Boy Scouts to Admit Openly Gay Youths

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
Now... To your post. The BSA is a Christian Based Organization. What part of that isn't going to be consistent with the sexuality generally carried by the Church and belief system? What part of sexuality EVER has to be in SCOUTING in the first place?

Thank you.... You found it in writing.

You're welcome, and I am glad to see that you are coming around to the right logic, even if you are drawing the conclusion you are from it.

The BSA is a Christian Based Organization that no longer excludes members based on sexual orientation. They have taken it upon themselves to remove sex from their membership policy, because scouting should be about scouting, not sexual orientation.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Then you would be in favor of eliminating the boy/girl titles and just make an organization called "scouts". No sexual bias, no gender bias, simply no bias at all.

Any parent of any gender (once checked) could then be allowed supervisory roles over boys and girls during overnight and week long camping trips. Everything will be co-ed of course as there is nothing sexual involved, right?

+LMAO - what does openly and avowed homosexual imply?

edit on 29-5-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

The hypothetical club you are referring to is Camp Fire. It was created to be the female equivalent to the BSA back in 1910, but expanded to include both genders. Camp Fire has about 700,00, and I don't remember ever reading anything bad ever happening because they let Boys and Girls mingle.. even the gay ones seem to be well behaved.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

If that is the conclusion you will go away from this with, nothing I say here will add to the pages I've already spoken in to say precisely the opposite of what you assume "I get".

We disagree on this topic. We disagree entirely that the BSA should ever have been subject to outside pressures following the settlement of this issue in the Highest court in our land. What purpose is there in going to that court, with the expense and hassle inherent in it, when a whole NEW form of war is all that comes from it....regardless of decision outcome? It defeats the purpose of having a court system.

However, again, we disagree. Clearly. We're in different worlds of logic and world view which will never, in this life, see common ground. I can't put it any simpler than that. Since I can't be allowed to gracefully exit and leave it on a neutral tone without "assumptions of agreement"? I'll be more blunt.

I'm ending my participation with the discussion because I'm tired of rehashing the same arguments, sometimes the same ones PER DAY...several days running now. I'm tired of arguing with people that are 100%, totally correct..no matter what and regardless of who it's with.

I'm primarily tired of arguing with people who consider "Middle Ground" in any topic to be where the OTHER side comes to admit defeat. Enough....and enough of the topic. The Gays won, almost 100%. The BSA lost..and they'll take years to understand the full weight of their loss. People like me wouldn't give them a dime if it meant their literal survival at this point. They stood as an organization of values ...even if some strongly disagreed. They've ended up an organization that twists with the direction the wind blows for support, funding and publicity points.

We all have our priorities in life..and they've simply morphed in ways I can no longer support on any level. Of course, far too many will see that, as always, as Anti-Gay....when the fact Gay men are the specific topic is literally a secondary thing to caving.

Disagreement... Indeed..and agreement to disagree. The oil that takes the squeaks out of democracy.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Thanks, I honestly had no idea that they existed.

Then it really begs the question, why the uproar over the BSA policy?

Everyone needs to be the same. Peer pressure. Political correctness. Guilt by association. Etc.

We're free, but it's a binding freedom.

This change in the BSA is going to (likely) change things we're presently not predicting. Everybody in the rush to change things always misses the unpredictable. They may like the original change, but they may not like the byproduct changes that occur afterward or in parallel.

For example, some futurists say they like the idea of downloading/uploading their brain to a computer. However, the technology to bring this about may also allow for artificial consciousness. And it may turn out that artificial consciousness is cheaper and faster than human consciousness. So the change that the futurist initially desired will be the change he ultimately doesn't want.

Society is complex. Every change brings about other changes.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

If that is the conclusion you will go away from this with, nothing I say here will add to the pages I've already spoken in to say precisely the opposite of what you assume "I get".

We disagree on this topic. We disagree entirely that the BSA should ever have been subject to outside pressures following the settlement of this issue in the Highest court in our land. What purpose is there in going to that court, with the expense and hassle inherent in it, when a whole NEW form of war is all that comes from it....regardless of decision outcome? It defeats the purpose of having a court system.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America were not in violation of the law, and did not have to be forced to include homosexuals by the federal government. This is still the case. Tomorrow the BSA can change their policy again, and still be within the law. The law protects them from GOVERNMENT interference, not SOCIAL pressures.

