The actions I’ve seen described above which were taken against the kids participating in the BSA are execrable. The kids are not to blame for the policy of the organization, and anyone who would victimize kids in such a way is obviously sadistic and possibly deranged.
I feel bad for the kids in the BSA at this point. They’re embroiled in an emotional powderkeg of a conflict, and they did nothing to deserve the sort of confusion that must go along with belonging to an organization at the heart of such a maelstrom. They should have the benefit of an organization that serves them in the way the BSA does.
The lack of tact, diplomacy, and forebearance displayed by the BSA leadership over this issue has been staggering. They have failed to take into account the welfare of their charges by creating a divisive atmosphere within their organization. They have also polarized public opinion against their group, jeopardizing their funding as well. And they did it all based on an irrational and unprovable fear that all gay men are child molesters. They pandered to ignorance.
I find it ironic, though not very funny, that now that the BSA has established its right to exclude gays, they’re having to learn what it means to be persecuted. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.
I’ve been a scout leader of some kind most of my adult life. I was a Girl Scout leader for four years back in the Mid-West, and when I moved to my current locale, I changed organizations, and have been a Camp Fire scout leader ever since. Camp Fire Boys and Girls isn’t nearly as big as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts (which I think is a fine organization), but it does have a stated policy of non-descrimination against people based on sexual orientation; they welcome anyone who has the interest and qualifications as members and leaders, regardless of their orientation (as does, IIRC, the Girl Scouts), or religious belief i.e., athiests are also welcome (there is no oath of any kind). There are alternatives for those who are interested in scouting and for whatever reason find the policies of the BSA objectionable.
IIRC (no cite), the availability of Camp Fire was used as a defense by the BSA in one Kansas City case (KC is the national headquarters of Camp Fire). The plaintiff countered that because Camp Fire is co-ed, it isn’t a true alternative for someone seeking membership in a single-sex organization.
Another ex-Boy Scout checking in - how’d I miss this thread for two days ?
My opinion is pretty much the same as SuaSponte or bare - Scouting was an incredibly positive force in my life growing up, but the current political stance of the National Council disgusts me. The Scouts are trading on a formerly well-earned and deserved reputation of moral leadership in order to publicize a position that they ought to have no opinion on whatsoever. They are insisting on preferential treatment - either as a public or private group, whichever is more advantageous - from both local governments and the organizations that have supported them in the past. Their “moral stance” is the opposite of what I would have expected from the Boy Scouts that I knew - which would never have pissed away its position of moral leadership by attacking its own Scouts and Scoutmasters. In short, despite the tremendous good that Scouting did for me as a teenager, I canot have any respect for the organization as it now exists.
Now, I’m well aware that Scouting has always, officially, had a policy of excluding gays and atheists. However, until very, very recently, the policy was, essentially “don’t ask, don’t tell” - a stupid compromise, but it allowed local troops to be as strict (or as loose) as they wished to. Being (at the time) a hardcore atheist didn’t stop me from achieving Life rank (one below Eagle) when I was in the scouts, because nobody asked about it, and sexuality was, quite properly, not something that ever got brought up in my troop. Had it been, I would never have reaped the many positive things I did from scouting, since I was as aware of my bisexuality back then as it’s possible for a confused 13-year-old to be. I thought that attraction to men=gay, and gay=bad, or at least worrisome, so my self esteem wasn’t tip-top, and hearing the same thing from one of my closest moral influences would have tipped me over the line into serious depression. I can well imagine the number of gay Scouts that must now be feeling the same way, and it saddens me to thinkthat the organization I once respected has come to this.
yes, they are a private organization, and they may take any moral position they choose, but they must accept the consequences of that position. Disagreement with their position, even strong disagreement, is the first and largest one- “bashing” has nothing to do with it.
Heh–this has absolutely no bearing on the larger question, but is funny nonetheless. This morning I drove up to the Krispy Kreme store to pick up a couple of donuts to have with breakfast. Wekend mornings there are a bitch anyway, but as I pull in, what do I see but two busloads full of Boy Scouts. And, lucky me, about half of them are standing in the store. You’d think that people wearing uniforms could do a better job of things like lining up, but anyway.
