Despite protests, Boy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays

[accadacca]

http://media.bonnint.net/apimage/07272954-e7f6-4a66-9568-867cc87058a9.jpg

NEW YORK (AP) - After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, angering critics who hoped that relentless protest campaigns might lead to change.

The Scouts cited support from parents as a key reason for keeping the policy and expressed hope that the prolonged debate over it might now subside. Bitter reactions from gay-rights activists suggested that result was unlikely.

The Scouts' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press that an 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, came to the conclusion that the exclusion policy "is absolutely the best policy" for the 102-year-old organization.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion _ preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.

As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a resolution submitted at its recent national conference asking for reconsideration of the membership policy.

The Scouts' chief executive, Bob Mazzuca, contended that most Scout families support the policy, which applies to both adult leaders and Scouts.

"The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Mazzuca said. "We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society."

The president of the largest U.S. gay-rights group, Chad Griffin of the Human Rights Campaign, depicted the Scouts' decision as "a missed opportunity of colossal proportions."

"With the country moving toward inclusion, the leaders of the Boy Scouts of America have instead sent a message to young people that only some of them are valued," he said. "They've chosen to teach division and intolerance."

Darlene Nipper, deputy executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, said the Scouts "have turned their backs on a chance to demonstrate fairness, exercise sound judgment, and serve as a role model for valuing others."

The Scouts did not identify the members of the special committee that studied the issue, but said in a statement that they represented "a diversity of perspectives and opinions."

"The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations _ both from within Scouting and from outside of the organization," the statement said.

The announcement suggests that hurdles may be high for a couple of members of the national executive board _ Ernst & Young CEO James Turley and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson _ who have recently indicated they would try to work from within to change the membership policy. Both of their companies have been commended by gay-rights groups for gay-friendly employment policies.

Stephenson is on track to become president of the Scouts' national board in 2014, and will likely face continued pressure from gay-rights groups to try to end the exclusion policy. Asked for comment on Tuesday about the Scouts' decision to keep the policy, AT&T did not refer to Stephenson's situation specifically.

"We don't agree with every policy of every organization we support, nor would we expect them to agree with us on everything," the company said. "Our belief is that change at any organization must come from within to be successful and sustainable."

A statement from the executive committee of the Scouts' national executive board alluded to the Turley-Stephenson developments.

"Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting," the statement said. "While not all board members may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization."

Since 2000, the Boy Scouts have been targeted with numerous protest campaigns and run afoul of some local nondiscrimination laws because of the membership policy.

One ongoing protest campaign involves Jennifer Tyrrell, the Ohio mother of a 7-year-old Cub Scout who was ousted as a den mother because she is lesbian.

Change.org, an online forum supporting activist causes, says more than 300,000 people have signed its petition urging the Scouts to reinstate Tyrrell and abandon the exclusion policy. The petition is to be delivered to the Scouts' national headquarters in Irving, Texas, on Wednesday.

Eagle Scout Zach Wahls, an Iowa college student who was raised by lesbian mothers, said Tuesday's announcement didn't change his view that eventually the Scouts would relent under pressure from campaigns such as those that he and his allies have mounted.

"I'm sure they'll keep saying this until the day they decide to change the policy," said Wahls.

He contended that the committee review process should not have been kept secret. "The very first value of the Scout Law is that a Scout is trustworthy," Wahls said. "There is absolutely nothing trustworthy about unelected and unnamed committee members who are unwilling to take responsibility for their actions."

The Boy Scouts' policy stands in contrast to inclusive membership policies adopted by several other major youth organizations, including the Girl Scouts of the USA and Camp Fire.

___

Online:

Boy Scouts statement: http://www.scouting.org/Media/PressReleases/2012/20120717.aspx

Source: http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/20725318

[Sandstone Addiction]

Why don't they just start their own organization? :ne_nau:

[reverse_dyno]

Why don't they just start their own organization? :ne_nau:

Sandstone, I think that is what Southerners told blacks a while back. Didn't it go something like; "We don't like your kind here! Go get your own restaurants!" If I recall somewhere, that type of behavior was considered "bad", or at least it used to be.

[Scott Card]

:facepalm1: Private entity.... Supreme Court.....

[Deathcricket]

What about fat kids? Do they exclude those too?

[oldno7]

What about fat kids? Do they exclude those too?

Give it up--aren't you a little too old!:haha:

[JONBOYLEMON]

What about fat kids? Do they exclude those too?

Only if they make me walk VERY SLOWLY with them on a 20 mile hike which keeps me from getting home the same day the hike started!!!!!

Actually, I have a list of all the kind of kids that should not be allowed in Scouts!:haha:

[Thomas]

The Supreme Court in BSA vs Dale, held that as a private organization the BSA could exclude individuals when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." This is also a much smaller issue than what Reverse_dyno is trying to do by comparing this to the segregation of the South; of course he may just be trolling.:roll:

The BSA obviously has the legal right to exclude individuals from membership. Just like the Augusta National Golf Club, and their stance on not allowing female members. I have not read anything where the BSA has made public the specific reasons for their exclusion of homosexuals, are they worried about image, sexual misconduct between boys and leaders, or sexual misconduct between boys.