However, again, we disagree. Clearly. We're in different worlds of logic and world view which will never, in this life, see common ground. I can't put it any simpler than that. Since I can't be allowed to gracefully exit and leave it on a neutral tone without "assumptions of agreement"? I'll be more blunt.

I'm ending my participation with the discussion because I'm tired of rehashing the same arguments, sometimes the same ones PER DAY...several days running now. I'm tired of arguing with people that are 100%, totally correct..no matter what and regardless of who it's with.

You are basing your logic on false assumptions, like the bit about with the Supreme Court. Isn't it part of the discussion and furtherance of knowledge to point out basic flaws in reasoning?

I'm primarily tired of arguing with people who consider "Middle Ground" in any topic to be where the OTHER side comes to admit defeat. Enough....and enough of the topic. The Gays won, almost 100%. The BSA lost..and they'll take years to understand the full weight of their loss. People like me wouldn't give them a dime if it meant their literal survival at this point. They stood as an organization of values ...even if some strongly disagreed. They've ended up an organization that twists with the direction the wind blows for support, funding and publicity points.

This is the most interesting part of the post to me. When the people trying to enact change within the BSA cut funding sources from them, it was Economic Terrorism, but when "People like [you]" decide not to "give them a dime", it is a perfectly acceptable recourse.

We all have our priorities in life..and they've simply morphed in ways I can no longer support on any level. Of course, far too many will see that, as always, as Anti-Gay....when the fact Gay men are the specific topic is literally a secondary thing to caving.

Disagreement... Indeed..and agreement to disagree. The oil that takes the squeaks out of democracy.

edit on 29-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

Democracy is a funny thing like that indeed.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Thanks, I honestly had no idea that they existed.

Then it really begs the question, why the uproar over the BSA policy?

Because the BSA would allow members to be included at a young age, before self identifiable sexual orientation is even able to be processed by the human brain, and then they ban them when their sexuality becomes known. They were not banning them for misdeeds, they were simply banning them for being gay. While it was protected speech under Supreme Court ruling, some people consider the idea that the BSA's policy to be unnecessarily discriminatory, even other members of the scouts not affected by the policy directly. Some members did not care for the idea that their organization was divisive on the subject, and while not supporting homosexuality, did come from a chirstian idea of "Love the sinner, hate the sin' and felt that embracing young homosexuals and building strong citizens was more important than casting them out into the world without that support.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


I mean if there is already a place for individuals to do what the BSA does and not be hindered, why not just transfer over?

I am not making a comparison here just an observation.

A kid starts running track when he is eight lets say. He runs track and is very good at it until he turns 15. He is hit by a car and loses a leg. Now, he obviously cannot expect the track teams to change the rules for him, but he can start running track against others like him. Should he fight against the rulings and demand a spot on the track team he was on before?

I just get a bit upset when the fight for the cause is full of deceit and lies. I don't think what is right for the kids was thought of at all and they were simply used as pawns in a bigger fight. They had their own organization but now they "can make another one", or "scouts are only half the battle we want gay scout masters too", or "the courts only count when we win".

I would give more credit if people just came out and said "we want everyone to accept our choices and treat us as equals, but with perks". At least they would have honesty on their side.

Here was some news in January this year that foreshadowed this change:
usnews.nbcnews.com - Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


The one thing you've failed to understand through it all is that nobody really understands your stance on how these "values" overright human decency, and how their previous mindless stubbornness is seen as magnanamous to you.

Your argument is very obtuse, sorry to break it to you. You're raising your pitchfork over a policy change in a company which changed because the initial policy was ridiculous. Also, if similar circumstances happened that didn't align with your personal views or "values", I'm sure you wouldn't care so much.

For instance, say the BSA did not support guns, so anyone who owned a gun or whose parents owned a gun was not allowed to join the BSA. If social pressures changed THAT value, how would you feel? I bet you would be on the other side of the fence, saying "these children had no grounds to be disciminated against because their parents own guns".

