Boy Scouts to Admit Openly Gay Youths

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Why is it okay to fight relentlessly to keep private clubs from discriminating against blacks, but not okay to fight relentlessly to keep private clubs from discriminating against gays?

Did you really just compare being gay to being black in America? Sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as skin color or ethnicity. You can say it is, but it would still be wrong and the comparison is offensive.

I am not comparing being gay to being black. I am comparing discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against women, or blacks or gay or whites or whomever.

I largely agree. However, one type of discrimination is easily avoidable and the other is not. It is important to understand that the perceived discrimination can be mistaken for something else, such as in the case of BOA. Many parents do not want their children put in possible intimate situations with those of the opposite sex and for this particular argument I have to say that openly gay boys are no different than girls in this scenario. The parents would not be ok with co-ed camping and thus are not ok with openly gay boys camping with their sons as well.

Originally posted by Helious

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by kaylaluv

 

Why is it okay to fight relentlessly to keep private clubs from discriminating against blacks, but not okay to fight relentlessly to keep private clubs from discriminating against gays?

Did you really just compare being gay to being black in America? Sexual orientation is NOT the same thing as skin color or ethnicity. You can say it is, but it would still be wrong and the comparison is offensive.

I am not comparing being gay to being black. I am comparing discrimination. Discrimination is discrimination, whether it's against women, or blacks or gay or whites or whomever.

I largely agree. However, one type of discrimination is easily avoidable and the other is not. It is important to understand that the perceived discrimination can be mistaken for something else, such as in the case of BOA. Many parents do not want their children put in possible intimate situations with those of the opposite sex and for this particular argument I have to say that openly gay boys are no different than girls in this scenario. The parents would not be ok with co-ed camping and thus are not ok with openly gay boys camping with their sons as well.

Okay, I can see that point. I personally would be okay with co-ed camping, as long as there was adequate supervision, but I see that some parents get a little squeamish about it. But isn't the Boy Scouts more than just overnight camping? I know with the Girl Scouts, there are lots of meetings and day hikes, and girls working on projects to get their badges. The overnight camping part of it was actually a pretty small part. Maybe it's different with the boys. It just seems like there could be some kind of compromise made within each troop as needed, without taking away every opportunity for gay boys to enjoy being a Scout.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Now that, I completely agree with and without any qualifications. Gay boys should be allowed to get the same experiences, education and training as Straight boys in the Scouts. As, I believe it has been all along without making statements about it. Obviously the 'Don't ask, Don't tell' model is the parody to what wasn't all that great an idea to begin with, as the Don't Tell becomes a blackmail tool and witch hunt weapon.

I just wish there were a way to allow the general status quo of all kinds being present but sexuality in general not being a part of it. It wasn't an issue when I was in the Scouts, though I'll admit I didn't remain in it to rank high. Cub Scouts? I know for a fact one in my den was gay because he hit on me. lol... Kid stuff at that age and the rebuff wasn't meant mean or taken that way ...nor was it mentioned beyond that or made any point of. Heck, I don't recall even thinking it was a "thing" to be making a 'thing' about anyway, for something like membership. It just didn't come up....as it really never should anyway, IMO.

reply to post by kaylaluv

Okay, I can see that point. I personally would be okay with co-ed camping, as long as there was adequate supervision, but I see that some parents get a little squeamish about it. But isn't the Boy Scouts more than just overnight camping? I know with the Girl Scouts, there are lots of meetings and day hikes, and girls working on projects to get their badges. The overnight camping part of it was actually a pretty small part. Maybe it's different with the boys. It just seems like there could be some kind of compromise made within each troop as needed, without taking away every opportunity for gay boys to enjoy being a Scout.

Yes, it is much more than overnight camping but that is a HUGE part of the overall experience. The teaching is to encourage self reliance, bravery, ingenuity, confidence and execution of practiced skill and what better place to put those things to the test than in woods, in the wild!

It's like football players who spend a lot of time in pre game meetings, watching film and going over Xs and Os but the part that really counts, the sum of the experience is derived from the football field on Sunday.