I believe a part of this is that the two major groups that participate in the BSA are #1 Baptists and #2 Mormons. If they both left and formed their own groups, which I think they both would, the BSA would take a drastic drop in membership.

I think this is very ironic, that if homosexuals force themselves into the BSA (and not form their own scouting program), homosexuals will drive out existing BSA members causing them to form their own scouting groups and programs. This will essentially create a homosexual BSA. Kind of like a hostile takeover. This will be interesting to see if the BSA finally caves into the public pressure.

[restrac2000]

Have always been disappointed with the BSA and their poor choices. Bigoted little games for bigoted little people. Odd that so many adult males are afraid of a boy's sexuality.

I wouldn't dear call this a "smaller issue" even when I can accept the limitations of the government to interfere. The segregation of people is never a small issue.

[Thomas]

First off I don’t condone what the BSA is doing; however, I don’t like these monumental leaps trying to compare decades of oppression, intimidation, death, and slavery to excluding homosexual young men and leaders to join what is basically a camping and hiking club. This would be segregation IF the BSA let in homosexuals and then put them into two separate groups, with separate privileges and rules. What the BSA is doing is exclusion. While you may think the difference in definitions is minor, there is a difference.

I wish the BSA would release the details of this “private” research. I am interested in what the motivations where, religious, worried about sexual predators, or sexual harassment. From what I have read sounds like they don’t plan to make that information public.

[double moo]

The Mormon Church allows Gay members to hold other positions in the organization, I don't see them as a supporting organization who would leave because of it. Maybe they should step up and be the entity that promotes a change in the BSA.

[Byron]

Well, it looks like most around here want to tap dance around the issue, or ignore it altogether...consider Jerry Sandusky. There is the problem, boys and girls...if they allow gays to openly operate there you would have perverts coming in like ringing a dinner bell. That's it, period.

[Felicia]

Well, it looks like most around here want to tap dance around the issue, or ignore it altogether...consider Jerry Sandusky. There is the problem, boys and girls...if they allow gays to openly operate there you would have perverts coming in like ringing a dinner bell. That's it, period.

What? How do you leap from homosexuality to pedophilia? :ne_nau:

[restrac2000]

What? How do you leap from homosexuality to pedophilia? :ne_nau:

Thank you, Felicia.

[double moo]

Well, it looks like most around here want to tap dance around the issue, or ignore it altogether...consider Jerry Sandusky. There is the problem, boys and girls...if they allow gays to openly operate there you would have perverts coming in like ringing a dinner bell. That's it, period.


I hope you're just trolling!

If you're Catholic you should keep your kids away from church, Juan Diego should have empty halls. Haven't there also been cases of abuse by LDS leaders? Thanks to Sandusky we should not let our kids attend sports camps... Especially at the Y - religion and sports seem to equal sodomy.

I don't recall any reports of abuse in Scouting by openly gay leaders... Perceived hetero leaders would be another story. My Mother in law is a lifelong scouter...silver beaver and all (I can only vouch for the award they gave her!). She commented to me that having a gay leader having perverted thoughts about all those young boys makes her sick. I asked if a hetero woman has the same sexual thoughts since they are of the opposite sex, you know "natural" thoughts? She admitted she hadn't looked at it that way.

I believe it's a fear issue, not of abuse... but of the gays recruiting your kids to the rangers (rump rangers). It's not like they pass out pamphlets and tracts extolling their lifestyle. (The same cant be said for religion!) The bishop who sent me on my mission came out of the closet a few years after... Of the 13 scouts my age 4 ended up gay, all maintain the bishop never had anything to do with it - I believe them as I respect both parties as people. Others in the ward thought he was recruiting for the other team (my folks included)

Lastly, it is unfortunate that most sexual abusers of children ends up being family. Odds are better that your kids are safer at homo scouts than at your family reunion.

[Deathcricket]

Interesting responses.

So who here is cool with grown men having "sleepovers" with teenage women?

[Felicia]

Here is a link to the list of open "of media interest" cases that the District Attorney's Office is currently prosecuting:

http://orangecountyda.com/docs/1653241372012casemanagementlist.pdf

If you read through the list, you can get an idea of the types of crimes that are being committed by the types of people. Unfortunately, there are plenty of child sex crime cases on the list.

[Iceaxe]

My Mother in law is a lifelong scouter...silver beaver and all (I can only vouch for the award they gave her!).

ROFLMAO.....




Sent using Tapatalk

[Iceaxe]

Just one question from me.... why would anyone want to hang out with a group of people that have openly stated they want nothing to do with you?

Sent using Tapatalk

[canyonphile]

There is the problem, boys and girls...if they allow gays to openly operate there you would have perverts coming in like ringing a dinner bell. That's it, period.

Alas, no.