One of the Scoutmasters, about 45 or so, was standing at the counter while his order was being filled. A girl, about 20, comes in, goes up to the counter. Tall, blonde, not too bad looking at a glance, I suppose. I stood there and watched the Scoutmaster, the whole time she stood there, look her up, down, up, down, he’d smirkingly look over at the Scoutmaster standing by me, look her up, down, etc. As she left, his head turned to follow her out the door, then dropped so he could catch one last look at her ass.
All I could think was, “Well, at least he’s teaching them to be morally straight.”
{sigh} It’s hard for me - being all-fired socially aware, I find the BSA’s discrimination reprehensible. However, my nephew just got back from Jamboree, and I was very impressed with what he accomplished and what he gained from the experience.
It’s not my decision whether or not he’s in Scouts, but I’m at least glad to know that I’m in his life to make sure he is aware of the diversity around him, and also knowing that he has his head on right to know the difference between the skills he learns and the imperfections of the organization that teaches them to him.
If he were my kid, though, I’d have found a viable alternative.
I expect Scouting to promote the highest moral and ethical standards. By discriminating against gays, the BSA grossly fails to meet my expectations. I hope their hateful attitude does not spread to Scouting in my country.
Too bad the religious right is ripping apart a once fine organization south of the border. A bit too fundamentalist a nation for my comfort, but in so many ways we are so similar to it. I hope it’s hatred does not spread north.
My wife is a Gold Award winner in the Girl Scouts, and we have had the discussion many times since we read the Time article this week.
My position is simple. I disagree with the BSA policy on homosexuals, but if/when Jennifer and I have children (and one happens to be male) then he would be welcome to join the scouts if he so chooses. It is a valuble organization, and teaches boys (and we must remember, they are just boys) many important things. It just means that I, along with my wife, will have to teach him things like tolerance. If the BSA wants to hold this position, fine, but it is my duty as a parent to continue this teaching at home with my own belief’s and understanding. I think this part of it should be the most important. The BSA, GSA or the Camp Fire’s are supplimentary to the duties of being a parent.
This was touched upon earlier an promptly ignored. The BSA is not a baby sitting service. Get invovled with your child, and if you disagree with the BSA policy then tell him.
As the great lyracist Marshall Mathers said “Apparently, you ain’t parents.”
Happily, the GSA does not have this same problem from what I understand.
Where is the tolerance in the homosexual community for groups that don’t want to condone or promote homosexuality?
Remember, in most peoples eyes homosexuality is wrong. One might ask whether they are doing themselves any good by attacking “Mom, Dad, Apple Pie and Chevrolet.” Let it be.
I’m mostly in favor of freedom-- The last thing we need is a sexual mccarthyism. Leave those kids alone.
Why on earth would anyone want to be tolerant of intolerance?
Group 1: Please accept us.
Group 2: No. You’re all evil.
Group 1: Ok.
I don’t friggin think so.
Nobody is attacking “Mom, Dad,” etc. and that is just a really stupid point you’re making anyhow. Most people that I know think that judging others is wrong. And your first sentence here is very judgemental. Especially in light of the issues that have been discussed these past two pages. Sexuality, hetero or homo, has little to do with the Boy Scouts, so why the descrimination? Also, when someone sees something in their society that think should be addressed and argued for, the best course of action is never, “Let it be.”
Mostly in favor of freedom? Remind me never to vote for you. And nobody is talking about harassing kids. We’re talking about trying to convince the adults (who should know better) that tolerance is a better way to be.
The act, practice, or habit of tolerating, the quality of being tolerant, specif., the disposition to tolerate, or allow the existence of, beliefs,practices, or habits differing from one’s own, freedom from bigotry; sympathetic understanding of others’ beliefs, etc., without acceptance of them.
It’s obvious that you “forgot” that little part about not accepting them. That’s the key definition- you do what you want. I don’t have to like it, nor condone it, nor teach that it’s okay or correct.
