Boy Scouts could end ban on Gay Members & Leaders

[Sombeech]

The Boy Scouts of America has often-times been criticized for its ban on gay members and leaders. But a new report from NBC News claims (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16739587-exclusive-boy-scouts-close-to-ending-ban-on-gay-members-leaders?lite) that the organization may be preparing to do an about-face on the contentious issue. According to inside sources, the Boy Scouts may very well decide in the coming days to lift the controversial regulation. Rather than an endorsement of same-sex lifestyles, the new rules would remove the national ban and allow local scouting groups to decide for themselves whether they will admit gay youths and leaders.
In order to pass, the new regulatory structure would need to be adopted by the Boy Scouts board of directors. If this happens, the power to make decisions regarding the matter would be localized, likely moving the debate from the national organization to its affiliates.

[hank moon]

This is good news...possibly influenced by recent changes in the LDS church attitudes? Dunno. Looking forward to more developments.

[accadacca]

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/550249_4669808617853_820547456_n.jpg?dl=1

[Garbanzo]

This explains why I was just called as a Varsity Coach. Well, it is about Damn time! :D

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk 2

[Deathcricket]

Kinda a moot point anyways IMO. What gay guy wants to sleep in the woods with a bunch of little boys anyways? :lol8:

[rockgremlin]

Sexual discrimination needs to GO AWAY!

What does the BSA care if someone in the scouting program is gay? How would they even know? :roll:

[Sombeech]

What does the BSA care if someone in the scouting program is gay? How would they even know? :roll:

:haha:

63161

[rockgremlin]

I'm ADVOCATING for lifting gay discrimination....remember? We had it all planned....unless you're backing out. :cry1:

[DiscGo]

63161

I feel badly for this guy/girl. He/she is the poster child for intolerance and to the best of my knowledge has done nothing to deserve it

[accadacca]

http://www.doubleknot.com/OrgCommCenterPro/157/BSA%20officer%20statement(1).jpg

[Byron]

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/15607869744904111652Don't know where the hell this came from...I would like it much better if the girl in the tank top came back!!! LOL!!!! Oh well, it is a gay thread, right?

[rockgremlin]

Way to go BSA Salt Lake for keeping your heads stubbornly buried in the sand. It's disappointing that instead of embracing tolerance and acceptance, you insist on endorsing discrimination and bigotry.

Shame on you.

[REDFOX]

Maybe they should bend their rules to allow anyone to be a part of their club even suicide bombers.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

[rockgremlin]

Maybe they should bend their rules to allow anyone to be a part of their club even suicide bombers.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2


They would probably allow suicide bombers before homosexuals. God forbid.

[DOSS]

Maybe they should bend their rules to allow anyone to be a part of their club even suicide bombers.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

Meh.. they seem to have had more pedophile bishops (both LDS and Catholic) than there have been pedophile gay youth group leaders... I think they may want to rethink their policy :crazy:

[2065toyota]

I am indifferent on the issue.

I do however, support every organization, business and individual to be able to have their opinions and / or policies.

They should not be criticized just because their opinion/policy does not match yours. We live in America and are free to choose and should not be forced to have "tolerance and acceptance". That was never part of our constitution or included in any ammendment. Even though it seems like those don't mean much anymore.

[Udink]

They should not be criticized just because their opinion/policy does not match yours. We live in America and are free to choose and should not be forced to have "tolerance and acceptance". That was never part of our constitution or included in any ammendment. Even though it seems like those don't mean much anymore.
Perhaps they shouldn't be forced, but certainly nobody is above being criticized. That is included as an amendment (the First) to the Constitution. :)

[2065toyota]

Perhaps they shouldn't be forced, but certainly nobody is above being criticized. That is included as an amendment (the First) to the Constitution. :)

Very True.

Just hate to see a good organization the does a lot of good for a lot of kids, get hammered down because of it

[hank moon]

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

Excerpt from "How Your Tax Dollars Support the Boy Scouts of America"

Taxpayer Dollars
Though no level of government directly funds the operating budget of the BSA, member and unit sponsors paid fees that amounted in 1993 to $56.8 million out of a total budget of $115 million. In addition, supply operations garnered $18.4 million, and magazine publications another $3.7 million. Income from these sources would likely be greatly reduced if the BSA were not a federally protected monopoly. You can even be arrested for selling your own "scout souvenirs" without authorization.


The 355 local councils of the Boy Scouts have separate budgets which are more directly dependent on community and corporate donations. Approximately one third of the 1993 aggregate total for local councils came from local United Way organizations. Recently, however, United Way support has been reduced or cut off completely in some areas. The United Way cut funding to the Los Angeles Council of the BSA by 52 percent in 1993.


The BSA maintains statistical data on membership and unit (pack, troop and, post) growth. For years, detailed breakdowns of unit sponsorship were printed in the annual reports filed with Congress. I have combined some information from the latest, 1993, report with data supplied directly by BSA spokesperson Richard Walker:


Government organization Total Units Explorer Units

[Sombeech]

Though no level of government directly funds the operating budget of the BSA, member and unit sponsors paid fees that amounted....



I'm not sure what this means

[rockgremlin]

I do however, support every organization, business and individual to be able to have their opinions and / or policies.



The problem here is that their opinions and policies support outright discrimination. The same mindset was rampant during the 50's and 60's - only instead of sexual identity, the bigotry was aimed at racial identity.

