I fail to see any actual cases of that.
The closest thing you brought up was the Salvation Army, and they’re kinda borderline.
Serving a portion of the population is fundamentally different from discriminating.
The BSA will not let any Gay boys in.
The GSA will not let any… boys in.
As the 1st is discrimination- why isn’t the 2nd? The BSA has said that it does NOT 'serve ALL boys"- just that segment which is non-gay.
Myrr- the UW has ADMITTED that those other groups disciminate- but they want an 'exception" for them. Either you 'discriminate" or you don’t. Either ALL groups that discriminate get $$, or NONE do. Other wise the very UW itself is discriminating.
Designing your programs & stuff so that they will attrack only one segment of the population is fine- but not allowing other segments to join is discrimination.
Note that now every “all male” (in any way supported by public funds) school has had to admit women- why then would not every similar all-woman school be forced to admit males?
Pigs- sure, you can AIM your help at one segment of the population- but in the case of seniors- can you say that someone who is 6 months under the “cut-off” age is not to be helped? So it is OK if there are separate groups- so if there was a “Gay scouts of America”- then the BSA could exclude gays- as then every boy has a ‘scout’ group to be in?
And t’would be such a pity if their sons turned out to be gay, t’wouldn’t it?
Esprix
My feelings are very mixed with this whole Boy Scouts thing. I don’t agree with their stance on gays any more than I agree with their stance on atheists. However, I was a member of the Cub Scouts and a Webelo (pronounced very like “We Blow”, as delicious an irony as you could wish for, considering :D) and I can attest that all such issues were well below our radar. We were just kids going on trips, having Pinewood Derbys, and doing crafts. It never was, at least in my experience, a place where such issues as sexual identity or regligious convictions were explored. It was just a social group, and it’s sad that the petty wranglings of our adult world have to stand in the way of that for these kids. Do I think that the BSA leadership has cranial-rectal syndrome? Yes. Do I support withdrawing money from a bunch of Cub Scout troops? Not really.
To toss in a legal concept that may help clear this up, Daniel - it doesn’t apply here in a legal sense, but it may be helpful.
If one is discriminating against a certain group of people (not a group defined by gender, race, etc.), one can do so if the discrimination is “rationally related” to the purpose being served. For example, states can bar people under 16 from getting driver’s licenses because the purpose of licensing people to drive is to ensure safe roads, and most people under 16 aren’t going to be good drivers.
To apply this concept to the UW’s allowance of discrimination against boys by GSA, but refusal to contenance the BSA’s stance: GSA is set up and serves the purpose of the development of girls into productive, honest, active women, etc. Since they only want to develop young girls, it would make no sense to allow boys to join - they can’t become women of any kind. Further, given the interactions of boys and girls at that age (someone else provide the cites to psych studies), allowing boys to join would serve to make the GSA’s purpose much more difficult to achieve. Hence, the GSA’s discrimination is rational.
OTOH, BSA says that it wants to turn young boys into productive, honest, active men, etc. In the case of the Explorers, they want to do the same to young girls. BSA seems to be of the opinion that gay and atheist young boys can’t become productive, honest, active, etc., and that gay and atheist men can’t mold young boys into productive, etc., men. Given the large number of productive, honest, active, etc., gay and atheist men in the world, BSA could still achieve its stated purpose while allowing in gays and atheists, or so UW believes. To prohibit them isn’t rational, or so UW believes.
BSA is allowed to claim that gays and atheists are immoral or whatever. The UW is allowed to decide this claim is nuts, and not give them their money.
Sua
-
my description of the purposes of the Explorers is little off. BSA does not want to turn young girls into productive, active, etc., men.
-
As for the GSA’s policy on homosexuality, it isn’t quite “don’t ask, don’t tell”. The official policy is that no GS leader, gay or straight, may reveal her sexuality to her troop. This is, of course, honored more in the breach (every time a husband comes to pick up a GS leader, she is revealing her sexuality), but it is a convenient and comfortable fiction for all those involved.
Sua
You’re saying that they support FTM sexual reassignment survey?!? :eek: 
In all seriousness, my problem with the BSA attitude is based on two things:
First, that they are effectively the only such organization for boys. There is no choice between joining BSA and the Catholic (or Methodist or Atheist) Scouting League – “the Scouts” equals the local BSA chapter. If “Scouting for All” has gotten off the ground at all, I’ve seen no coverage of it.