Please take a look at this article (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html), Byron. It's from UC Davis, from a PhD researcher. Worth a read, because he also discusses the flaws in the FRC's article that supposedly finds a large correlation between child molesters/pedophiles (which are not interchangeable terms, as you'll see in the article).

A couple of paragraphs from the article:


"For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on. "

[quote]"Other researchers have taken different approaches, but have similarly failed to find a connection between homosexuality and child molestation. Dr. Carole Jenny and her colleagues reviewed 352 medical charts, representing all of the sexually abused children seen in the emergency room or child abuse clinic of a Denver children's hospital during a one-year period (from July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992). The molester was a gay or lesbian adult in fewer than 1% in which an adult molester could be identified

[Thomas]

The BSA (to my knowledge) has not released their specific reasons for denying homosexuals, be that religious, inappropriate sexual actions, or moral viewpoint; however, I remember the amount of sexual contact that happened during “band camp” and “choir tour” between the teenage boys and girls. I am surprised that a school hasn’t been sued because someone’s daughter got pregnant during a school trip and the school didn’t do enough to protect the students. I wonder if the BSA is more worried about lawsuits and personal liability than a specific moral stance.

[restrac2000]

Seems doubtful that it related to anything other than the group's bigotry. In all honesty, there seems to be a minimal chance of liability issues with homosexual students as long as it isn't directed from leaders. What happens between consenting minors is hard to prosecute. And what type of "protection" are we talking about that isn't mostly morally based (versus legally based)? Teenagers have sex and will always figure out a way to do so. From what historical studies show, somewhere around a third of "hetersexuals" explore sexual boundaries in their teens in hetereo-normative environments already.

I decided years ago that if/when I have a kid I will not let them join the BSA or GSA. Neither of the organizations has managed to account for the complexities of a child's life or even seems to fully care. The BSA is an antiquated concept of masculinity and citizenship. Its a rigid program that exploits ideas from a different era. Its rear-looking instead of forward thinking. Makes sense to me that they stick to such bigoted ideas in policy.

As to the uncertainty of their basis for the decision:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100206191637/http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp

[QUOTE]"Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scouting

[Thomas]

Seems doubtful that it related to anything other than the group's bigotry. In all honesty, there seems to be a minimal chance of liability issues with homosexual students as long as it isn't directed from leaders. What happens between consenting minors is hard to prosecute. And what type of "protection" are we talking about that isn't mostly morally based (versus legally based)? Teenagers have sex and will always figure out a way to do so. From what historical studies show, somewhere around a third of "hetersexuals" explore sexual boundaries in their teens in hetereo-normative environments already.

I decided years ago that if/when I have a kid I will not let them join the BSA or GSA. Neither of the organizations has managed to account for the complexities of a child's life or even seems to fully care. The BSA is an antiquated concept of masculinity and citizenship. Its a rigid program that exploits ideas from a different era. Its rear-looking instead of forward thinking. Makes sense to me that they stick to such bigoted ideas in policy.

As to the uncertainty of their basis for the decision:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100206191637/http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp



They may want to hide that recent concept but it is part of their legal and social dogma.

Phillip

Thanks for posting the link, very informative. I enjoyed my time with the BSA and had a good experience. I am sure I could have had a similar experience by spending the same amount of time outdoors with family, sports, or school activities. I think it is good for individuals, young and old, to be involved in something that are passionate about.

[nelsonccc]

For me it's simple, the scouts are a very moral organization their Scout Oath and Scout Law are to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed (as mentioned above). If you believe homosexuality to be immoral, which I would think most religious people do, then why would you then want your son or daughter to participate in an organization that is catering to a perceived immoral behavior?

Why let 4 or 5% of society dictate everything? I think part of the issue is the in your face gayness. I'll never understand why gay men can't just walk around and act normally? Why must they flaunt their sexual preference? My friend who I've known for 15 years is openly gay and MUST tell everyone how wonderful it is. It may be stereotyping, but I'd say he's the norm. Totally over the top, in your face gay. Seems everywhere you go there has to be some aspect of gay in everything, TV, movies, news, etc. You'd think everyone was gay from the media but it's only 4-5% or so I've read.

I really don't have an issue with it, hell whatever floats your boat. I could care less who's boning who. But I don't like being constantly told how awesome it is or having it thrown in my face at every turn which seems to be what's happening here.

[abirken]

Well, it looks like most around here want to tap dance around the issue, or ignore it altogether...consider Jerry Sandusky. There is the problem, boys and girls...if they allow gays to openly operate there you would have perverts coming in like ringing a dinner bell. That's it, period.
Wow. I thought this kind of ignorance was long gone. Apparently not.

[restrac2000]

For me it's simple, the scouts are a very moral organization their Scout Oath and Scout Law are to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed (as mentioned above). If you believe homosexuality to be immoral, which I would think most religious people do, then why would you then want your son or daughter to participate in an organization that is catering to a perceived immoral behavior?