[Deathcricket]

Sorry guys, the person with the longest post and most words, wins.

Grats hank!

[2065toyota]

The problem here is that their opinions and policies support outright discrimination. The same mindset was rampant during the 50's and 60's - only instead of sexual identity, the bigotry was aimed at racial identity.

Just for consistency, have you also filed a complaint with "united negro college fund". Or 'cheetahs' in Vegas for having no male dancers? What about Costco for not letting me in without my card. There are many types of discrimination, and all can be reasonably justified. How about we also show the tolerance that you ask for to allow an organization to do as it wishes.

Again, I am only arguing for equal tolerance, not arguing that they made a right or wrong decision

[rockgremlin]

Just for consistency, have you also filed a complaint with "united negro college fund". Or 'cheetahs' in Vegas for having no male dancers? What about Costco for not letting me in without my card. There are many types of discrimination, and all can be reasonably justified. How about we also show the tolerance that you ask for to allow an organization to do as it wishes.

Again, I am only arguing for equal tolerance, not arguing that they made a right or wrong decision


I can see your point, and I agree with you that not an injustices of the world can be rectified. Especially that Costco one - I hate that! :haha:

However, I think that the issue of equal rights for homosexuals carries a little more weight than whether or not Cheetahs doesn't allow male dancers, etc. What I'm arguing for is an issue of basic human rights. In America we claim to be lovers of tolerance and diversity. ("....with liberty & justice for all'). But if you read the fine print there are a very large number of individuals who aren't included.

I'll tackle that issue with Costco another day, but for now let's focus on issues that are more pressing.

[hank moon]

The gist of the prizewinning post is that the BSA is (indirectly) supported by federal tax dollars in many ways, some pretty subtle. There's also the no-so-subtle matter of the legal monopoly on "scouting" organizations (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/30905). The BSA has from the start blurred the line between public and private. Something to consider when comparing them to other orgs who have "opinions and / or policies" but federal no tax dollar support and legal monopoly.

[Sandstone Addiction]

The problem here is that their opinions and policies support outright discrimination.

The same policies "support outright discrimination" against the vast majority of the population.

Most girls are not allowed, anyone over 18 is not allowed, little kids too--that's a lot of people and a lot of discrimination.

Obviously the BSA hates nearly everyone! :roll: [sarcasm]

[RedSpecialized]

I can see your point, and I agree with you that not an injustices of the world can be rectified. Especially that Costco one - I hate that! :haha: ..........In America we claim to be lovers of tolerance and diversity. ("....with liberty & justice for all'). But if you read the fine print there are a very large number of individuals who aren't included.

All this time I thought the fine print said " IN GOD WE TRUST"......?

[James_B_Wads2000]

And God hates fags! Point winner!



James

[Iceaxe]

What does the BSA care if someone in the scouting program is gay? How would they even know?

It's easy to tell if someone is gay.... because they look like you.

Hahaha...



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[rockgremlin]

The same policies "support outright discrimination" against the vast majority of the population.

Most girls are not allowed, anyone over 18 is not allowed, little kids too--that's a lot of people and a lot of discrimination.

Obviously the BSA hates nearly everyone! :roll: [sarcasm]


Dude.....what would you know? You're addicted to sandstone! :fitz:

[rockgremlin]

It's easy to tell if someone is gay.... because they look like you.

Hahaha...



Tap'n on my Galaxy G3


This from a dude that likes to go "camping" with unfamiliar men he meets online...:bootyshake:

[Sombeech]

Discrimination is terrible and it's ugly. I do not see any reason why homosexuals would not make great scout leaders, and whatever else the policy is including.

But once and for all, can we quit DIRECTLY linking homosexual discrimination to racism against African Americans? It's not even close to what the Blacks went through.


Public lynching
Burning Crosses in the front yard
Separate seating in the theaters
Not allowed in many of the same buildings
Separate facilities
The right to vote
SLAVERY
Being used as currency
Different schools
Being denied schooling altogether
limited job openings
the right to own a home
And much of the same racism that exists still today, which is nothing what it used to be, but is still far worse than how homosexuals are treated on average.


Do you know how pissed off the vast number of African Americans are when you try to relate what they and their ancestors went through, to how a very small limited number of institutions do not fully support the homosexual lifestyle?

It's like when somebody compares Bush or Obama to Hitler. It just holds zero validity and I have to discredit anybody who raises the comparison.

Now the BSA, if I understand correctly will still not allow openly homosexual scout leaders, will definitely get their fill of negative feedback and consequences. I do not fully understand their stance but I do support their freedom to make it, and I support everybody else's freedom to criticize the hell out of them for doing so. But for hell's sake it's getting ridiculous the way we compare the Black struggle with what homosexuals may not have available today. And the same people are bringing up racism 100% of the time anytime somebody doesn't like Gay Marriage. Discrimination sucks but the racism comparison does not help the argument one bit.

If you really want to help the homosexual struggle, focus on why they WOULD be actually capable of performing whatever detail they are being denied, and you'll have better success. Just leave the racism comparison out because it actually hurts the cause.

[DOSS]

But once and for all, can we quit DIRECTLY linking homosexual discrimination to racism against African Americans?


No.. because it is what is called an example. Not that it is exactly the same but it is something that people can use to relate and understand the same kind of actions being taken on other people... Is that really that hard to understand?

