Boy Scouts Maintains Gay Ban, But Accepts Convicted Criminals

Did a search, didn't see. Remove if i'm wrong

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Boy Scouts of America might be adamantly against including gay members, but convicted criminals are another story.

"HRC obtained a copy of their job application, which says: 'The Boy Scouts of America will not employ... known or avowed homosexuals,'" writes HRC. "The icing on top? 'Conviction of a crime is not an automatic bar to employment' according to the application. That's right – a person's sexual orientation is more of a red flag than their criminal record."

Not really sure what more there is to say about this except a hearty "BOOOOOO". How anyone can let their kids be a part of this organization at this point is beyond me.

I find it interesting that the line: 'The Boy Scouts of America will not employ... known or avowed homosexuals,' does not constitute discrimination.

Well, that's alarming, to say the least. Talk about irrational fears; willing to trust your child with a convict before a homosexual.

It is discriminating against gays; I wonder why the Boy Scouts aren't being sued by the ACLU?

I don't like their stance on the issue either but the Boy scouts have the same constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech as the rest of us.

I don't understand why so many people are focused on forcing organizations to do things in ways they don't wish to.

I mean why in the world would a homosexual want to belong to such a group that is so discriminatory in the first place? Homosexuals are certainly more than welcome to open a competing organization and I feel like they should if they haven't already. I feel it would be interesting to see how many parents allow their children to join the "openly gay boy scouts" though I would guess not many, which I am guessing is the real reason behind the ban.

If you can't join them, beat them. Not with laws but with open competition.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Well, that's alarming, to say the least. Talk about irrational fears; willing to trust your child with a convict before a homosexual.

Depending on what the "felony" is for, I might be inclined to make the same stance. Too many stupid things are crimes these days.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroyIt is discriminating against gays; I wonder why the Boy Scouts aren't being sued by the ACLU?

What part of "private organization" do you fail to comprehend? They can legally discriminate about whom they allow in their organization. Don't like it? Tough!

Maybe they have merit badges now for drug dealing, car jacking and other assorted thuggery, who best to teach kids about stuff like that than a convicted criminal?

It's not a gay ban. The kids can be as happy as they wish to be.

It's a homosexual ban.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
Well, that's alarming, to say the least. Talk about irrational fears; willing to trust your child with a convict before a homosexual.

It is discriminating against gays; I wonder why the Boy Scouts aren't being sued by the ACLU?

In most jurisdictions sexual orientation is not a protected class. What most people don't understand is that it is legal to discriminate, as long as the discrimination is not against a protected class. Those classes, in most jurisdictions include race, sex, age, or religion, .

it is legal, for example, to refuse to hire left handed people, or bald people, or people who like the TV show survivor.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

It is discriminating against gays; I wonder why the Boy Scouts aren't being sued by the ACLU?

Yes, how dare that evil group of people trying to teach young men how to grow up, be responsible and have the tools they need in life not want to accept openly gay boys. I bet they don't take African American or Jewish children or kids that are Muslim either!

Oh wait.... They do take those other kids? Hmmm, I guess there not really discriminatory, I guess they just don't want to take young men who's moral compass points them in the direction of forcing others to accept their sexual preference openly, most probably because sex doesn't come in the form of a merit badge.

Wan't to be a boy scout and your gay? Cool, go join and don't flaunt your sexuality to your fellow scouts or scout leaders, shouldn't this be the NORM anyway?

I know the gay agenda charge is in full swing but is nothing sacred? Leave the boy scouts alone for Gods sake. If it's that big of a problem go start the Gay Boy Scouts of America and they can go pour over their sexual orientation and banter about gay "rights" under the stars all night.

NEWS FLASH - THEY DON"T TAKE GIRLS EITHER! Those bigots!

P.S. Sorry Cpt

reply to post by Helious


No sorry necessary. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

Thing is, though, that I dont think it has anything to do with flaunting sexuality at all. Young boys rarely have a whole lot of sexuality to begin with. But if a kid knows they are gay, what this says is that if they want to participate in this group, they have to blatantly lie, and hide who they are.

Now, if they said they wouldnt accept a black member, it wouldnt be a question. Every lawyer in the country would be salivating to get a piece of that.

We're talking about kids. There is not a whole lot worse than teacher a child that they are wrong for being who they are.

If it were just about scout leaders, I could see having the conversation (though I wouldnt agree with excluding them); but they're kids. Why would you want to exclude any of them?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Helious

 

No sorry necessary. Everyone is entitled to have an opinion.

Thing is, though, that I dont think it has anything to do with flaunting sexuality at all. Young boys rarely have a whole lot of sexuality to begin with. But if a kid knows they are gay, what this says is that if they want to participate in this group, they have to blatantly lie, and hide who they are.

Now, if they said they wouldnt accept a black member, it wouldnt be a question. Every lawyer in the country would be salivating to get a piece of that.

