Boy Scouts to Admit Openly Gay Youths

reply to post by LightOrange

Take a big step back from all that emotion. It's toxic.

This isn't about gays, it never has been about gays per say and for as long as this culture war is going on..gays never WILL be the real issue. It's about control and 'our group' is more than 'your group' so how DARE your private organization not step and fetch when asked.

It's been all about accepting gay scouts until they actually DO...now the BSA is told that's just a half measure and tough...nothing stops for hurting them by boycott unless they take another policy change for the benefit of the group demanding it.

This is very simply a question as to whether the BSA or any other private organization in the United States has the right to operate on value based guidelines of membership. They tried to say they could set their membership criteria and war has been declared as an ongoing series of economic and logistic attacks for funding and locations they could meet. It wasn't a problem until the outside group MADE it a problem. That's really the biggest issue for me.

So after years of enduring the economic boycott and losing things like after hours classroom access they've enjoyed for generations ..they finally capitulate a HUGE thing for how hard they've fought it on the values they've felt were important in their organization ...just to be told "Not Enough...now do more".

Oh nonsense on gay issues as if it's about the one individual scout or one individual scoutmaster. Gay ones have existed as long as scouts have and anyone with half a brain knows it. This is 100% about control.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by LightOrange

 

Take a big step back from all that emotion. It's toxic.

Emotion is real. Emotion from these kids on these topics causes more youth suicide than any other area of our culture. It would be much easier for you to drop your predetermined political subscriptions than for these people who are experienced with this emotional trauma to "just drop it".

This isn't about gays, it never has been about gays per say and for as long as this culture war is going on..gays never WILL be the real issue. It's about control and 'our group' is more than 'your group' so how DARE your private organization not step and fetch when asked.

It's been all about accepting gay scouts until they actually DO...now the BSA is told that's just a half measure and tough...nothing stops for hurting them by boycott unless they take another policy change for the benefit of the group demanding it.

It's funny how you're the one against freedom here. They're being boycotted. They changed their minds due to the boycott. The BSA had every right to uphold their "values", and the people had every right to boycott it. Freedom at work.

This is very simply a question as to whether the BSA or any other private organization in the United States has the right to operate on value based guidelines of membership.

They have that right. And the people had the right to boycott. They exercised that right. You want to take that right away? Fascism. Not that I would call it a "value", that's the fluffy word for it. It's straight up discrimination. A candy coated turd is still a turd.

Oh nonsense on gay issues as if it's about the one individual scout or one individual scoutmaster. Gay ones have existed as long as scouts have and anyone with half a brain knows it. This is 100% about control.

So how does something like this even start, then? I would be willing to bet that a kid was removed because of this nonsensical "value". His family, and fellow scouts would be rather insulted because there's nothing wrong with the kid. They raised a stink because they think the policy is ridiculous, and they aren't wrong. Think about this "value" you're trying to defend here, I mean honestly. "Anyone with a brain in their head" would recognize that doing arts and crafts and playing with sticks and singing songs around a campfire has nothing to do with who feel you are attracted to at the tender age of 12. Be realistic. This was boycotted simply because the policy was born from retardation. There is no magnanamous value to be seen for denial any boy of a specific group to not join the boy scouts. There's your toxicity.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by beezzer

 

Originally posted by beezzer
Forcing a group to accept another group is wrong.

Hey beez.

I think forcing the boy scouts to accept gay people is wrong.

Do you know who forced them and how? I'm curious about this now.

They were not "forced" by the rule of law. Several major organizations that make annual financial contributions, withheld them this year causing the BSA to rethink their position on the issue.

reply to post by LightOrange

Emotion is real. Emotion from these kids on these topics causes more youth suicide than any other area of our culture. It would be much easier for you to drop your predetermined political subscriptions than for these people who are experienced with this emotional trauma to "just drop it".

Drawing connections between the Boy Scouts and the very real national and in fact, international crisis of suicide and other serious problems with gay youth is really bad, IMO. The issues of the world are not the responsibility of the BSA. They are a private, not public organization, it was their right to exclude some based upon their own membership values.

It's funny how you're the one against freedom here. They're being boycotted. They changed their minds due to the boycott. The BSA had every right to uphold their "values", and the people had every right to boycott it. Freedom at work.

They've been far more than simply boycotted. this fight has run from the 90's to present. In and out of court. The BSA won the Supreme Court case which gave them the right to determine private membership policy, and so the economic war began.

In one notable part of the ongoing saga, California came right out and made law out of the fact the Scouts and it's feeder organizations could be treated differently, based on the private membership issue the Super Court said was their right.