I'm not naive and I know that it is more than just the co-ed argument for some parents, I know quite frankly that some parents don't want there son subjected to openly gay boys in those types of settings when they are at a young and impressionable age, whether that is right or wrong, I don't know, I can't be the judge on that but many parents are only concerned with the co-ed argument and it's a solid one because thats just not how things have been done with the BoA, certainly wasn't when the kids fathers were members.

I just sort of see the whole thing as unneeded I guess. I question if it was the children who wanted this policy changed or if it was advocates for gay rights who just target any organization who has such rules, even if they are for good reason.

Originally posted by Helious

I just sort of see the whole thing as unneeded I guess. I question if it was the children who wanted this policy changed or if it was advocates for gay rights who just target any organization who has such rules, even if they are for good reason.

Well, if no gay boys wanted to join, then the whole thing is a moot point, isn't it? Everything will be the same as it was. And if there ARE gay boys who want to be a Scout, then I think its a good thing the gay rights activists have done for them.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by Helious

I just sort of see the whole thing as unneeded I guess. I question if it was the children who wanted this policy changed or if it was advocates for gay rights who just target any organization who has such rules, even if they are for good reason.

Well, if no gay boys wanted to join, then the whole thing is a moot point, isn't it? Everything will be the same as it was. And if there ARE gay boys who want to be a Scout, then I think its a good thing the gay rights activists have done for them.

My honest belief is that more boys will choose to keep their sexuality and their preference private than choose to be openly gay, I truly believe that. I also hope that children who do express openly gay sentiment are not mistreated as being a kid is hard enough on it's own. Kids that age can be very cruel and often have no thought of the lasting damage that words can do.

As for whether the gay activists did a good thing for those who may decide to be openly gay and join the scouts, that will have to be evaluated down the road when we learn the financial impact that this decision will have on the organization and it's ability to keep chapters formed up.

It could end up being that the BOA doesn't survive this, it's not unrealistic to think that. If they don't, it would be hard to say they did a good thing as the experience won't be around for anyone to partake in, gay or straight. Time will tell.

reply to post by Helious

It is a shame, I have five boys and of those, four of them were involved in the Scouts, this will no longer be the case and my position is far from being in the minority.

In my community locally, the amount of parents that are removing their children from the scouts is unprecedented. Out of the 2 dozen parents that I see through baseball and softball that I know have kids involved with the Scouts, all but one family is removing their children.

I wish my kids were in it now so I could vocally withdraw them today!!

I’m very glad to hear this news. This is exactly what BSA deserves if they’re going to allow social pressures to take precedent over the safety of our children and the wishes of the vast majority of BSA parents.

Don't take my word for it though, check back in three months and see the decimation of the membership for yourselves. This will be the end of the BSOA as we know them.

As well it should be!!

F-BSA!!!! Shame on them for being cowards!!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


But that is what you have been saying. I just don't think you are being rational here. Boycotts last as long as it takes to get the desired result. The fact that it took 15 years for this particular tactic to have any effect at all should be enough to show you that public opinion on this subject has changed. The Gay community could not and did not do this on their own, they don't have the fiscal resources to pull it off. It took many other people to sympathize with them to make a boycott work. You don't like how they achieved this, but they have used the same means every other minority has used to achieve their goals

On every major civil rights issue that has come up in this country it has been a long slow fight to change public opinion. This one is not really any different. The next couple weeks will be a chief indicator on how much longer this fight will carry on. Once the SC announces it's pending decisions, we will have a much clearer idea of what the politics of it look like.

Originally posted by Helious
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Let me know if you want to have a real discussion about it. Your counter arguments are absurd. Comparing being gay in America to being black in America is equally absurd.

By the way, the Boy Scouts didn't have a problem accepting African American boys, the reason being because they are not bigots or racists. They didn't wan't to accept openly gay boys because it compromises the integrity of what they are trying to teach the children by introducing unneeded and unwanted sexual aspects into the situation.