Why let 4 or 5% of society dictate everything? I think part of the issue is the in your face gayness. I'll never understand why gay men can't just walk around and act normally? Why must they flaunt their sexual preference? My friend who I've known for 15 years is openly gay and MUST tell everyone how wonderful it is. It may be stereotyping, but I'd say he's the norm. Totally over the top, in your face gay. Seems everywhere you go there has to be some aspect of gay in everything, TV, movies, news, etc. You'd think everyone was gay from the media but it's only 4-5% or so I've read.

I really don't have an issue with it, hell whatever floats your boat. I could care less who's boning who. But I don't like being constantly told how awesome it is or having it thrown in my face at every turn which seems to be what's happening here.

Hehe, man could I introduce you to some over the top straight dudes who do nothing but rub it in your face how many women they bone. Going around in their over the top traditionally masculine clothing and acting like they own the world. Not to mention how tired I am of seeing so many straight couples on TV.

Tired of having some other person's hetereosexuality thrown in my face.....

Oh, wait.......

[nelsonccc]

Hehe, man could I introduce you to some over the top straight dudes who do nothing but rub it in your face how many women they bone. Going around in their over the top traditionally masculine clothing and acting like they own the world. Not to mention how tired I am of seeing so many straight couples on TV.

Tired of having some other person's hetereosexuality thrown in my face.....

Oh, wait.......

I get what you're saying but the difference is the percentages of society that are like that. You and I should be seeing heterosexuality everywhere since that's the norm and 95% of the population. But instead we see gay everywhere but it's only a small percentage of society so why does it dominate everything? Why is 4% of society dictating standards for anything?

[double moo]

I get what you're saying but the difference is the percentages of society that are like that. You and I should be seeing heterosexuality everywhere since that's the norm and 95% of the population. But instead we see gay everywhere but it's only a small percentage of society so why does it dominate everything? Why is 4% of society dictating standards for anything?

We let them! Most Americans have become apathetic about everything. The Gay community has been repressed for too long and now they are making an effort to get noticed, get their issues on the books, get involved in politics, etc..

Ihad a buddy go to some community clean up day and complained that it was a bunch of gays folks, made him uncomfortable. Waah Waah Waah... Most folks had their church duties, their kid soccer games, etc... Too busy to participate in a good community project. At least the gay community cared enough to show up and do something good for all of us. If you get involved you will probably notice them less, as you realize they are just like us.

[Byron]

Wow. I thought this kind of ignorance was long gone. Apparently not. Two things... It's not ignorant and it's hardly long gone.

[Byron]

Alas, no.

Please take a look at this article (http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html), Byron. It's from UC Davis, from a PhD researcher. Worth a read, because he also discusses the flaws in the FRC's article that supposedly finds a large correlation between child molesters/pedophiles (which are not interchangeable terms, as you'll see in the article).

A couple of paragraphs from the article:





Interestingly, the BSA are mentioned in the article as it pertains to disallowing gays into their organization, so it is germane to the thread topic.OK Sonja, and you too, Felicia...I thought what I said was pretty cut and dry and understandable but I'll elaborate...

It doesn't matter what Mr. PhD says, "Homosexuals and Pedophiles are two different species altogether". Consider that in the minds of a LOT of people, straight, heterosexual sex is "normal" and anything otherwise is not. Pedophilia, bestiality, heavy S&M, rubber suits...name your fetish. Homosexuality gets lumped into the mix. When some hear stories about a predator like Sandusky, or Jeffery Dahmer, or that freak last week that yanked that little 6 year old girl out of her bedroom, raped and killed her, anything not "normal" is to be feared. Even among those that have close friends who are gay, if they don't know the person and trust them completely, they will cast a weary eye.

I'm not a religious nut, I'm not religious at all. My youngest sister is as queer as a three dollar bill, and so is my cousin Bobby. They always have been...ever since they were 5 years old, everyone knew the deal. They're born that way. Nobody in my family busted their chops about it. It's all groovy. I have two gay clients that live together, Chris and Leonard. They are two of the most wonderful people I know...If I had any children I'd have no problem at all with them being alone with those guys. I KNOW them, I trust them.

However, I wouldn't allow my kids to join the scouts if they allowed openly gay scout masters. I wouldn't take the chance. Now that's just me, and go ahead, call me an idiot, moron, jerk, ignorant fool, whatever. The reality is there are millions of people who think this way. I think it quite the coincidence that this comes hot on the heels of the Sandusky debacle. I think the scouts organization is sending a message here..."We're looking out for your kids".

Go ahead and freak out, gnash your teeth, pull your hair, beat your chests, click you heels together three times and wish real hard that it would just go away, but it won't. I'm not trying to come down hard on you ladies, you know I don't mince words...it's just that homosexuality and pedophilia aren't too far separated in the minds of many. I'm not going to throw my trust in Mr. PhD. For all I know he may be a pedophile.

Funny, here I think like an overprotective parent, yet I have no children.