How does one explain to a bigot that they are a bigot when they truly believe that their actions are not bigoted?

[Sombeech]

No.. because it is what is called an example. Not that it is exactly the same but it is something that people can use to relate and understand the same kind of actions being taken on other people... Is that really that hard to understand?

How does one explain to a bigot that they are a bigot when they truly believe that their actions are not bigoted?
Again, same kind of actions? Which of what I listed above are the same kind of actions?

You would have a valid rebuttal if Jews and the Holocaust were thrown into the mix at least 50% of the time, or even the Egyptians against the Hebrews.

How about a rare occasional mention of the extermination order against the Mormons in the state of Missouri that was only lifted in the 1970's? Is that EVER used as an example?

Find me one thread where homosexual discrimination is discussed without mention of the civil rights or African American discrimination.

Just one.

Then I'll lay off.

EDIT:
And again, for those who read my points simply highlighting the vast differences between the two demographic bigotries, and think this means I'm anti gay, anti black, anti Mormon, anti Scout, or the anti Christ, I'm not. I'm "Anti Emotional Reaction".

And by the way I've recently become a scout leader with the 16-17 year old boys, and it makes absolutely zero difference if I was working with a homosexual scout leader. I would not care one bit. I do not defend the BSA's decision but I do defend their right to make it, and I do defend your right to give them one hell of a protest because it's obviously a big bold statement.

But just ask yourself, is it not true that there is the constant attempt to portray those who are not on the Gay Marriage cheerleader squad, the same type of racists as in the 60's?

[Brian in SLC]

Again, same kind of actions?

I don't have much of a dog in this hunt, but...


Defining a Hate Crime
A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a "criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.


Local news stations have been covering the heck out of this. Pretty interesting. We had a bit of a spirited, but friendly, discussion about it today post work. Was wondering what the politics behind this were, what the heck was driving the change. Corporate sponsers pulling out (no pun intended...ha ha)? Show me the money! Crazy stuff.

Have to say the local Utah spokesman doesn't come across as the poster child for inclusiveness...

[Brian in SLC]

Doesn't take much of a google search to find this interesting article...

Gay rights & civil rightsBy ERIC DEGGANS
Published January 18, 2004

"If (the black man) demands the right to be hired, he has to recognize somebody else's right not to hire him." - U.S. Rep. Thomas Abernethy, D-Miss., in a 1964 speech against the Civil Rights Act.

"If I'm an apartment owner, I should have the right to rent to who I choose to. If I'm an apartment owner and it says in my thing that no dogs can live in my complex, I'm discriminating against the dogs, I guess, huh? But, in other words, I'm saying these are rules that one has set."
- Rev. Richard Bennett Jr., executive director of the Miami-area African American Council of Christian Clergy, explaining, in Miami's New Times in 2002, the group's resistance to recognizing gay rights.

Ask Nadine Smith whether the struggle for gay rights can be compared to black people's classic civil rights struggle, and she chuckles a little before responding.

As executive director of the Tampa-based advocacy group Equality Florida, she's at the center of the fight for gay marriage rights, gay adoption rights and more. And as a black lesbian, Smith admits she "sort of lives in the intersection" of all those questions.

Comparing the struggles to conquer homophobia, sexism and racism aren't academic exercises for her; it's the story of her life.
"Sometimes this question is phrased in a way that plays into the hands of bigots by asking people to rank oppression . . . asking people "Who has it worse?' " Smith said. "I've experienced racism, sexism and homophobia. And the worst one is whatever one you're dealing with right now."

The Rev. Walter Fauntroy offers a similarly pensive response to the same question.

Now age 70, Fauntroy was the Washington, D.C., coordinator for the historic March on Washington in 1963 that produced Martin Luther King's renowned "I Have a Dream" speech. As a former delegate for Washington in the U.S. House and former head of the Congressional Black Caucus, he spearheaded countless civil rights initiatives in the community and in the legislature.

But when a proposal surfaced to include a gay speaker on the 20th anniversary celebration of the March in 1983, Fauntroy chaired the group of organizers who turned it down (he said gay speakers have appeared at anniversary celebrations since 1993).
And though he believes black and gay people's struggle for rights are "exactly" the same when it comes to five key areas - access to income, education, health care, housing and criminal justice - he draws the line at the most visible issue now before the courts and community: gay marriage.

"My religious tradition says (homosexuality) is an abomination," said Fauntroy, who serves as pastor of the New Bethel Baptist Church in Washington and has publicly supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as "the union of a man and a woman."

"Don't come to me asking society to attribute to a same-sex union the term "marriage.' It's a misnomer," the pastor added. "Have your same-sex union; have your contracts. But don't confuse my young people into thinking they don't need one another. Don't tell my young women they don't need a man."

As the country prepares to celebrate the birthday of one of the country's greatest civil rights leaders Monday, the question resurfaces: Is the fight to expand gay rights comparable to the civil rights struggle for black people that remains Martin Luther King's greatest legacy?

If so, will those opposing gay marriage laws, gay adoption rights and openly gay military service wind up on the same side of history as segregationists and alarmists who once opposed so-called "race-mixing"?

And if not, why not?

One component clouding the issue on all sides is emotion.

Black people, who may or may not agree with homosexuality itself, remain wary of associating other struggles with the effort to end America's centuries-long legacy of racism and segregation. Gay people suspect that much of the resistance to comparing the two struggles stems from homophobia.