Summary of 2006 Legal Issues - Six years after the Supreme Court ruled the Boy Scouts could ban gay leaders, the group is fighting and losing legal battles with state and local governments over its discriminatory policies.

The latest setback came Monday when the high court without comment refused to take a case out of Berkeley in which a Scout sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.

The action let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that Berkeley can treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofit organizations because of the Scouts' membership policies.

(Source: Timeline of BSA Gay Issues in court and legislation around the nation)

It's always interesting when it's stated outright and in clear terms. So the Government in Court can 'allow' the right and then the Government in Legislative can make you pay dearly above and outside similar organizations, if you choose to exercise that Government assured right.

Add to this, another very important aspect to this. The Boy Scouts date back to 1910. The values and traditions they ed) with predate by many generations, everyone in this overall fight from both sides. It's an organization that has worked quite well to date on those values, although apparently offending a minority of people. Yes.. I did say Minority. Extreme, Minority, in fact.

Gay Americans Make Up 4 Percent of Population

Gay Population In U.S. Estimated At 4 Million, Gary Gates Says

Now many pervious figures have put it at 10%, based on a study from 1948. This is recent study done by UCLA and with a serious approach to getting a valid result. Not a poll.

Numbers make no difference when it's a basic civil right, like Racial injustice has been. Being a Scout isn't a civil right and Boycotting in this case easily rose to the level of economic intimidation if not worse, IMO. It's been over 15 years of coming at the Boy Scouts every way humanly imaginable, after all.

(Intolerance is spending over a decade in court and out ...in public and out...to FORCE change within private organizations. That is intolerance, IMO)

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The only issue here is that you feel they have a right to be discriminatory because they are a private organization. Which yes they do the SC affirmed this. Yet are bemoaning the fact that the other private organizations chose to not fund them any longer because of their discriminatory practices. Do these donor organizations have a right to spend that money how they choose?

This is the response from the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, (i believe) the largest organization which supports the scouting program in the US: link

For the past 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong relationship with Boy Scouts of America, based on our mutual interest in helping boys and young men understand and live their duty to God and develop upright moral behavior. As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world.

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “young men … who agree to abide by Church standards” are “welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest. These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,” which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

As for the leadership question, I would ask anyone who is pro-homosexual leadership this: If it is OK for homosexual leaders to take out young men, then it must be equally OK for me, a 40 year old straight man, to take your 17 year old daughter on an overnight campout, right? I'm old enough and have self-control enough to not take advantage of the situation.
The honest fact is with my orientation, a 17 year old girl IS attractive to most men. They are sexually mature enough to fire off the neurons that produce arousal chemicals in a normal hetero male brain. Likewise, a 17 year old young man will create the same response in a normal homosexual's brain as well.

Originally posted by blamethegreys
As for the leadership question, I would ask anyone who is pro-homosexual leadership this: If it is OK for homosexual leaders to take out young men, then it must be equally OK for me, a 40 year old straight man, to take your 17 year old daughter on an overnight campout, right? I'm old enough and have self-control enough to not take advantage of the situation.
The honest fact is with my orientation, a 17 year old girl IS attractive to most men. They are sexually mature enough to fire off the neurons that produce arousal chemicals in a normal hetero male brain. Likewise, a 17 year old young man will create the same response in a normal homosexual's brain as well.

I have never been in the boy scouts, but isn't it a little unusual to have a 17 year old boy scout? Also, in the girl scouts, on overnight campouts, we never had just one adult. There were always at least two adults, usually more, depending on the number of girls. We're not talking about having only one adult by himself. As a matter of fact, I seem to remember a specific campout where the troop leader and her husband (along with another mother) took my daughter's girl scout troop on an overnight campout. So, you had two women and one man with a bunch of girls, aged 8-11. Wasn't a problem. Of course, according to Girl Scout regulations, the husband had to go through the standard screening that all adults must go through before being allowed with the troop.

reply to post by smyleegrl


The Boy Scouts are a privately funded organization and with that said they are free to allow openly gay boys into it's ranks regardless of what others think.

The biggest problem is that this has caused a great divide between leaders of the BSOA and it's member base. This was not a forward thinking decision made by the Boy Scouts to usher in a new age of equality, this was an all out assault by the gay rights, agenda pushing, bullie crowd to force what was a solid way to teach morality and integrity to young boys in a world that could use more of both to compromise their own values.