[Scott P]

If you believe homosexuality to be immoral, which I would think most religious people do, then why would you then want your son or daughter to participate in an organization that is catering to a perceived immoral behavior?

I don't know if that's true. It seems that most religious organizations now days believe that it's only the sex act that is immoral, not the attraction to someone of the same sex.

As pointed out above, the LDS church for example, does let homosexuals hold church positions as long as they don't act on their sex urges. The same is expected to all hetrosexual people as well. As long as they aren't married (and the main point of marriage is to have a family), all hetorsexuals are also expected to have no sexual relations.

Anyway, if I had a teenage daughter, I'd be a little worried about having her go camping with other hetrosexual men. It doesn't mean that anything would happen, but I'd still worry a bit. Same with a homosexual going camping with teenagers of the same sex.

As far as the boys go, it's mostly a non-issue unless people make one of it. When I started scouts, I don't even think I knew what a sexual orientation was. All scouts are supposed to remain without any type of sexual contact what-so-ever (or bad movies, internet, etc.), regardless of sexual orientation.



Hehe, man could I introduce you to some over the top straight dudes who do nothing but rub it in your face how many women they bone.

Yes, there are many immoral people that are hetrosexual. Definately many of them are hypocrytical as well.


Tired of having some other person's hetereosexuality thrown in my face.....

I was too. When I was in the military (joined on my 17th birthday), I was the only one who would admit to being a virgin. The other guys didn't think it was right and hired me a prostitute on one of our leaves and tried to get me with her. I was actually quite pissed.

[restrac2000]

I get what you're saying but the difference is the percentages of society that are like that. You and I should be seeing heterosexuality everywhere since that's the norm and 95% of the population. But instead we see gay everywhere but it's only a small percentage of society so why does it dominate everything? Why is 4% of society dictating standards for anything?

Because for centuries that have been marginalized as immoral, unnatural, etc. Society has intricate mechanisms (you have used a few) to normalize one type of behavior that is considered the desired outcome. The concept of normal isn't static though and changes over time. Unfortunately, even when people begin to accept a wider array of behaviors many of the old social pressures remain (most of us aren't even aware of how we play into them).

More succinct answer....we are in an era of change. Its slow and requires immense public attention and pressure. And I would say its not 4% of the population as more than half of the American population supports equality for homosexuals. Until policy and process reflects that equality it will likely remain a very public issue. At least I hope it does as I would rather see us change than repress the issue again because of a religious minority.

[Iceaxe]

http://www.omfgod.com/wp-content/gallery/celebrity/jackson2.jpg

[ratagonia]

If you believe homosexuality to be immoral, which I would think most religious people do, ...

Perhaps, Christian, the "religious people" you hang out with think homosexuality is immoral, but the "religious people" I hang out with think it is a beautiful thing. Perhaps, you should say the "conservative religious people". Perhaps you carefully exclude anyone who accepts homosexuality as a normal expression of the human condition as being "religious". Certainly, many parts of the organized religious community have gone to great efforts to drive away homosexuals and persons who consider homosexuality within the realms of normal.

But what do I know, I live in Utah. I am informed by certain authorities that there are no homosexuals in Utah.

The Boy Scouts used to be a BIG TENT. For many, many years. I had a wonderful time in Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and Explorers. But at this point, I am ineligible. I am unwilling to profess a belief in Yahweh, thus, Tommy is excluded.

For me, not so much a problem. For my Dad, Eagle Scout, founder of at least 2 troops and lifelong scout leader, the religious extremism of the BSA National is a great sorrow in his later years.

My experience with my many canyoneering scout leader friends is that they are there to serve the boys of their communities. Being called to be a scout leader in Utah means many things, spending a bunch of your own money, and giving of time you might rather spend just with your own kids and their friends. But the obligation is to also include any kid who wants to join. And make it good for them. This is part of "The Work" - the work of making the world a better place. My experience of the scout leaders I know is that they don't give a flying fart about the National BSA loyalty oaths to Yahweh and the radical heterosexual agenda.

For this, and the work you do, Scout Leaders - I SALUTE YOU. :2thumbs::2thumbs::2thumbs:

BSA - training the bigots of tomorrow, one boy at a time.

Tom :moses:

[ratagonia]

Now that's just me, and go ahead, call me an idiot, moron, jerk, ignorant fool, whatever.

I need your permission? :naughty:

Actually I don't need to. You clearly stated that it is an error to equate pedophiles with gays, but that millions of Americans do so; and then that you are one of them. Hmmmm.

If millions of people believe it, no matter how foolish, then you'll believe it too?

I don't get it. Makes no sense. (but that is our usual impasse).

Tom :moses:

[accadacca]

Saw this on Facebook...

56708

[nelsonccc]

Perhaps, Christian, the "religious people" you hang out with think homosexuality is immoral, but the "religious people" I hang out with think it is a beautiful thing. Perhaps, you should say the "conservative religious people". Perhaps you carefully exclude anyone who accepts homosexuality as a normal expression of the human condition as being "religious". Certainly, many parts of the organized religious community have gone to great efforts to drive away homosexuals and persons who consider homosexuality within the realms of normal.