"A lot of people have a visceral reaction to the thought of gay sex," said Matt Foreman of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in Washington. "It's been called in our movement, the "Ick Factor.' But if you have an opportunity to sit down and talk with someone about the issues, many times they come around."

Put the question to Henry Louis Gates Jr. - one of the country's leading scholars on race and civil rights as chair of African and African American Studies at Harvard University - and he reacts as if you've asked him whether rain is wet.

"The black community has traditionally been homophobic . . . (it's) deeply rooted in our culture, and I don't understand why," said Gates, now launching a PBS series and companion book on the current state of black America called America: Beyond the Color Line.

"I don't understand why the movement to legitimize gay marriage would bother people so much," added Gates, while noting that, outside issues of civil rights and social justice, black people often hold conservative political viewpoints. "We have to fight to educate people and transform that visceral response . . . (because) one of the strengths of the black civil rights movement is that it's served as a model for so many other movements. We who have suffered so much should also be the most compassionate."

And Gates isn't the only prominent black voice to take this point of view. Both black presidential candidates, Carol Moseley Braun, who dropped out Thursday, and Al Sharpton, have called the gay marriage fight a civil rights issue in the traditional sense - along with luminaries such as Julian Bond, Martin Luther King III and his mother, Coretta Scott King.

Staffers at the King Center in Atlanta declined to schedule an interview with Mrs. King, saying they preferred to focus on community service at the celebration of Dr. King's birthday. But she has spoken out on the subject in the past, equating homophobia to racism.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice," Mrs. King said in 1998, according to Reuters news service."But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.'I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

Indeed, plans for a nationwide series of rallies during Valentine's Day week to protest a constitutional gay marriage ban - including a Feb. 14 rally at Lowry Park in Tampa - bear all the hallmarks of classic, grass-roots civil rights actions. The rallies are sponsored by Metropolitan Community Churches, the Equality Campaign and DontAmend.com.

But those who say homosexuality is immoral and unhealthy charge that gay activists are "hijacking" the nation's civil rights movement; using hard-fought gains for racial minorities and women to justify an orientation many find morally repugnant.

"Skin color or ethnicity involves no moral choices . . . but how you conduct yourself sexually does," said Robert Knight, a former Los Angeles Times staffer who now serves as director of the Culture & Family Institute, an affiliate of Concerned Women for America, which advocates the promotion of biblical values among citizens.

"They are trying to hijack the moral capital of the black civil rights movement and use it to force society to affirm their behavior, regardless of other people's moral beliefs about it," added Knight, who can quote medical studies and surveys that he says back his religion-based belief that homosexuality is a dysfunctional choice, not a born trait.

Fauntroy expressed fears that infighting among black people and gay people over such questions may distract progressive voters at a time when the focus should be elsewhere: namely, on breaking conservatives' hold on the White House and Congress during an important election year.

"Right wing racists . . . use these one-sided issues to divert attention from the fundamental issues of how you spread income around," he said. "I am still smarting from the use of prayer in the schools and abortion . . . to foster voting on sideshow issues. I resent having to spend my valuable time discussing another sideshow issue."

* * * "All the bayonets in the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches and our places of recreation."
- Then-presidential candidate Strom Thurmond in a 1948 speech.

"The whole thing bespeaks of something much deeper and more insidious than "We just want to get married.' (Homosexuals) want to change the entire social order."
- Mychal Massie, conservative columnist and member of Project 21, a Washington-based alliance of conservative black people, in a November Associated Press article.

When organizers of the 40th anniversary of the March on Washington officially invited gay and lesbian advocacy groups to help plan last year's celebration - a first in the history of the event - Matt Foreman joined in, helping draw an estimated 1,500 gay and lesbian supporters to the celebration.

And on some issues - the way religion is used to justify persecution, the way unpopular court cases are paving the way for mainstream acceptance - he sees the parallels between his struggle for civil rights and the struggle to eradicate racism.
But even Foreman thinks some gay rights advocates go too far.

"The problem is that . . . people in the gay and lesbian movement have frequently tried to cloak themselves in the civil rights movement for African Americans without recognizing the differences . . . and that has quite rightly been seen as offensive," said Foreman, who pointed out a recent press release from one advocacy group calling marriage bureaus "the new lunch counters" for gay people, evoking the sit-in protests at segregated restaurants in the '60s.

"We don't have separate restrooms, we are not being met by dogs and truncheons (and) that is a huge, profound difference," he added, noting that people of color may be even more offended in hearing such comparisons come from a group the media often portrays as affluent, male and white.

"Gay people have been persecuted throughout history, but there is nothing to compare to state-sanctioned centuries of oppression," Foreman said. "And many gay and lesbian people are able to or are forced to hide their orientation and avoid discrimination."

The key, for some, may lie in separating the history of each group's persecution from their struggles to overcome it.
Trying to draw similarities between racism and homophobia seems a losing proposition. But looking at the progress both groups have made in fighting to earn new rights may be instructive.

For example, when the Supreme Court struck down laws against interracial marriage in the 1968 Loving vs. Virginia case, a Gallup Poll showed 72 percent of respondents disapproved of such unions. It would take 23 years of regular surveys before the percentage of those approving interracial marriage would outnumber the percentage of those who disapproved.

The lesson: Polls showing widespread current opposition to gay marriage (at 60 percent among both white and black people, according to a November poll by the Pew Research Center), may change with time.