We're talking about kids. There is not a whole lot worse than teacher a child that they are wrong for being who they are.

If it were just about scout leaders, I could see having the conversation (though I wouldnt agree with excluding them); but they're kids. Why would you want to exclude any of them?

I see where your going and I understand your points. With that said, the boy scouts are not a government funded operation like the military, they are a privately funded group and they do not pay the children to enlist. I'm really not sure what the basis is to say they are discriminating at all to begin with.

If people have a problem with what they perceive their polices are, simply do not sign your child up. I also have to say that I strongly disagree with your statement that young boys rarely have a lot of sexuality, unless they are all different than I was or most of all my friends from the 7th to 12th grade, in fact, I think I seen more sexuality in jr high and high school then in my entire adult life combined.

It's realistic to understand their position, parents want there sons joining this organization for specific reasons and don't want to have to worry about their son have to sleep in the same tent as a gay sexually exploratory boy. I really can't say I blame them, they wouldn't have a girl in that tent either. It potentially exposes the kids to something that should not be present in the charter and concept of the club.

Also, black is skin color, a race of people who have rich heritage and culture and also unfortunately a tragic past of being exploited and mistreated in this country. You can not compare skin color with sexual preference. I'n my opinion, it's not even remotely close to the same thing.

The amazing thing is that, and trust me, I've actually proven this with experiments in the past, many of those who claim that things like this should be acceptable towards gay people, will whine all night long when you try to say that there should be rules that do not allow people who are under a certain level of intelligence into something/somewhere.

So here's a question for all of the anti-gay folks round these parts:

Would it be okay if a place said that you are not allowed in if your IQ is below a specific number or if you did not leave high school with above a 3.0 gpa? Any moron can graduate from an American high school with over a 3.0, as long as they aren't mentally handicapped, with very little effort so it isn't like it would be unfair or anything.

Or even better...

What if I said that "Christians" were not allowed in my restaurant. Would that be unfair?

I would be a bit hessitant to send my kid to Boyscout camp for a week if they allowed homosexuals. They do have to answer to the parents of the kids. I'm sure they have been getting an ear full in the last month from parents about the issue. Bottom line, it is a private company that has to answer to the parents. The parents have apparently spoken.

reply to post by Helious


I wasnt thinking of boys 7th to 12th grade, when I was a kid most boys were in it from 3rd grade to about 7th. You are absolutely right, boys after about 7th grade go into hyper-sexual mode.

I do understand your arguments, and maybe it is just my history of working with disabled, troubled, and bullied kids, but I just can never agree that it is a good thing to exclude kids, or teach them they are wrong, just for being who they are.

.

You said earlier:

Wan't to be a boy scout and your gay? Cool, go join and don't flaunt your sexuality to your fellow scouts or scout leaders, shouldn't this be the NORM anyway?

And I agree with it to an extent, as I think the idea of sexuality being flaunted in general is silly, and generally nothing more than attention seeking (often by people with very low self esteem). But there is a difference between not flaunting it and being forced to blatantly lie about it.

More than anything, though, I brought this thread up to showcase, as another poster called it, misplaced paranoia. I have accepted that the boyscouts wont accept gays. I dont have kids, and am not gay nor am I looking to work for the boyscouts, so it truly doesnt affect me in any way, other than the fact that I think it is sad. But I find it amazingly hypocritical that a felon is more acceptable to work with these kids than a gay person.

I was in charge of my troop at summer camp one year as the SLP (senior patrol leader). Some of the kids discovered love notes another scout had written over a male camp counselor.

Needless to say, that child's parents ended up having to pick him up and take him home. The kid was being viciously made fun of for being gay. I had to work really hard to keep them from beating that guy up.I think he was about 13. Afterwards, he dropped out of the troop and everyone forgot about it.

I'm not really sure how that adds to the discussion, but it is about homosexuality and Boy Scouts.

ETA: And yes, I am an Eagle.

reply to post by Anundeniabletruth

Would it be okay if a place said that you are not allowed in if your IQ is below a specific number

You mean like Menza?

or if you did not leave high school with above a 3.0 gpa

Any Ivy League School?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Did a search, didn't see. Remove if i'm wrong

www.huffingtonpost.com...

The Boy Scouts of America might be adamantly against including gay members, but convicted criminals are another story.

"HRC obtained a copy of their job application, which says: 'The Boy Scouts of America will not employ... known or avowed homosexuals,'" writes HRC. "The icing on top? 'Conviction of a crime is not an automatic bar to employment' according to the application. That's right – a person's sexual orientation is more of a red flag than their criminal record."

Not really sure what more there is to say about this except a hearty "BOOOOOO". How anyone can let their kids be a part of this organization at this point is beyond me.