But what do I know, I live in Utah. I am informed by certain authorities that there are no homosexuals in Utah.

The Boy Scouts used to be a BIG TENT. For many, many years. I had a wonderful time in Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts and Explorers. But at this point, I am ineligible. I am unwilling to profess a belief in Yahweh, thus, Tommy is excluded.

For me, not so much a problem. For my Dad, Eagle Scout, founder of at least 2 troops and lifelong scout leader, the religious extremism of the BSA National is a great sorrow in his later years.

My experience with my many canyoneering scout leader friends is that they are there to serve the boys of their communities. Being called to be a scout leader in Utah means many things, spending a bunch of your own money, and giving of time you might rather spend just with your own kids and their friends. But the obligation is to also include any kid who wants to join. And make it good for them. This is part of "The Work" - the work of making the world a better place. My experience of the scout leaders I know is that they don't give a flying fart about the National BSA loyalty oaths to Yahweh and the radical heterosexual agenda.

For this, and the work you do, Scout Leaders - I SALUTE YOU. :2thumbs::2thumbs::2thumbs:

BSA - training the bigots of tomorrow, one boy at a time.

Tom :moses:

I never said that most religious people think it's immoral just that I would THINK that most religious people think it is. I haven't really had a lot of in depth discussions with my religious friends about it. Maybe I'm wrong, what do I know? I'm under the impression that most religious people think being gay is immoral and like I said I would think that's the majority?

I do know that I was a scout leader for 5 years and it like you said for sure it's alot of your own money and time. I used all my vacation time every year to do scouting things instead of family things. Paid dearly for that.

I certainly don't exclude gay people from my life, played softball last night (like I do every thursday) with a guy I went to graduate college with who's gay (flamboyantly so...). Now he's a bit over the top but he is the first to make a gay joke, great guy. I told him about this discussion and he can't believe the gays are making such a big deal about it. He thinks they are pressing an issue to make it mainstream that isn't necessary. He compared it to female football players. They may be perfectly capable of playing football but it's just not the time or the place. Pick your battles.

[double moo]

The BSA I earned my eagle in didn't seem like a bunch of homophobes. Times change, but I'm not giving up my hard earned award because of their narrowmindedness. I hope no one lumps me in with them because of it!

[ratagonia]

Why don't they just start their own organization?

Why don't they just start their own country?

Why don't they just find their own planet?

Why do they have to be gay at all - some of us straight people just don't like it!

A more serious answer: they did. It is called the Boy Scouts of America, and like most things in America, it was started and run for many, many, many years by regular people, some of whom were gay, who kindly made things easier for their homophobe 'friends' by staying in the closet. Same things for us Atheists - many, many, many atheists contributed to the Scouting Movement; but now we are not allowed because we don't pass the loyalty test.

Another serious answer: because the BSA marketshare is so big, their tentacles into the community, even with non-homophobes and non-atheistphobes, that creating a new organization from scratch that includes all boys would be challenging. Certainly creating an organization JUST for homosexual and atheist lads would be counter-productive, in addition to being challenging.

Another serious answer: because inclusiveness is, or should be, part of being morally straight. To me, it is more important than ones orientation (rather than "sexual proclivities", since scout participants are too young to be having sex, and scout leaders are not in a (morally acceptable) position to have sex with participants, hetero or homo); or one's loyalty to a set of specific religious tenets.

Tom

And some BSA Councils have decided to be inclusive:

http://www.startribune.com/local/162817346.html?refer=y




Despite national policy banning gays, the largest Boy Scout group in Minnesota will stay inclusive



Article by: KELLY SMITH (http://www.startribune.com/bios/101372379.html) , Star Tribune
Updated: July 18, 2012 - 2:46 PM

Northern Star Council welcomes gay Scouts as BSA reaffirms policy to bar "open, avowed homosexuals."

Minnesota's biggest Boy Scout group said Tuesday that gays and lesbians remain welcome in its troops, despite a national announcement that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) will continue to bar leaders, employees and members who are "open or avowed homosexuals."

"We're a reflection of the community," said Kent York, spokesman for the Northern Star Council, which has 75,000 Scouts in Minnesota and western Wisconsin. "Our commitment has been to reach out to all young people and have a positive influence."
York said that the Twin Cities-based Scout council, one of the nation's largest, will continue to follow a 12-year-old "inclusive leadership selection" practice.
When asked how they could differ from the national policy, York said that it had "worked for us."

"Every council is reflective of their community," he said.

The national policy says that while the Boy Scouts do 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."

The national organization, based in Texas, decided to stand by the policy after an 11-member committee spent two years reviewing it.

In a statement Tuesday, national officials announced that they unanimously agreed to keep the long-standing policy despite protests because it "remains in the best interest of scouting" and "reflects the beliefs and perspectives" of its members.

"While a majority of our membership agrees with our policy, we fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society," Chief Scout Executive Bob Mazzuca said.