In his 1996 book One More River to Cross: Black and Gay in America, author Keith Boykin devoted an entire chapter to "The Common Language of Racism and Homophobia," noting that arguments once used to justify segregation and racial oppression now surface in antigay discussions.

Indeed, the position gay rights activists find themselves in now - victory in several key court decisions that has sparked a backlash in the mainstream; sympathetic media coverage that is changing some minds - could be comparable to the position black civil rights activists found themselves after the Loving case or the Brown vs. Board of Education decision striking down school segregation in 1954.

"It's amazing to me how we don't learn from our past experiences," said Boykin, a former writer for the Clearwater Times. "(Pulitzer Prize-winning historian) Barbara Tuchman once said every successful revolution eventually puts on the robes of its oppressor. I'm afraid in the case of black people, we've seen that happen again."

But for some who oppose homosexuality, no amount of historical comparison will change their minds.

"Just because I don't want a gay man to teach my son in school, that is not discrimination," said Rev. Richard Bennett Jr., whose African American Council of Christian Clergy in 2002 circulated fliers to Miami-area black churches saying Dr. King would be "outraged" at efforts to link gay rights advocacy with the black civil rights struggle.

"If my daughter plays with a little girl who says I have two mommies or two daddies, that's affecting my children," he added. "For them to compare the civil rights with gay rights - it should be offensive to every African-American in the whole United States."

[Iceaxe]

Sorry beech.... but I totally disagree with you.... discrimination is discrimination and its wrong. It doesn't matter if it's black or gay.... attempting to rank one form of discrimination over the other is silly.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Sombeech]

Sorry beech.... but I totally disagree with you.... discrimination is discrimination and its wrong. It doesn't matter if it's black or gay.... attempting to rank one form of discrimination over the other is silly.

Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

Nope, I'm absolutely not favoring one group over the other. I'm not ranking, I'm not prioritizing, I'm not scoring. People are saying homosexuals are going through what Blacks did and I'm straight up calling bullshit and everybody knows it. And that is not an anti gay statement. Both Gays and Blacks are discriminated against, along with many other groups. That is terrible and everybody reading this agrees that it is terrible. But the main difference is you would never compare the oppression against Mormons in Missouri by extermination to homosexual discrimination today. Why is that? Why is it ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS compared to African American discrimination?

It's because you are suggesting that the two parties are going through the same things, and they absolutely are not. Why not compare homosexual discrimination to the Jews more often? Just curious, why is it always the blacks?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1glTN5OKUs

And another one with plenty of F bombs so here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHlowcuNHxo

[DOSS]

Again, same kind of actions? Which of what I listed above are the same kind of actions?

You would have a valid rebuttal if Jews and the Holocaust were thrown into the mix at least 50% of the time, or even the Egyptians against the Hebrews.

How about a rare occasional mention of the extermination order against the Mormons in the state of Missouri that was only lifted in the 1970's? Is that EVER used as an example?

Find me one thread where homosexual discrimination is discussed without mention of the civil rights or African American discrimination.

Just one.

Then I'll lay off.



But just ask yourself, is it not true that there is the constant attempt to portray those who are not on the Gay Marriage cheerleader squad, the same type of racists as in the 60's?

Just one example of a gay guy being killed becouse he was gay http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/s/matthew_shepard/index.html
can you say public lynching :) Now please STFU as you said you would

I think you missed that fact that a similarity and same are not the exact same thing. you may want to read up on the differences before you come back saying that "that is not the exact same thing".. you would be right, its a similarity IE it is what most closely resembles the thing being talked about but is not the thing.. sigh

Oh and the fact that only a small % of the population knows about the extermination order so it would not be a very good example to use to explain things to people who don't understand already that discrimination is occurring.Had you thought of that?

I don't have to find you any such discussion because it is probably brought up in all of them as it is the closest most accurate example of the discrimination they face. Please note again the use of the word "EXAMPLE" that does not indicate it is a perfect and exact replica of the discrimination but that it is close in similarity to it...

And finally I did ask myself.. and bigotry is bigotry we don't need to measure levels of bigotry :)

[Sombeech]

Find me one thread where homosexual discrimination is discussed without mention of the civil rights or African American discrimination.

Just one.

Then I'll lay off.

Just one example of a gay guy being killed becouse he was gay
can you say public lynching :) Now please STFU as you said you would

Oh come on now, my promise to you wasn't THAT hard to follow, was it?



I don't have to find you any such discussion because it is probably brought up in all of them


A hint, there probably, just maybe is a thread here where Black discrimination is not mentioned as an automatic comparison, I just want you to find it.

[accadacca]

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6179/6134866589_3f488a7d60_b.jpg

[Sombeech]

Let's attempt to start on a fresh note. I posted this article on the "potential" good news that the BSA would change their policy. And it looks like it didn't go through. I honestly think it's too bad. I don't know what their reasons were, and I have no reason why a homosexual would not make a great scout leader.

I am merely proving the undeniable point that the homosexual struggle is 100% of the time compared to the Black struggle. (and not the Jewish discrimination, Chinese, or even Russian discrimination during the Cold War, Mormon discrimination, or Hispanic discrimination)

Discrimination is discrimination. Absolutely true. But are you categorizing lynching and burning crosses as mere discrimination? If you are, that's a pretty big range of discrimination. I would actually call those hate crimes.