The problem with openly gay boys in the Boy Scouts is not that there is something wrong with gay boys, it's that what the Boy Scouts exist to do, to teach, has nothing to do with sex or sexual orientation and it's counter productive to have that element involved. This is the reason that they have a separate member base for girls and do not participate in co-ed.

They Boy Scouts will lose a very large portion of it's membership due to this decision and spin it any way you want, the gay community is a tiny percentage of the population which means that the percentage of parents for openly gay boys supporting the Scouts is equally tiny. The large majority of parents who will not condone this action, who will pull their children and their financial support will destroy the BSOA outright or will severely cripple them during a time of already dwindling membership.

In my opinion, this was a fight the gay rights activists shouldn't of wanted or needed. It's not about equality in this instance. Girls are not admitted to the Boy Scouts for very specific reasons, the same reasons openly gay boys should't be admitted. In the fevered pace to usher in a brave new world of "gay rights" it would appear that common sense and perhaps common decency may have been left behind.

Originally posted by Helious



They Boy Scouts will lose a very large portion of it's membership due to this decision and spin it any way you want, the gay community is a tiny percentage of the population which means that the percentage of parents for openly gay boys supporting the Scouts is equally tiny. The large majority of parents who will not condone this action, who will pull their children and their financial support will destroy the BSOA outright or will severely cripple them during a time of already dwindling membership.

You do realize that there are many, many parents with heterosexual sons who are also supporting allowing gay scouts? Many of those heterosexual sons are friends with these gay boys. What, you don't think heterosexual males can be friends with gay males? Another myth exploded.

reply to post by kaylaluv


No, its not uncommon.

Cub Scouts Motto: Do Your Best For boys in first grade through fifth grade (or seven through 10 years of age) 2012 membership, packs, and leaders: 212,677 Tiger Cubs (first grade) 726,775 Cub Scouts (second and third grades) 589,221 Webelos Scouts (fourth and fifth grades) 1,528,673 total Cub Scouts 44,830 Cub Scout packs 417,030 Cub Scout leaders

Boy Scouts Motto: Be Prepared Slogan: Do a Good Turn Daily For boys who are 11 through 17 years of age, or have earned the Cub Scouting Arrow of Light award and are at least 10 years old, or have completed the fifth grade and are at least 10 years old Ninety-five percent of all Boy Scouts participated in Cub Scouting at some time. 2012 membership, troops, and leaders: 848,263 Boy Scouts 38,713 Boy Scout troops 497,187 Boy Scout leaders

Varsity Scouting For young men 14 through 17 years of age Built on five program fields of emphasis: Advancement High adventure Personal development Service Special programs and events 2012 membership, teams, and leaders: 62,432 Varsity Scouts 8,353 Varsity Scout teams 23,210 Varsity Scout leaders

Source

reply to post by kaylaluv

You do realize that there are many, many parents with heterosexual sons who are also supporting allowing gay scouts? Many of those heterosexual sons are friends with these gay boys. What, you don't think heterosexual males can be friends with gay males? Another myth exploded.

Boys and girls can be friends too. Girls are not allowed into the Boy Scouts. What was your point again?

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You do realize that there are many, many parents with heterosexual sons who are also supporting allowing gay scouts? Many of those heterosexual sons are friends with these gay boys. What, you don't think heterosexual males can be friends with gay males? Another myth exploded.

Boys and girls can be friends too. Girls are not allowed into the Boy Scouts. What was your point again?

Gay boys are not girls. They are boys. They fit right into "Boy" Scouts because they are boys. Get it?

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

You do realize that there are many, many parents with heterosexual sons who are also supporting allowing gay scouts? Many of those heterosexual sons are friends with these gay boys. What, you don't think heterosexual males can be friends with gay males? Another myth exploded.

Boys and girls can be friends too. Girls are not allowed into the Boy Scouts. What was your point again?

Gay boys are not girls. They are boys. They fit right into "Boy" Scouts because they are boys. Get it?

No, I don't get it. Openly gay boys are sexually attracted to other boys, thus, it is inappropriate to allow them to cohabitate in the intimate situations that are a regular part of the Boy Scouts, in the same way that it is inappropriate for girls to do so.

Look, I'm all for gay rights but this one is nonsensical. The argument for this just doesn't have any weight to it. It's silly to think that girls are excluded from the Boy Scouts to avoid the same types of situations that are now presented with the inclusion of openly gay boys.

You can scream into my ear with a bullhorn all you want about how this is justified or was somehow needed to correct some great injustice by the bigoted, homophobic institution knows as the Boy Scouts but it's empty rhetoric and serves no other purpose besides degrading integrity of an institution that should not be known for sexual orientation or sex at all.