The statement added that the Boy Scouts don't criticize or condemn "those who wish to follow a different path," but that homosexuality should be left to parents, spiritual advisers and others.

Both the state and national Girl Scouts of the USA allow lesbian members and troop leaders in its ranks.

"We've always been inclusive," said Sara Danzinger of the Girl Scouts of Minnesota and Wisconsin River Valleys. She added that the Boy Scouts "are a brother organization, but this is just an area where we differ."
...

[hank moon]

:facepalm1: Private entity.... Supreme Court.....

Hmmm. But is the BSA truly "private" when they receive many benefits from the Federal gov't?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html

http://secular.org/news/government-funding-boys-scouts-discriminatory-policies-unacceptable

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html

[Scott Card]

Hmmm. But is the BSA truly "private" when they receive many benefits from the Federal gov't?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,164547,00.html

http://secular.org/news/government-funding-boys-scouts-discriminatory-policies-unacceptable

http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, Yes.

[hank moon]

Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, Yes.

If they ruled that your answer was really good, would it be? :twisted:

[Sombeech]

If they ruled that your answer was really good, would it be? :twisted:


http://crockettlives.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/judge-judy.jpeg

[Deathcricket]

Until the Supreme Court says otherwise, Yes.

PWNED! /end thread

56717

[Byron]

Opinions vary, for me it's just a matter of risk assessment.

[ratagonia]

Opinions vary, for me it's just a matter of risk assessment.

Based on an (paranoid, homophobic) "opinion" that homosexuals and pedophiles are the same thing, or closely related.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, Byron. But those who study the issue consistently find that pedophiles self-describe as heterosexuals (if they have sex with adults, their sex is with women):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#Association_with_chil d_abuse_and_pedophilia



...
A number of small-scale studies by Dr. Carole Jenny, Dr. A.W. Richard Sipe, and others have not found evidence that homosexuals are more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-usatoday2002-59)[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-60) Based on phallometric tests, Dr. Kurt Freund (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Freund) asserted that "androphiles" (male homosexuals with a preference for adults) are no more attracted to adolescent or younger boys than "gynephiles" (male heterosexuals with a preference for adults) are to adolescent or younger girls.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-61)[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-62) According to him, only rarely does a sex offender against male children have a preference for adult males.[64] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-63) Other researches available also suggest men who molest boys (specially prepubertal ones) tend to prefer adult women over men as sexual partners, as famously proven in the study of Paxson Helgesen (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paxson_Helgesen&action=edit&redlink=1).[65] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-64)[66] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-65)[67] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-66)[68] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-67)[69] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-68)

Johns Hopkins University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johns_Hopkins_University) psychiatrist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychiatrist) Dr. Frederick Berlin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Berlin), who runs a treatment program for offenders, says it's flawed to assume that men who molest young boys are attracted to adult men; Berlin defines attraction to children as a separate orientation of its own.[70] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-69)

Psychotherapist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotherapist) Dr. A.W. Richard Sipe, also argue that the sexual deprivation that occurs in the priesthood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood) could lead one to turn to children and that boys are more accessible to priests and other male authority figures than girls.[60] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-usatoday2002-59) A study by Dr. A. Nicholas Groth found that nearly half of the child sex offenders in his small sample were exclusively attracted to children. The other half regressed to children after finding trouble in adult relationships. No one in his sample was primarily attracted to same-sex adults.[71] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-70)

The empirical research show that sexual orientation does not affect the likelihood that people will abuse children.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-herekmolest-71)[73] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-lamb-72)[74] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-73) Many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.[72] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_and_homosexuality#cite_note-herekmolest-71)
...


If you really want to dig into it, there are 14 citations in that section of article.

Tom :moses;

[Byron]

This is what I mean by "risk assessment"...Google "Chile investigating 61 schools for reports of child sex abuse". I'd post a link to it, it's a fresh story, but I can't seem to get it to post up. They're called predators, Tom. And as for as I'm concerned...Man+boy+sex=gay, period.

[hank moon]

They're called predators, Tom. And as for as I'm concerned...Man+boy+sex=gay, period.

Oh yeah? Well as far as I'm concerned...

(sheep + squid + dog) x gold lam

[ratagonia]

This is what I mean by "risk assessment"...Google "Chile investigating 61 schools for reports of child sex abuse". I'd post a link to it, it's a fresh story, but I can't seem to get it to post up. They're called predators, Tom. And as for as I'm concerned...Man+boy+sex=gay, period.

Why stop there, Byron. As far as I'm concerned, reasonably-attractive guy with a hard-on = GAY! Period! No logic! None of that liberal SCIENCE stuff. I said it. I believe it. That settles it!

No reason to let the facts get in the way of a good fear. Or science or...