I find it interesting that the line: 'The Boy Scouts of America will not employ... known or avowed homosexuals,' does not constitute discrimination.

edit on 14-2-2013 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)

This is just one move before gay scout leaders. Now it might not bother you, but a gay adult man taking a scout group of 14 kids into the woods for the weekend, you start in one spot you get the slow boiling frog method.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

I wasnt thinking of boys 7th to 12th grade, when I was a kid most boys were in it from 3rd grade to about 7th. You are absolutely right, boys after about 7th grade go into hyper-sexual mode.

The Boy scouts are comprised of a large age bracket that for eagle scouts goes all the way up to 17 with the older boys being the higher end of enlistment than the opposite end of the younger kids. You have to consider this is probably a big reason they reached the decision that they did. A change of policy for this particular "issue" affects many children, most in fact are in the "hyper-sexual" bracket.

It's not that big of a reach to see why that could be and most certainly would be problematic for not only the Boy Scouts but also the majority of parents who want there sons to be a part of the boy scouts. Not necessarily because of the gay issue although I will grant you that is probably a big part of it but by and large it introduces sexuality to the scouts and the possibility of sexual contact and exposure, something that has not traditionally been an issue.

I wasnt thinking of boys 7th to 12th grade, when I was a kid most boys were in it from 3rd grade to about 7th.

I don't think children in the 3rd 4th or even 5th grade would know their gay, maybe there are some questions but for a parent to label a child gay in the 5th grade is not only irresponsible, it's fantasy. That leaves a very small percentage of kids that would be in the boy scouts that are not sexually interested. Introducing openly gay children among heterosexual children while in intimate settings such as club houses, camping sights, tents, showers is problematic at best and not for the whole of society as the gay agenda pushers would have you believe but for the majority of parents that enroll their children in boy scouts because of what the organization is supposed to offer their children morally. Presenting sexual situations was not what they were founded to do.

And I agree with it to an extent, as I think the idea of sexuality being flaunted in general is silly, and generally nothing more than attention seeking (often by people with very low self esteem). But there is a difference between not flaunting it and being forced to blatantly lie about it.

I agree with you here, absolutely. That said, would it not be best if the gay community had their own program that is similar? I say this because if one of my children were gay, say, one of my sons perhaps, I wouldn't wan't to ship him off to the boy scouts knowing how children are to possibly have him ridiculed, insulted and rejected by the majority of the troop. It's unfortunate this happens but as evidenced by the epidemic of "Bullying" in this country right now by children our society has brought up, it's hard to argue this sort of behavior would be rampant in the presence of openly gay boys and possibly do more harm than good to the child in the name of the partent wanting equal "gay rights".

Also, allowing children of the same orientation the chance to relate to others that are going though the same things perhaps could be beneficial although it would introduce the same type of sexual risk associated with boys "bunking" with girls would I guess, I never said I had ALL the answers.

More than anything, though, I brought this thread up to showcase, as another poster called it, misplaced paranoia. I have accepted that the boyscouts wont accept gays. I dont have kids, and am not gay nor am I looking to work for the boyscouts, so it truly doesnt affect me in any way, other than the fact that I think it is sad. But I find it amazingly hypocritical that a felon is more acceptable to work with these kids than a gay person.

I welcome this type of debate many places, it's always interesting to me to see how the evolution of mankind develops in the ways of society and in some arguments I see a lot of merit, such as same sex unions. This particular issue though, I must say, I strongly disagree that it is a discriminatory issue as it is compared to ethnic or religious purposes.

Lastly, It really depends on what the felony was for. I'm 37, I was convicted of "Retaining a stolen financial transaction device" when I was 17 and pleaded guilty before I even knew what a felony was. I am now a felon despite never being in any other trouble my entire life, not even a traffic ticket in over 8 years. So, I don't buy into that a person is a "felon" so he is a menace to society without first questioning the crime.

After all, it's getting to be that crossing the street in America today is a crime. I appreciate your debate Cpt. I understand why you created the thread and I totally understand where your coming from. In parting, I would have to say that the Boy scouts are probably within their rights to uphold the decision to not allow this for now and I think it is a complex set of problems they had to consider and that we all must consider when it comes to issues like this. What is important is to keep having the conversations as society evolves.

reply to post by Eavel


I see your point but were not talking about the Roman Catholic Church here! Just because scout leaders would be gay doesn't mean they are automatically pedophiles!!!

Don't get me wrong, I disagree strongly to gay boy scout members and even more so to gay scout leaders but not because I think that they all want to molest the boys in the woods.

I don't see the big deal.....
If I had a son in boyscouts, I wouldn't want him being lead by a gay guy or a woman. If I had a daughter in girl scouts, I wouldn't want her being lead by a lesbian or a man. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me at all. To each their own I guess though. I am sure there are other local groups you can join if you do not accept their rules.

Sorry, hit the wrong reply button Helious

Ya but......huffington post? Really?