What sort of tolerance would you like me to display? “Please, please, feel free to continue denying me the right to live my life like I’m a normal person and not some kind of freak? I’m sorry I ever asked to be treated as my actions deserve, instead of immediately discriminated against because of your bigoted, biased, ignorant opinions. Please feel free to continue to demean and degrade me, and all people like me, because you’re too lazy to do anything to cure your own ignorance.”
Fat chance, bub.
The reason people are outraged about the BSA’s position is that it espouses a viewpoint that states that homosexuals are a danger to our children, which is completely unproven. They are saying that gay people cannot be “morally straight”, whatever that means. They are being prejudiced; that is, they are judging people on a set of preconceived notions which have no basis in fact.
What I am asking for as a gay man, is not to be judged as a gay man. I want, instead, to be judged by my actions. Do I treat people with respect? Do I speak and act with intelligence and style? Do I work hard, and do my job well? Do I make my friends’ lives better, and treat strangers with kindness? Am I, in short, a good person?
You see, Tedster, that’s how you’re supposed to judge people. That’s how character is measured. By people’s actions. Prejudice is judging people by something as irrelevant as nationality, or race, or gender, or eye color, or sexual orientation. And the BSA is acting in a prejudiced fashion, and increasing the chances that such an attitude will be entrenced in our society in perpetuity. Which is, in case you’re wondering, a bad thing.
What sort of tolerance would I like you to display? The textbook definition, one that I would expect any other organization to hold. Tolerance does not mean acceptance of homosexual beliefs. In turn, you’re not required to accept the Boy Scouts of America beliefs, either. That is ultimately a fair definition of tolerance.
Nowhere would I ask that anyone be degraded or demeaned, just that I would ask the same in turn. I’m sure you’re a nice person, and that isn’t the issue, frankly. The larger issue is whether a private organization can be forced by law to accept behaviour fundamentally incompatible with its stated purpose. This is a matter of freedom, while you wish to be free to pursue your own way, others wish to be free to pursue theirs. A truly free society is able to make those distinctions, which is, I suspect, part of the reason the SCOTUS ruled the way it did.
Tedster, the issue is distinctly not “whether a private organization can be forced by law to accept behavior” etc. As you noted, the Supreme Court has already decided that issue in favor of BSA, and the issue was rightly decided.
No, instead the issue is whether we can/should support such an organization. For former scouts like myself, the issue is whether we should remain involved in and/or financially support such an organization. If I refuse to, I am not being intolerant, any more than I am being intolerant of the Nation of Islam by refusing to give it donations.
For the general public, the issue is whether we should subsidize such an organization, through free access to public facilities. If we refuse to, we are not being intolerant - we are saying that it is a fundamental principle that public facilities are to be open to all, and if you exclude certain people from your organization, you are denying access to the public facility while you are using it. Hence, we will not allow you to do so.
And finally, the issue for all is whether we should express our dismay at such a policy. And of course we should. It is not intolerance to state that a policy of any organization is improper or unethical.
I simply take issue with the definition of tolerance some seem to casually use. It seems strange to call Scouts unethical while they steadfastly follow their stated beliefs. I support their freedom to do what they want, which is worth voting for, that’s what this country is about.
I’ve known a couple “out” gays who are indeed very nice people. I wouldn’t want to hurt them for the world. Again, that isn’t the issue. I think Boston has announced they want to follow a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy similar to what’s currently in place in the US Military.
Another concern of mine is the absolute sewer our popular culture has become in just a few short years. When I was growing up in cub scouts, I had no idea what a homosexuals were. This isn’t a jibe against homosexuality, it’s a jibe at promiscuity and lewdness in general, from every stripe. Somehow, I just don’t think it necessary to have national discussions of interns and oral sex by former heads of state on national television, for example.
Even if those beliefs are actively hurting its members? Even if those beliefs are legitimizing a bigoted, ignorant viewpoint?
If I steadfastly believe that it’s my god-given duty to whack everyone I see wearing a green t-shirt with a whiffle bat, will you support me, too? It’s my stated belief that people wearing green t-shirts need to be whacked with a whiffle bat, and I’m steadfastly following my stated belief, after all.
My definition of tolerance does not include ignoring actions that actively hurt others. That comes under the definition of cowardice.
?