhaps, I wouldn't wan't to ship him off to the boy scouts knowing how children are to possibly have
him ridiculed, insulted and rejected by the majority of the troop. It's unfortunate this happens but as evidenced by the epidemic of "Bullying" in
this country right now by children our society has brought up, it's hard to argue this sort of behavior would be rampant in the presence of openly gay
boys and possibly do more harm than good to the child in the name of the partent wanting equal "gay rights".
Also, allowing children of the same orientation the chance to relate to others that are going though the same things perhaps could be beneficial
although it would introduce the same type of sexual risk associated with boys "bunking" with girls would I guess, I never said I had ALL the answers.
More than anything, though, I brought this thread up to showcase, as another poster called it, misplaced paranoia. I have accepted that the boyscouts
wont accept gays. I dont have kids, and am not gay nor am I looking to work for the boyscouts, so it truly doesnt affect me in any way, other than the
fact that I think it is sad. But I find it amazingly hypocritical that a felon is more acceptable to work with these kids than a gay person.
I welcome this type of debate many places, it's always interesting to me to see how the evolution of mankind develops in the ways of society and in
some arguments I see a lot of merit, such as same sex unions. This particular issue though, I must say, I strongly disagree that it is a
discriminatory issue as it is compared to ethnic or religious purposes.
Lastly, It really depends on what the felony was for. I'm 37, I was convicted of "Retaining a stolen financial transaction device" when I was 17 and
pleaded guilty before I even knew what a felony was. I am now a felon despite never being in any other trouble my entire life, not even a traffic
ticket in over 8 years. So, I don't buy into that a person is a "felon" so he is a menace to society without first questioning the crime.
After all, it's getting to be that crossing the street in America today is a crime. I appreciate your debate Cpt. I understand why you created the
thread and I totally understand where your coming from. In parting, I would have to say that the Boy scouts are probably within their rights to uphold
the decision to not allow this for now and I think it is a complex set of problems they had to consider and that we all must consider when it comes to
issues like this. What is important is to keep having the conversations as society evolves.
edit on 14-2-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)