If a male Scout leader mentioned his wife offhandedly, would he be kicked out of the BSA? Removed from his position as a leader? As a former Girl Scout, I’m proud of their more progressive views.
I’m sorry, I thought we were having a conversation on a currently relevant, grey-area topic. My mistake for forgetting this was the Pit, and that disagreement meant ad-hominem attacks.
I would be offended, but my skins grown a little too thick for that.
Just know that there is at least one person (me) that doesn’t agree with the statement of the committee. Sounds like there are other members in this thread that agree with me.
Perhaps when you’ve been around a little bit longer, you’ll find the world isn’t such a cut and dried place, and you’ll pick and choose your battles. IMHO the good that the pack/troop level provides to their kids is remotely distant from the statements of Corporate, and the politics of the situation vary from area to area. I suspect my ‘progressive views’ would be different from some of the more rural areas of the Nation…that’s the whole ‘not cut and dried’ thing at work there.
Thanks though, this ‘Bigoted asshole’ knows how much value to assign to your opinion.
Exactly. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Boy Scouts is lame anyway…put your kids in Civil Air Patrol.
Nothing transparent about a statement with that many internal contradictions!
The Girl Scouts are lucky because they don’t have any Mormon troops and have a fabulous revenue stream from their cookies.
The Mormon Church outsources its male youth program to the Boy Scouts, and thus has de facto veto power over their Gay Policy. The Mormons have made it very clear that the day the Boy Scouts let in gay people is the day all Mormon troops withdraw and form their own program. The BSA has sold its soul to the Mormon church and is doomed to be exactly as behind the times as the church is.
Scouts Canada Code of Conduct for Adults:
Scouts Canada’s Rover Crew 129:
Too bad that the Boy Scouts of America is so perverted as to persecute gays. It doesn’t have to be that way, as proven in Canada.
Ogre has it in one.
There are lots of good things about scouting, but they can be found elsewhere without signing on to a hate group.
At six, I definatrly make decisions for them that set values. I determine that the cannot drink alcohol at home, that they cannot swear, and that they cannot join discriminatory organizations.
If my son decided at fourteen to join Scouts, I’d be disappointed and explain to him why, but it would be his decision.
Why in the world do the BSA think it’s better to force gay boys and leaders to lie about their sexuality, rather than just let them be open about it?
They flat out admit that they don’t inquire about sexuality of members and leaders, so they have no problem with gay people actually being in the organization, just that they lie and keep their mouths shut about it.
Isn’t this a contradiction of the value of honesty and truthfulness that boy scouts supposedly teaches?
If they were going to be consistent, they should actually say, “We don’t want any gays in our organization whatsoever, closeted or open. We will ask about the sexuality of every member, and if they admit to being gay, they get booted out. We will show them hardcore gay pornography while we observe their genitalia, and if we see even one iota of movement or enlargement, they are out.”
It’s the only way to be sure, and to be consistent. Right now their stance is, “We don’t mind gays being in the BSA as long as they are lying about it.” Stupid.
That requires honesty and a willingness to own the nature of your true beliefs.
You see any of that, on display, with the Mormon running for the White House? I sure don’t. They seem to have gained headway into mainstream culture by somewhat hiding who they really are, and what they really believe. They’ve kind of mastered not saying too much, which evasions serve them best
We’re talking about a religion that routinely rebaptizes, the deceased of other faiths, and justify it as making them, ‘Christians’. How anyone can take these people seriously is a little baffling. And the funny underwear? Come on, that’s a joke, right?
Even if you can forgive, the cash strapped BSA, for being strong armed into such a stupid stance, can you really overlook who’s in control?
They are following in the proud U.S. military tradition of “don’t ask, don’t tell” (at least before that proud bit of hypocrisy was overturned).
Tis true.
But note that plenty of folks were willing to put up with that shit for the benefits that being in the miltary gave them.
Are you selling out? Are you just being pragmatic? Are you realizing that nobody agrees on everything and sometimes you just have to deal? Are you endorsing their position by just going “yeah whatever” while you do and act how the hell you really want to anyway? Is staying so you can eventually change it better than fleeing the ship and making whats left of the organization worse?
If they were to shrug off the Mormon overlords, and their hate for the gay, tomorrow, (once the cheering died down), someone would have to be there to lead them as, one assumes, people come back to scouting in droves.
Stay or go, I could see value in both positions. The teaching moment thing, also.
Part of the internal debate is how many units would fold if they allowed local control. It is the big unknown, and probably what the CSE (Chief Scout Executive) is worried about / balancing - potential losses due to accepting gay leaders vs. potential gains due to not being a bigoted organization (getting back into schools and public spaces for example).
