Which was actually what Dale’s point was. The Scouts do not actually teach that homosexuality is bad, and thus allowing homosexuals to join would not interfere with their First Ammendment rights to expression. According to the Supreme Court, however, there is something objectionable (to me at least) there. I’ve never run across it, and if I actually agreed with the Supreme Court that homophobia is part of the Boy Scouts’ teachings, I would probably not be part of the organization.
To reiterate, New Jersey’s public accomodations law can prohibit organizations such as the Boy Scouts from discriminating, as long as integration does not interfere with the organization’s rights to express its beliefs. Thus, the Boy Scouts would have no right to discriminate against Catholics, as they do not express any ideals that are opposed to Catholocism. If it was a tenet of Boy Scouts that having any moral obligation to obey the Pope was wrong, allowing Catholics to join would interfere with its right to free expression.
In theory, they are not allowed to adopt teachings just to permit them to discriminate as they see fit. I say “in theory” because IMO they did exactly that in Dale’s case. Unless “morally straight” automatically excludes homosexuality, regardless of the fact that that is not included in the Boy Scout manual’s definition of the term.
My point was what would invariably happen sooner or later, and who would get blamed (and held financially responsible). This isn’t about truth and justice, it’s about lawyers and juries.
Also note that the Boy Scouts is supposed to be for the benefit of the boys, not for adults’ political leftist grandstanding. I very much doubt that normal boys would be very accepting of either gay leaders or scouts, and I’d also bet that many boys’ parents wouldn’t like it that much, either. - MC
As usual, my contribution is an ironic twist on the subject.
The only gay experiences of my life were in the Scouts. On campouts, two of the older boys took me into their tent. They said, “We’re starting a new club. It’s called the ‘Dick Club’. Want to join?” and forced me to blow them. This did not awaken in me any inclination to turn gay. On the contrary.
First Class is as far as I ever got. By the time I was 13 I tended to avoid the Friday night Scout meetings and roam the neighborhood looking for trouble. I am so glad I’m not 13 anymore.
Following that to its logical (if that’s the word) conclusion, hetrosexuals shouldn’t be permitted to teach students of the opposite sex in schools. There is “an assumption of predleiction” that they would make advances, right?
As opposed to saddling them with ignorance, so that “normal” boys won’t accept gay scouts or leaders?
Yes, exactly, and there are institutions that cater to those people, and there are outsider do-gooders complaining about them too. And same-sex schools are hardly perfect, but it is the choice those who participate in them have made. If you wanted your child to be in a non-segregated school, you wouldn’t sign him up in a boys’ school and then start complaining about how there’s no girls allowed, because you knew in advance that was a condition of the school.
You are assuming that all parents would want their boys to accept gay leaders, and would accept placing their child under the supervision of one. There has never been any indication that there are huge numbers of gays waiting for official sanction to join the scouts as regular members or leaders, and gays could start their own scouts if they wanted but that hardly seems to be the point. ~ We could start the Ghetto Gang Scouts with real gang members as leaders, and give merit badges in things like Crack, Pimping and Graffiti but you’re not likely to see many suburban parents jumping to enroll their sons because the subject is things they’d rather not have their kids get involved in at all. - MC
On the contrary–I assume that many, maybe even a majority, would not. But it hasn’t been all that long ago that many, maybe even a majority, of white parents would have felt the same way about non-white scout leaders. I’ll be damned if I see any real difference between the two–ignorance is ignorance, bigotry is bigotry, and just because some people’s brains go into vapor lock over those who weren’t cut from the same cookie-cutter as themselves is no justification.
Well, as I pointed out in another recent thread on this matter, the Boy Scouts have a policy of always having two adult leaders present.
As for parents who simply object to homosexuality, the number would vary from community to community. Out here in the Boston area (outside, perhaps, of the more conservative, heavily Catholic areas) I would imagine that more parents would be opposed to an organization that discriminates against homosexuals than one that doesn’t. Thus, the benefit of the idea of allowing chartering organizations to decide on their own.
However, if you had a daughter and the school was the only decent school in your opinion in the area, you might be inclined to advocate for them to change.
However, the main difference is that an all-boys’ school will generally have a good reason for being that way. Or at least some logical reason. A long tradition of “preparing boys for manhood” or some such. The Boy Scouts, on the other hand, do not, in my experience, teach any principles that are opposed to homosexuality. There is nothing inherently heterosexual about the organization. It simply happens to be run by a bunch of homophobes. It’s not like merit badges in picking up women or masturbating to Playboy are offered, much less required.