The same kind of logic shown in this movie:

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/invisible-war
http://invisiblewarmovie.com/

Under Don't Ask Don't Tell, if a private soldier or marine, male, was raped by a superior officer, male, and REPORTED, generally what happened was, the soldier, usually of a heterosexual orientation, was dismissed from the service for having gay sex; while the officer denies the charges, explains to his buddy the C.O. that it never happened, poor gay soldier making it up, probably too much stress, and the C.O. chooses not to prosecute. Good thing too because having rape happen on your command can set your career back big time.

Tom :moses:

[restrac2000]

This is what I mean by "risk assessment"...Google "Chile investigating 61 schools for reports of child sex abuse". I'd post a link to it, it's a fresh story, but I can't seem to get it to post up. They're called predators, Tom. And as for as I'm concerned...Man+boy+sex=gay, period.

Agree with the idea that pedophiles are predators....and I can kinda understand why people want to label "man+boy=gay" but its blatantly inaccurate for how the term is used in general. Both homosexual and heterosexual are about consenting sex between individuals of the "same" age. Its not that hard to understand. Outside of that framework you get into a different sexual area of taboo and hence the different names for it.

Its extremely insulting to link homosexuality with pedophilia.

Do we call man+underage girl=heterosexual? No, we call them pedophiles. Same with woman who prey on kids. Its also why we have a different name for people who force sex on others, wether of the same sex or not.

You might want to read up on the dynamics of sexual predators. Its not what most people think.

[restrac2000]

This is what I mean by "risk assessment"...Google "Chile investigating 61 schools for reports of child sex abuse". I'd post a link to it, it's a fresh story, but I can't seem to get it to post up.

Googled it. Guess what, they call it child molestation....not heterosexual/homosexual intercourse.

As far as risk assessment.....the best risk-based choice would be to fire all "straight" married white men and never allow them to teach or interact with kids again. Why? Because statically they are the most common culprits. You should also never allow anyone in your family that fits that category to interact with your own kids. (Intentional Gross Generalization)

Your idea of risk assessment is illogical. You don't exclude openly gay people because they are predators. That is subterfuge not supported by fact. You exclude and segregate homosexuals because of personal bigotry and prejudice. Its so much easier to disguise it in innuendo and fabricated depravity and your case looks better.

The adults pushing this agenda in the BSA have no logical reason to fear for their kids safety if homosexuals were allowed to participate. They do have reason to fear that their bigotry will be exposed for its major flaws though....and that seems to always be the root of segregation and exclusion. When we interact with others we learn the depth of our assumptions flaws. At least most of us do who are open-minded and tolerant.

[ratagonia]

A good new piece, same subject. I'll just quote a teaser as the article is rather long:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patrick-flanary/boy-scouts-gay-ban_b_1691171.html

How the Boy Scouts Banned Brotherhood and the Buddy System


Posted: 07/20/2012 9:03 pm




By mid-week at Boy Scout camp, it was usually pretty clear who was skipping showers. After all, it was close quarters in those dank tents. I remember spending a week every summer with hundreds of other prepubescent boys in North Carolina's great outdoors -- where home became a world of latrines, ticks and total lack of privacy -- and loving it. Every day brought a merit badge free-for-all that began with throwing on our starchy beige uniforms at Reveille and pledging allegiance before breakfast.

Scouts spent every waking (and sleeping) moment together during those annual campouts, and nowhere was this more evident than during afternoon swims at the lake. More than a rule or expectation, the Buddy System was our one real duty: stick together and look out for each other. God help you if you weren't clutching your buddy's wrist when the lifeguard blew the whistle.

The irony of the Buddy System wasn't lost on me this week, when a committee of the Boy Scouts of America affirmed its long-standing discriminatory policy. "We do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals," they said, adding that "same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside" of the BSA.

This language sounds more direct and deliberately bigoted in a year when President Obama affirmed his support for same-sex couples who want to wed. While the leader of the free world says it's okay to love, the BSA insists there's no place for it. In my younger years, Scouting offered an incubator for becoming a young man. When Dad volunteered as an assistant Scoutmaster for my troop, he taught us how to light a grill, use a pocketknife properly, and clean a cast-iron skillet. I'm sure he never expected to shoot pool with his son at a gay bar in West Hollywood years later.

When I called my younger brother Scott this week in California, he had not heard the latest news in the BSA saga. No surprise there -- he packs his schedule to capacity. When he's not overseeing student affairs at a major university, he's tutoring students prepping for their SATs. Or running marathons. Or squeezing in a disciplined CrossFit workout and the occasional reality show audition. Scott once spent months traveling the country aboard a cruise ship, where he led an events team charged with entertaining tourists. He later earned his Master's in higher ed administration from Harvard -- they even named him class marshal. LinkedIn seems to have been created for Scott.

Yet in addition to my brother's laundry list of achievements, Scott also happens to be gay. A gay Eagle Scout, at that. And though he once trained as a camp counselor, today Scott wouldn't be allowed anywhere near a campground, much less a Scout meeting.

...


Tom

[DiscGo]

[QUOTE=hank moon;505082]Oh yeah? Well as far as I'm concerned...

(sheep + squid + dog) x gold lam