I personally don't think any boy should be denied entry to the boy scouts, because if their friends are allowed in and they aren't, those boys will think they aren't accepted, or not normal, or that society doesn't want them. That's an extremely dangerous mindset to put a very impressionable child under, and it's wrong.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

I mean if there is already a place for individuals to do what the BSA does and not be hindered, why not just transfer over?

I am not making a comparison here just an observation.

A kid starts running track when he is eight lets say. He runs track and is very good at it until he turns 15. He is hit by a car and loses a leg. Now, he obviously cannot expect the track teams to change the rules for him, but he can start running track against others like him. Should he fight against the rulings and demand a spot on the track team he was on before?

I just get a bit upset when the fight for the cause is full of deceit and lies. I don't think what is right for the kids was thought of at all and they were simply used as pawns in a bigger fight. They had their own organization but now they "can make another one", or "scouts are only half the battle we want gay scout masters too", or "the courts only count when we win".

I would give more credit if people just came out and said "we want everyone to accept our choices and treat us as equals, but with perks". At least they would have honesty on their side.

Many boys that are removed from BSA don't simply stop scouting. The memberships of other scouting organizations like Camp Fire are populated with people that are no longer BSA. Boys join the scouts BEFORE their sexual orientations come out. Many people only consider the Boy Scouts because the other organizations do not have the kind of exposure that BSA has, they join because they dont know of the alternatives until after the boy scouts are taken from them.

I cannot speak to the greater motivations of all of the voting members of the BSA of why they decided to vote for a change in the policy, but be assured, it was a choice that was made by scouting members. If they made a decision that wasn't made because they felt it was in the best interests of the children, regardless of what that decision is, is it really an organization you would want to defend?

I feel that the BSA thinks it is protecting children by not allowing gays to be scout masters. I feel it is a sincere although ignorant belief that there is danger there, and I feel that this will lighten up as well within a few years.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Had the LGBT community spent the time and effort promoting Camp Fire that would be a different story.

They didn't. They fought for acceptance in the BSA and BSA be damned.

It wasn't and never will be about equality. You have already said the Camp Fire was the same. It is, was, and will remain an argument of "accept me or be destroyed".

"If you won't let me play, I'm taking YOUR ball and going home" type thing.

reply to post by LightOrange


The problem wouldn't seem to be as much a failure to understand...since people have debated me on the issue to no end....but an acceptance that anyone could see it differently and do so in good faith.

Having membership as a Boy Scout isn't a right, it's not a promise and it's no entitlement. It's a privilege from a private organization and they chose to set standards which excluded one area of people that were not compatible with their general overview of life.

I believe they had every right to do so. The Supreme Court believed and ruled, they had every right to do so. Others, by force of economics and logistics, do NOT believe they've had the right to do so and hounded them until the changed, by that force. ...just to prevent misunderstanding as it seems you were referring to on my take for this.

It's basically like saying why can't a black person be a member of the KKK..... These people are getting a bit over the top now......

The question I have about the decision is the long term effects.

They caved in because a minority of the people pulled funding and venue space for meetings. By allowing openly gay scouts and masters (which will happen) I have to believe that a greater number of people will now pull funding and venue space.

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

Had the LGBT community spent the time and effort promoting Camp Fire that would be a different story.

They didn't. They fought for acceptance in the BSA and BSA be damned.

It wasn't and never will be about equality. You have already said the Camp Fire was the same. It is, was, and will remain an argument of "accept me or be destroyed".

"If you won't let me play, I'm taking YOUR ball and going home" type thing.

edit on 29-5-2013 by 200Plus because: (no reason given)

Separate but equal? That's your stance? Like white toilets and colored toilets?

Originally posted by 200Plus
The question I have about the decision is the long term effects.

They caved in because a minority of the people pulled funding and venue space for meetings. By allowing openly gay scouts and masters (which will happen) I have to believe that a greater number of people will now pull funding and venue space.

I am predicting a huge drop off in membership across the South.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


No, like men's rooms and ladies rooms

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

No, like men's rooms and ladies rooms

We have those, it is called "Boy Scouts" and "Girl Scouts".

Originally posted by MichaelPMaccabee

Originally posted by 200Plus
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee

 

No, like men's rooms and ladies rooms

We have those, it is called "Boy Scouts" and "Girl Scouts".

Tell me again why they are separated?