But if you say discrimination is discrimination, bigotry is bigotry, then you are pointing out no difference between the BSA and the KKK.

Is it anti gay to point this out? Do you think I'm a bigot for making this distinction? Because if you're going to have the balls to call somebody a bigot, you need to stand behind your claim and clarify your point, instead of making vague hit'n'run points. Come on, say it flat out, is it anti gay to say homosexuals have it a lot easier than the Blacks did? Just answer that and we can discuss that. Once we can get past the bullsh*t, then maybe we can have a serious conversation about how homosexuals are very capable of being scout leaders

[DOSS]

Oh come on now, my promise to you wasn't THAT hard to follow, was it?


Guess I failed to read that one right.. Still STFU you have derailed the conversation significantly already from the original point that being a bigot is not cool no matter if it is legal or not.

And yes the BSA is just as bigoted as the KKK and I wouldn't want to be affiliated with either of them based on their bigotry :)

And I don't know how a homosexual wouldn't be capable of being a scout leader.. are you saying that homosexuals are somehow not capable of teaching boys to do things?

[Sombeech]

Guess I failed to read that one right.. Still STFU you have derailed the conversation significantly already from the original point that being a bigot is not cool no matter if it is legal or not.

It's ok, it happens when you're emotional.

Let's start discussing the bigotry of the BSA. It has nothing to do with the Black struggle. Let's discuss homosexuals and why they're banned from the BSA and quit getting sidetracked with comparing it to the civil rights movement.

[Sombeech]

And I don't know how a homosexual wouldn't be capable of being a scout leader.. are you saying that homosexuals are somehow not capable of teaching boys to do things?

OMG another failure to read my posts???? Come on dude, get it together. I've posted several times in this very thread how I have no problem with homosexuals being scout leaders.

Alright, alright.... let's tone it down a notch. Back on topic.

I would like to know what the actual BSA policy states regarding homosexuals, does anybody have that?

[rockgremlin]

Bigotry against homosexuality doesn't imply that that bigotry is going as far as burning crosses or public hangings.

And for the record, I stated earlier that the discrimination against gays was akin to the segregation of blacks in the 50's and 60's....NOT slavery that occurred in the 1700 - 1800's. There's a HUUUUUGE difference.

[Byron]

Wow, lots of gay love around here. It seems like everyone wants so badly to be perceived as being so anti-discrimination. Well good for you, and I suppose y'all deserve a badge for being so awesome and inclusive.

I, on the other hand, have never tried to live up to that standard. I discriminate against gays, blacks, women, indians, redneck trailer trash and rich, white snobs. I don't trust anyone, as I firmly believe that it's EARNED, no granted. I think that those that dive headlong into the join hands, sing kumbaya, let's "coexist" mindset are usually those that stand dumbfounded when they allowed themselves to be victimized. Life is a matter of risk assessment, and I wouldn't want to put my child in a situation like camping out with Corporal Klinger...I support the ban on gays.

I don't trust strangers...I don't trust gay men that I don't know. I don't trust blacks dressed up like gangsters, or women that hate men...I could go on. The point is, I reserve the right to hold anyone, or any "group" accountable on MY terms. There's a sucker born every minute, and I'm not one of them. Predators prey on kindness, generosity and naivete...it's smart to keep your guard up and foolish to let yourself be swindled into believing them when they say "Trust me".

So there you have it, one person against this with the balls to explain why...call me a bigot, all kinds of names...I really don't care, as I'll be the one trying to console them when their children have been molested and they're trying to figure out how it could have happened. I reserve the right to look skeptically upon anyone I wish, and that includes gay strangers. I vote "NO".

[Sombeech]

I can see that the reference to the African American struggle (and not feminist, religious, nationality, or political discrimination) will ALWAYS be referenced to from the Gay struggle no matter the world of difference and how offensive it actually is to Blacks, no matter what comparisons are made, so I'd just like to focus on the BSA policy itself. You guys are free to continue to backpedal and scramble for similarities between Black and Gay discrimination (which hasn't provided any results yet) but Imma just gonna look at the BSA policy regarding homosexuals and why it states they cannot be scout leaders. Anybody have any actual data on that?

[rockgremlin]

Wow, lots of gay love around here. It seems like everyone wants so badly to be perceived as being so anti-discrimination. Well good for you, and I suppose y'all deserve a badge for being so awesome and inclusive.

I, on the other hand, have never tried to live up to that standard. I discriminate against gays, blacks, women, indians, redneck trailer trash and rich, white snobs. I don't trust anyone, as I firmly believe that it's EARNED, no granted. I think that those that dive headlong into the join hands, sing kumbaya, let's "coexist" mindset are usually those that stand dumbfounded when they allowed themselves to be victimized. Life is a matter of risk assessment, and I wouldn't want to put my child in a situation like camping out with Corporal Klinger...I support the ban on gays.

I don't trust strangers...I don't trust gay men that I don't know. I don't trust blacks dressed up like gangsters, or women that hate men...I could go on. The point is, I reserve the right to hold anyone, or any "group" accountable on MY terms. There's a sucker born every minute, and I'm not one of them. Predators prey on kindness, generosity and naivete...it's smart to keep your guard up and foolish to let yourself be swindled into believing them when they say "Trust me".

So there you have it, one person against this with the balls to explain why...call me a bigot, all kinds of names...I really don't care, as I'll be the one trying to console them when their children have been molested and they're trying to figure out how it could have happened. I reserve the right to look skeptically upon anyone I wish, and that includes gay strangers. I vote "NO".