Being born a certain color or from a certain race is different from obsessively needing to publicize your sexual orientation to the rest of the world and demand they accept it uniformly in every situation without compromise. It's different because of fundamental, obvious and self explanatory reasons.

Pretending to not understand what they are is not a compelling reason to continue in what you would no doubt like to turn into some philosophical charade.

edit on 28-5-2013 by Helious because: (no reason given)

The Boy Scouts allowed their organization to be segregated along racial lines, but you know what.. since they allowed the black kids to say they were scouts, but institutionally distanced themselves from them until Segregation was repealed by the Supreme Court, you are probably right.

The Boy Scouts introduced the unwanted sexual attention by excluding homosexuals. They made it about sexual orientation instead of making it about children. Let's be honest here, most boys join BSA long before there have ever been any sexual orientation becomes evident. This protects the children who discover attraction for the same sex when others are discovering attraction for the opposite sex.

reply to post by KeliOnyx


What Supreme Court? You mean there is another Supreme Court Decision currently pending before the current 9 members with direct bearing on the BSA status and legal cases? It seems a little silly considering, They HAVE ruled on a BSA specific case..in their favor and without much question or any ambiguity in 2000. We don't need clarity when it's already been given and recently, at that. It was clearly stated that the BSA could, if they so chose, exclude homosexual members from their private group.

That SO enraged the gay community (most court decisions that go against the left seem to only start MUCH MUCH bigger fights..it NEVER ends anything with them) They've spent another 13 years fighting the BSA at every possible level.

What is it about the BSA that pisses them off so, anyway? It's obvious that NO group in North America will EVER be permitted to have a membership without open, flaming gays. That is clear and that is what economic terrorism has made plain. The COURT side said it's 100% legal to have a membership that way and it's up to the private group. As it should be. The Activist left said they will never...ever...EVER...stop the destructive action until the policy changed to their personal view of how it should be.

THAT is no change. THAT is political terrorism at worst...blackmail and intimidation at best.

What are some of the tactics that really piss me off the most? How about DELIBERATELY seeking out each and every venue a BSA Troop meets to individually meet with every property owner to pressure them in blocking the BSA from using their facilities for meetings again? It doesn't matter of they have been meeting in a place for 50 years. NOW that WILL END because the Gay Activists will do to the property owner what they are obviously in the middle of doing to their actual target, otherwise. That crap has been happening all a long this fight.

That is intimidation at it's best. It's a text book definition of it..and frankly? These kind of bully boy tactics, REGARDLESS OF THE CAUSE, turn me against the cause...whatever that may be. I don't really care when victimizing others is the sole means of advancement to a set of personal goals.

How long WOULD have been enough for the economic terrorism, by the way? If 15 years was merely temporary as another said....and you note that "it just takes" that long. Fine .... That's damn near a generation. How about 2? 3 GENERATIONS of protest? would 20, 30 or 40 YEARS have been too much??? 15 YEARS and LOSING court cases left and right..isn't enough to back off and say... Golly... Maybe our way isn't the right way at this point?

No.. That is the problem with the left and it's embodied by some here. Not the political left. The true world view and mindset. A failed approach is NEVER WRONG. 15 years of failure is NEVER bad. It's NEVER the idea that is a problem. It's ALWAYS not enough of it being done or just not done the right way or geee.... people are just too damn dumb to understand. It's NEVER that the idea itself just plain sucks or the approach is simple minded and ill conceived.

I'm sorry if my approach is hard for you to follow Onyx. It's not the first thread you've had that issue with me. It won't be the last, I have no doubt. It's predictable.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I'm sorry this is hard for you to understand Michael, but please try.

The BSA has never, back to it's inception in 1910 "excluded" gays like it's some personal vendetta. Please show me by specific policy and quote...not your guess work...where that has happened, if I'm mistaken?

There is a WORLD of difference between not allowing something and specifically excluding it. The BSA is a CHRISTIAN organization. First, foremost and always. Christian. That alone pissed some people off to seeing red and attacks on their religious basis are very much ongoing and subject to entirely different lines of attack and court based war. The people who call religion simple, need a mirror....but I digress.