I think that on a pure numbers basis the gain will outweigh the loss. Worse, we are acting like we are the weaker negotiating participant here, instead of acting like we are strong.
Plus it would fit into the Law of Reverence where we are supposed to respect the beliefs of others - and plenty of charter orgs (like my church) accept gays now.
I think you misunderstand. I think Scouting is awesome, and I’m sad that–save a change in the organization–the Dudeling won’t get to take part in it. He’s only three, but it makes no difference if he turns out straight or gay, or whether the local club is tolerant or not, he will not be joining an organization that discriminates against gay people. I do not think all Scouts are anti-gay. I even have a warped enough outlook to think that the BSA’s statement that the membership is behind the practice is at best myopic polling.
I disagree that making this decision is equivalent to making “ALL” the decisions. Furthermore, though I’ve only three years’ experience, I think there are some decisions that I need to make for him. At six or seven years old, he will barely have an idea of what homosexuality is, let alone the wider personal and societal harm that stems from discrimination. I do not think he will have the capacity to weigh the happy joys of macaroni sculptures against the harms of the overall practice. This is a decision I am making for him. It is my hope that as he ages, he will make similarly moral decisions.
That doesn’t mean joining is warranted. If a parent organization discriminated against black people but a local club bends the rules just a bit—or has never had a black person apply and even has some great black friends—would you feel the issue is the same? I normally take the argument that the two types of discrimination are the same with a grain of salt, but it’s a very useful and apt analogy here.
That’s basically it in a nutshell. I’m sad because I wanted to do a lot of particular things with my kid. Yes, there will be ample substitutes, but there is only one pinewood derby, even if other clubs race wooden cars. But it’s time for the organization’s cache to dim. If they make the change for monetary reasons, it’s still time for them to fade—as other posters have said more eloquently, discrimination runs against the core principles of the organization, as does changing principles to accommodate fiscal needs. Perhaps if the new president is able to break the lock of whatever band of conservative theocrats are dominating the organization, then that’s a different story.
I would not tell my son to sit at a lunch counter and get a hamburger because it has nothing to do with race. There are other places to eat, and I make a mean campfire dinner.
I agree, which is why the discriminatory ban is even more objectionable.
If I’m not repeating myself, I think for some it’s not a grey-area topic. Discriminating against gay people is wrong. *You’re *not discriminating. Nor is the connection between participation at the lower levels a strong enough connection to make any homophobic suggestion. But this is one of the relatively rare black and white cases where “no son, though it’s a lot of fun and has many benefits, you simply cannot join an organization that discriminates like that.” I think this means I’m going to have to go out and find a gay person or kid to befriend, because it’ll be a lot easier to explain to him.
(BTW, sorry to keep quoting you, but these were all separate posts. Also, we’re on the same page that disagreeing in the Pit does not require ad-hominems.)
I guess if were Nascar or something like that it might make just a little more sense. But bigotry seems so at odds with Scouting, let alone Truthfulness, etc.
ETA:
You mentioned the Mormons a couple times. Anyone have a good–reputable–link that explores or explains the Mormon connection?
This is what I was wondering about. It sounds like the Mormons or people that don’t like gays or Mormons that don’t like gays (or whoever) are the ones calling the shots.
But, how many people involved in scouts really don’t WANT gay folks in positions of power? At least to point that if a local scout master was gay (but hopefully not Mr Slave Gay 
) that they would actually leave scouts?
I gotta think the people that gayness would be a dealbreaker for has got to be smaller than people that when push comes to shove really don’t care.
Anybody got any actuall ideas on percentages and so on here?
The largest chartered organizations by registered units:
- LDS (37,882 units)
- Methodists (11,078 units)
- Catholics (8,570 units)
- Baptists (4,099 units)
- Lutherans (3,902 units)
- Presbyterians (3,663)
- Citizen Groups (3,445)
- Business/Industry (2,987)
- American Legion (2,589)
- Lions Clubs (2,387)
Okay. So you need to combine those numbers with what percentage of each group would at least tolerate gay folks being part of the organization at something a bit more tolerant than a don’t ask, don’t tell level (ie, being gay is tolerated but you can’t be tootin your horn about it…so you could actually be gay and not kicked out JUST for being gay).
The internal scuttlebutt is that the Mormons would all leave. Unsure about others.
What are those numbers? The number of troops sponsored by each organization? Holy cow I had no idea the BSA were so entrenched with churches.