Second, that their ban on gays is based on stated orientation. If, as many people do, you believe that any practice of gay sexual activity is sinful, or even that there is a time and place for everything, then having a rule that “you may not play with your tentmate’s winkie” is probably an okay thing to have in place. (I am not advocating the attitude that gay sex is inherently sinful, but following a train of logic and accepting it as a possible moral standard for a group to have.) But they are basing their attitude, not on sexual practice, but on orientation. And at that point, they are immediately classifying a group of kids and adults as not “morally straight” based on their sexual orientation. If they banned every boy who has lustful thoughts (sinful under most standards), they would have troops consisting of three eleven-year-olds and one inhibited teenager with major identity issues to deal with. At that point, they have demonized an entire minority group. If they refused to allow Jews as Scouts on such a basis, there would be an unholy uproar. (The comparison is closer than you might at first think: it is a choice whether to practice the Jewish faith, but not one whether one’s ancestry and ethnicity is Jewish.)
Perhaps they could exorcise the gay boys? :rolleyes:
For the record, after posting the above, I went home and happened to read in a magazine a short interview with an official of Scouting Canada, the equivalent to BSA, which does not exclude on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, they have a troop in Toronto that focuses on providing “the Scouting experience for gay boys.”
Which leads to some interesting questions.
See, now, in a way, I think that’s wrong, too.
Scouting is supposed to be for camping, rope-tying, arts & crafts, etc. On top of that, it’s supposed to instill a sense of pride in yourself and in your community. The former has nothing to do with sexuality and/or sexual politics (for lack of a better term), and the latter should focus on diversity and acceptance. So why “gay-focused?” What, really, does that have to do with scouting?
Be inclusive and teach acceptance. I don’t see a need for anything further than that.
Besides, what kid scouting age knows they’re gay anyway? What’s the upper limit? (Shows how much I know about the scouts.)
But, OTOH, God bless their little hearts - sounds like a troop I’d have wanted to join!
Esprix
Sua, regarding your first post, may I say, you da man.
Yeah, I was aware of that policy (I was a GS leader and I read the manual/bylaws), but I sort of paraphrased in my post. In fact, rather than being comfortable with the policy, I was a bit irritated. As you point out, it’s a fiction. As a bisexual woman, I could not, for example, hold hands with a female partner during a GS event, but it probably wouldn’t be a problem with a male partner. Still, it’s better than the BSA policy.
Uh, 'Sprix, “when did you choose to be gay?” 
The age limits for Scouting (BSA) are a minimum of 11, maximum in late teens – I’m not sure there is actually an upper limit, but boys tend to drop out after 16, except for those going for Eagle, who are usually 17 or 18 when they make it. They’re generally trained as junior leaders – “Senior Patrol Leader” or “Junior Assistant Scoutmaster” in the process.
Presumably, the kids are doing the interior identification process in the years they’re most interested in Scouting. There was the case of the 13-year-old activist in Orange County, CA, brought up here and in the Advocate some months ago, and there’s another 13-year-old somewhere near you, in the Philly suburbs who has been making waves in his community by being out at 13.
And from the accounts of teens I’ve read, I cannot think of anything healthier for a gay teen than “not having to watch one’s reactions like I always have to do, because everybody else here is like me” – the sense I’d presume they would get from this.
Why a special group? The article didn’t go into that, but Toronto is a big city, and probably has a lot of out gay teens. Matt_mcl may know more – journalism this side of the border, particularly this far south, tends to ignore Canada.
Well, alright - I know kids that come out to themselves as early as 14. But still, seems like inclusivity is a better idea to me than straight-focused or gay-focused.
Huh - news to me. Link me, baby!
Yes, yes. Still doesn’t seem like the Boy Scouts are the place for it, though (and yes, I understand the importance of sexual development during the teen years).
Esprix
Gaah! My intention was simply to make the point that boys of Scouting age are making the self-identification that you did at probably a similar age. And I did it in an “ironic” style to say, in effect, when does a kid know he’s gay? It varies from pre-puberty to age 60 or so, from the sounds of things.
And, yeah, I agree that all things considered, inclusive is best. I don’t know enough about “the gay troop” to argue for or against it…just added the fact that Scouting Canada is inclusive and has this one troop focused on gay boys from the article, which was brief.
And not online, as, I find, is the one about the Penna. teen. I’ll look up the article and let you know where to find it in the print version.