I am thinking by what has been posted here that those who oppose this would then rather have boys who are gay but HIDE the fact be in the scouts than those who are "openly" gay?

Makes sense to me! Not! Surely if you know the "other" persons inclinations you are forewarned and therefore forearmed?

ps. I am gay, I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout (as was my "straight" brother) and it never got in the way of any of the Cub or Boy Scout activities I took part in while a member!

ETA: I also served my compulsory two years in the South African Defence Force (Infantry) and my sexuality was the furthest thing from my mind during that time!

reply to post by Helious


Gay boys are not attracted to every boy they see. They don't want to force any boy into liking them. They want to have relationships with other gay boys. Gay boys who want to be in the Boy Scouts aren't evil deviants who want to rape other boy scouts. They just want to be a scout and do what scouts do - like camping and hiking and other stuff like that. It's not about sex. Quit making it all about sex.

This being empty rhetoric is just your opinion. To others, it's important and very meaningful.

Originally posted by wiser3

I am thinking by what has been posted here that those who oppose this would then rather have boys who are gay but HIDE the fact be in the scouts than those who are "openly" gay?

There is a big difference between gay and "openly gay". Openly gay is an odd term. Am I openly hedrosexual? No, I'm not, I am just hedrosexual because I don't feel the need to wear my sexual preference on my sleeve. Pinning a term such as openly gay on young boys was a bad idea to begin with and in many instances it's society that is labeling as gay in the first place.

Boys around that age are naturally experimentative and most likely some boys who are "openly gay" could in fact turn out to be hedrosexual in the future and vice versa. At that age I'm not completely sure it's responsible to label them as anything, especially as it pertains to sex.

Makes sense to me! Not! Surely if you know the "other" persons inclinations you are forewarned and therefore forearmed?

I doubt you will find many children with the ability and appropriate knowledge to forearm themselves for being in sexual situations.

ps. I am gay, I was a Cub Scout and a Boy Scout (as was my "straight" brother) and it never got in the way of any of the Cub or Boy Scout activities I took part in while a member!

I have no doubt that you were an upstanding and respected member! That said, it goes to show that you don't need your sexuality broadcast to be happy as a member or gain a sense of accomplishment from the program.

I also served my compulsory two years in the South African Defence Force (Infantry) and my sexuality was the furthest thing from my mind during that time!

Commendable service and while I believe you wholeheartedly about sex being the furthest thing from your mind, we can't make that assumption from everyone in the same situation.

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by Helious

Gay boys are not attracted to every boy they see. They don't want to force any boy into liking them.

Congratulations, you just described how girls view boys as well.

They want to have relationships with other gay boys.

Ah, I see..... And the Boy Scouts of America should be a venue for this why exactly?

Gay boys who want to be in the Boy Scouts aren't evil deviants who want to rape other boy scouts. They just want to be a scout and do what scouts do

I didn't say anything about evil deviants, rape or anything else. I simply stated that openly gay boys should be disallowed membership on the same basis that girls are. There is no demonizing of anyone in my opinion, I base my argument on pure logic.

like camping and hiking and other stuff like that. It's not about sex. Quit making it all about sex.

Am I making it all about sex or are the people who insist on OPENLY gay boys being allowed to join making it all about sex? That's rhetorical because the answer is pretty obvious.

This being empty rhetoric is just your opinion. To others, it's important and very meaningful.

I was referring to your speech as rhetoric not the situation in general which no doubt is important to some people, myself included.

Gays have been in scouts since the beginning, all that happens now is that they are no longer being kicked out for it.

reply to post by Helious


Ahhh, I see. You are getting hung up on the "openly gay" part. So you don't have a problem with gay boy scouts. Well, that's a good start. Now you just need to work on the fact that being "openly gay" doesn't mean hitting on every boy in the troop. It just means if you have a boyfriend outside the troop, you can talk about him, just like a heterosexual boy scout can talk about his girlfriend. I'm not referring to intimate sex talk, either. I'm talking about having a conversation like this -- heterosexual boy scout: "My girlfriend and I went to see that movie and we really liked it." gay boy scout: "Yeah, my boyfriend and I saw that movie too." In your world, the gay boy scout would not be allowed to even say that. He would have to be quiet. Is that fair?

As an Eagle scout, I must speak out in disgust at what they're doing! This is an abomination and should not be allowed!!

Nah, just kidding. I only made it to Life scout. I don't care really. I just find it odd that the scouts would make this change since they preach a duty to god and country. They are, or were, a huge Christian (or at least followed the ideology) organization. Guess the world is just changing that much.