I'm assuming you hold this stance b'cuz your attempt to get your hands on some good ole' legal Colorado wacky weed have ended in failure. (remember? you were gonna try and get into one of those pot lounges that have recently sprung up, and then come on back and post a trip report. I'm still waiting......)


Go get baked and then come on back to this thread. I dare ya to maintain the same stance. :bandit2:

[rockgremlin]

Imma just gonna look at the BSA policy regarding homosexuals and why it states they cannot be scout leaders. Anybody have any actual data on that?


I don't have any data, and I applaud your efforts to get this train back on track. I'll shut up about other stuff now. :fitz:

[hank moon]

According to http://www.bsalegal.org/news-releases.asp

(formatting added by me)


The BSA policy is: “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.”

Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics.

The BSA is a voluntary, private organization that sets policies that are best for the organization. The BSA welcomes all who share its beliefs but does not criticize or condemn those who wish to follow a different path.

[Brian in SLC]

I can see that the reference to the African American struggle (and not feminist, religious, nationality, or political discrimination) will ALWAYS be referenced to from the Gay struggle no matter the world of difference and how offensive it actually is to Blacks, no matter what comparisons are made, so I'd just like to focus on the BSA policy itself. You guys are free to continue to backpedal and scramble for similarities between Black and Gay discrimination (which hasn't provided any results yet) but Imma just gonna look at the BSA policy regarding homosexuals and why it states they cannot be scout leaders. Anybody have any actual data on that?

Not to side track the conversation, but, that folks are offended that their struggles are compared to someone else's is interesting.

A number of years ago, I went through the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, not long after it opened. I'd been to Dachau outside Munich, so, had some prior experience with some of the history... Anyhow, I followed what was probably mostly a local school group of high school kids through. I gave them some distance. You pick up a card at the start and follow the person's journey and at the end, see if they lived through the deal or not. Kinda of a sobering experience. Along with seeing real boxcars full of real human hair, etc. Anyhow, at the end, there's a book there for comments. I noted that a number of the students, near 100% black kids, making a few comments in the book. So, after they left, I read a few. Whew. "What about our stuggles" and some fairly angry and unprintable stuff. That kinda always stuck with me. I kinda stuggle to understand where that is coming from, especially after seeing so visually and gutterally the struggle of another people. Nearly no sympathy. All anger. Wow. Sad and disturbing on a number of levels. Selfish? Rise above, I suppose.

Similarities? Without a google search...

Black folk in the military versus don't ask don't tell.

Emmett Till versus Matthew Shepard.

The lines between xenophobia and bigotry are sometimes blurred...

Back to the scouts...I think it'd be an interesting conversation that folks honestly offer why a gay scoutmaster would be unacceptable. A friend indicated that's because you couldn't trust "them" around boys at an overnight camp. Really?

I'd think if you had someone involved in scouts, then, you'd know them. At least casually. I'd think a parent would get to know the adults who were supervising their kids, regardless of their orientation. They wouldn't be "strangers" per se, or, they at least they shouldn't be.

Interesting stuff...

[Iceaxe]

but is still far worse than how homosexuals are treated on average.


I get it now... bigotry is totally based on degree of difficulty... :2thumbs:

:roll:

[Byron]

I'm assuming you hold this stance b'cuz your attempt to get your hands on some good ole' legal Colorado wacky weed have ended in failure. (remember? you were gonna try and get into one of those pot lounges that have recently sprung up, and then come on back and post a trip report. I'm still waiting......)


Go get baked and then come on back to this thread. I dare ya to maintain the same stance. :bandit2:I have yet to make the trip, but this is giving me a bit more incentive to visit...and I doubt getting maxed will change my stance at all. The place is called Club 64, and this is from their facebook page...sorry to derail the thread, as I know it's supposed to be all about gayness. :naughty:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/66193_140521632775899_1378950473_n.jpg

[Iceaxe]

I'd think if you had someone involved in scouts, then, you'd know them. At least casually. I'd think a parent would get to know the adults who were supervising their kids, regardless of their orientation. They wouldn't be "strangers" per se, or, they at least they shouldn't be.

I'm involved with a lot of youth programs where I'm in a leadership position, mostly through coaching, some scouting and other activities.... and I'm always amazed at how little interested a large number of parents take in their children and who is in contact with them and guiding them.

I can see the potential for an individual with bad intentions to cause tremendous damage and problems.


:cool2:

[Iceaxe]

Club 64, and this is from their facebook page...sorry to derail the thread, as I know it's supposed to be all about gayness. :naughty:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/66193_140521632775899_1378950473_n.jpg


If that doesn't fix your gayness nothing will. :lol8:

[rockgremlin]

"What about our stuggles" and some fairly angry and unprintable stuff...


It seems with these folks that injustices and atrocities of the past somehow entitle them to all manner of benefits and compensation today. That mind set gives me acid indigestion. :angryfire:

[Brian in SLC]

I can see the potential for an individual with bad intentions to cause tremendous damage and problems.

Sure. Regardless of race, religion, orientation, etc.

Doogie Howser or Jerry Sandusky as scout master?

[Iceaxe]

Sure. Regardless of race, religion, orientation, etc.