Not welcoming gays is a part of that CHRISTIAN base and founding. I don't much care about the Cafeteria Christians who want to claim a re-write of History and Biblical teaching to say it's never ever been a tenet of Christianity for homosexuality to be seen as wrong. That's a flat out lie. Whatever it's seen as today...and changed to over the last 4-8 years? The BSA followed the national norms and standards for Christian belief up to VERY VERY recent times...and held membership in line to those beliefs ....as voices by their own membership and alumni demanded they hold.

As the Supreme Court said, to them directly, in 2000? They have EVERY right to do that, if they so choose. It became forcing a change in that "choosing" by any means necessary and by all means available which is the point of anger by some, including myself.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Nice to see that the stereotype has been lifted but they still won't allow openly gay scout leaders. Yet another stereotype where if you are gay then you must be a pedophile as well or will convert hetero sexuals to be homo sexuals.

They cannot be allowed to be off the leash yet. Plain and simple. I understand the concerns of parents though and so it's only fair that whatever policies come into play that bigotry be cast out. All must be treated fairly and accepted. Not just one or the other. My 2 cents anyways.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I'm sorry this is hard for you to understand Michael, but please try.

The BSA has never, back to it's inception in 1910 "excluded" gays like it's some personal vendetta. Please show me by specific policy and quote...not your guess work...where that has happened, if I'm mistaken?

There is a WORLD of difference between not allowing something and specifically excluding it. The BSA is a CHRISTIAN organization. First, foremost and always. Christian. That alone pissed some people off to seeing red and attacks on their religious basis are very much ongoing and subject to entirely different lines of attack and court based war. The people who call religion simple, need a mirror....but I digress.

Not welcoming gays is a part of that CHRISTIAN base and founding. I don't much care about the Cafeteria Christians who want to claim a re-write of History and Biblical teaching to say it's never ever been a tenet of Christianity for homosexuality to be seen as wrong. That's a flat out lie. Whatever it's seen as today...and changed to over the last 4-8 years? The BSA followed the national norms and standards for Christian belief up to VERY VERY recent times...and held membership in line to those beliefs ....as voices by their own membership and alumni demanded they hold.

As the Supreme Court said, to them directly, in 2000? They have EVERY right to do that, if they so choose. It became forcing a change in that "choosing" by any means necessary and by all means available which is the point of anger by some, including myself.

Will their own website do the trick for you?

www.scouting.org...

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

There is a world of difference between not allowing something and specifically excluding it. The BSA excluded homosexuals specifically.

The rest doesn't matter, because it is now a Christian organization that no longer excludes gays, right?

reply to post by Flint2011


So in a nutshell.......... one sexual deviancy is better than another?

I would say yes. But my lines are drawn by bias and I admit that.

The problem I have is when people attempt to raise one for of deviancy into an accepted norm.

Homosexuals don't want rights as much as they want acceptance. I doubt this entire campaign against the BSA was for 100 or so scouts that were gay and denied. It was more about the adults that are gay wanting the lifestyle accepted.

I just think it's laughable when someone will praise one deviancy at still want to be hostile to others.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Change homosexual to polygamist, would you still champion the cause?

Change homosexual to incestuous relationship, would you still champion the cause?

If not you are a hypocrite plain and simple.

Originally posted by 200Plus
I would say yes. But my lines are drawn by bias and I admit that.

The problem I have is when people attempt to raise one for of deviancy into an accepted norm.

Homosexuals don't want rights as much as they want acceptance. I doubt this entire campaign against the BSA was for 100 or so scouts that were gay and denied. It was more about the adults that are gay wanting the lifestyle accepted.

I just think it's laughable when someone will praise one deviancy at still want to be hostile to others.

And I think it's laughable when someone compares pedophilia - which involves victimizing children, with homosexuality - which involves consenting adults. Yeah. It's hilarious.