There’s lots of gay Dopers here, MC. You want to ask how many of them are interested in 12-year-old boys, or are you afraid of looking more foolish than you already do?
“However, the main difference is that an all-boys’ school will generally have a good reason for being that way…”
Um, no, not really. It’s just an opinion of the parents and instructors concerned, that it is a superior social situation for the intended purposes. In short, it’s an opinion, the same as if teaching your kid how to use heroin is a good idea or not.
~
“There’s lots of gay Dopers here, MC. You want to ask how many of them are interested in 12-year-old boys, or are you afraid of looking more foolish than you already do?”
There’s also probably Dopers who use hard drugs–maybe even heroin. How much quality time would you want them spending around your kids?
~
“However, they allow female Boy Scout leaders. This is obviously not their concern. Or if it is, it’s founded on ignorance.”
No, it is founded on the traditional family structure that the scouts teaches, which gays do not fit into. -Or at least, they used to teach… - MC
Bolded part is what you said. And I think I’m going to let someone else address this fully, since I have to go now and don’t have the proper time to think of epithets suitable enough. I will say this:
Comparing homosexuals to hard drug users in a non-flattering way: Bad . . . BIG Bag Idea.
Don’t know about you, MC, but there’s a lot of gay and bisexual people that I would trust to take care of my child (if I had one). There’s also a lot of straight people I wouldn’t want any child of mine around.
What was your point again? Bigotry really doesn’t suit you, you know.
There is some good evidence that significant numbers of students of both sexes can benefit academically from single-sex schools. There are, for example, all-boys’ schools in Detroit in which the boys perform significantly better than those with similar backgrounds going to the co-ed schools, and which have a much higher retention rate. There is evidence to indicate that some girls greatly benefit from girls-only math classes in middle and high school. This is research-based and supported pedagogy, not just someone’s opinion.
[ul]
[li]implied that homosexuality equals pedophilia,[/li][li]labeled homosexuals’ fight for equal rights “leftist grandstanding,”[/li][li]equated homosexuality with the use of hard drugs (for the False Analogy of the Year Award, I might add.)[/li][/ul]
Upon further review of my Education journals, I find that the information I posted regarding Detroit schools was based on a proposal for some boys-only schools, and that these schools were shut down by court order before they could be opened. My bad, I should have checked the journals first before posting.
Single sex schooling in the U.S. outside of private schools has not been around long enough to have been studied accurately, but it has been in Australia, which has a public school system similar to the US.
I would trust goboy, SqrlCub, dcnewsman, or matt_mcl around my kids before I would trust you around my kids.
Why don’t you stop pussyfooting around and just state outright “homosexual=child molestor”? Since you obviously believe it, surely you can defend it logically.
Ya know, I was gonna give a few people on either side of this issue a good talking to for being hostile in MPSIMS once again. But then I read this:
Please add my “WTF?” to that growing list, MC. What sort of implication is that? You’re forcing me to make a decision here.
Now, I’m sure Weirddave never intended this thread to run the course it’s taken. I’m going to wait for him to choose either one of the following:[ul][li]This thread will be moved to the Pit because of the course the debate has taken;[/li]This thread will be closed because it has moved away from the OP too much.[/ul]In any case, the conversation as it is now will NOT continue in MPSIMS, for obvious reasons. Other than that: your call, Dave.
Both VMI and The Citadel were (and are) state schools, owned and supported to varying extents by the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of South Carolina, respectively.
FWIW, the women’s colleges that they were frequently compared with at the time are private institutions. Apparently there’s sufficient demand for all-female collegiate educational experiences that a number of private women’s colleges have been able to remain all-female and stay in business. And apparently all the one-time private men’s colleges and universities have either found it necessary or desirable to go co-ed, or have folded.
When the ruling came down that VMI would have to enroll women, persons who had been associated with the leadership of the college did look into the possibility of taking it private. IIRC, the Commonwealth of Virginia, which owned the place, left the door open for that possibility. But they made it clear that they considered VMI to have some value, and they wanted to be compensated for that value by any private group that wished to take over the running of the institution. So it wasn’t just a matter of operating expenses that prevented a private takeover of VMI, if I remember my facts correctly.
In the case of The Citadel, I don’t recall any serious attempt to take the school private.