I totally agree.... the post was meant as a comment to your "I'd think a parent would get to know the adults who were supervising their kids" remark. You would think parents would take such precautions, but in reality my experiance is that many don't bother.

[Sombeech]

Not to side track the conversation, but, that folks are offended that their struggles are compared to someone else's is interesting
...
I noted that a number of the students, near 100% black kids, making a few comments in the book. So, after they left, I read a few. Whew. "What about our struggles"

And see that's how I feel - Why do we need to bring up the Black struggles? Why must we feel the homosexual rights movement needs the "validation" by mentioning the Black struggle? Is the Gay Rights issue not strong enough on it's own that it needs African American Civil Rights to back it up? Why do we need to convince people that the BSA is exactly like the racists of 1960?

Shane and DOSS, you can say "a bigot is a bigot" all you want, and if there's ever been a group of people you've disagreed with (polygamists?), we can go ahead and call you a bigot too. But that would just be rash and irresponsible, and frankly offensive to just throw that label out in haste.
[TABLE="width: 100%"]

bigot





[TR="class: tr2"]
[TD="class: td2, colspan: 2"]

[Deathcricket]

Are girls allowed in boy scouts? Cause gay guys are pretty much girls with regards to sexual orientation.

Would everyone be comfortable with a grown man taking a bunch of teenage women into the woods for a sleepover? No, because it's opening the possibility for bad stuff to happen. There is a noted cross gender attraction. We hear stories all the time about teachers sleeping with students. By the same token, a gay male is attracted to boys (males) and the potential exists for problems to occur.

Doesn't seem like as complex an argument as you guys are making it out to be. To me at least.

I've seen some "tempting" looking high school ladies out there and I'm pushing the perverted age of 40. I don't see why a gay guy might not have the same problems. Pretty basic stuff IMO.

[Sombeech]

I had female"cub masters" when i was younger. But I'm not sure of the rules now.

But i remember ratagonia made a great point years ago in a similar thread, men that like little boys are not gay, they are pedophiles.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Iceaxe]

men that like little boys are not gay, they are pedophiles.

^^^This^^^


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Brian in SLC]

I had female"cub masters" when i was younger. But I'm not sure of the rules now.

But i remember @ratagonia (http://www.bogley.com/forum/member.php?u=32) made a great point years ago in a similar thread, men that like little boys are not gay, they are pedophiles.

I did too, almost exclusively, in cub scouts. They were all women (the one or two I dimly recall). In Webelos that changed to a feller.

[Mooseman70]

Women are allowed in Scouting. When I participated in Cub Scouting as a young boy, my leaders at the time were mostly women, who served in the capacity of Den Mother. As a current Scoutmaster, I know that women continue to serve in the Scouting program in various capacities, ranging from Den Mothers, Committee members, District and Council positions, etc.

A lot of people ask why homosexuals are not allowed to participate in the program. BSA made this statement back in 2004: "The 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's values and beliefs." They reaffirmed this position as recently as July, 2012. I'm not sure what has changed since last summer to prompt another round of consideration.

I read the above posts in this thread and see a lot of name hurling by those who are in favor of removing the ban, and find it sad that so much venom is hurled at those who wish for the BSA policy to remain unchanged. I, personally, am opposed to removing the ban and wish to see the BSA continue to stand its ground as it has in the past. That said, I am not running around spreading hate and/or fearmongering against those who hold a differing viewpoint. You disagree with the policy? Great - that's your choice. I will respect your opinion, but ask that you respect mine as well. We all have different convictions in life. Just because those convictions differ from yours doesn't make one a bigot, a hater, etc.

Let me share a quote from an article, "The Intolerance of Today's Tolerance", as I found it rather interesting and insightful on what is currently taking place around the BSA topic.

"As people speak up for the protection of the values encapsulated in their chosen associations, others raise the cry of bigotry and intolerance, demanding that all others be allowed to join regardless of differing values and principles. In an effort to legitimize their values and purposes, these groups are accusing others of the sins they themselves are committing, hate and intolerance. The demand to be tolerated has morphed into a demand to be accepted which in turn has resulted in a cry and demand that the rights of others to their own sets of values and associations be set aside and denied."

[Deathcricket]

Oh if girls are allowed in Boy Scouts, then they have to let gays in. Period. I assumed they weren't. Having the opposite sex is way more dangerous than having a gaylord so my argument completely falls apart.

[ratagonia]

Women are allowed in Scouting. When I participated in Cub Scouting as a young boy, my leaders at the time were mostly women, who served in the capacity of Den Mother. As a current Scoutmaster, I know that women continue to serve in the Scouting program in various capacities, ranging from Den Mothers, Committee members, District and Council positions, etc.

A lot of people ask why homosexuals are not allowed to participate in the program. BSA made this statement back in 2004: "The 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's values and beliefs." They reaffirmed this position as recently as July, 2012. I'm not sure what has changed since last summer to prompt another round of consideration.

I read the above posts in this thread and see a lot of name hurling by those who are in favor of removing the ban, and find it sad that so much venom is hurled at those who wish for the BSA policy to remain unchanged. I, personally, am opposed to removing the ban and wish to see the BSA continue to stand its ground as it has in the past. That said, I am not running around spreading hate and/or fearmongering against those who hold a differing viewpoint. You disagree with the policy? Great - that's your choice. I will respect your opinion, but ask that you respect mine as well. We all have different convictions in life. Just because those convictions differ from yours doesn't make one a bigot, a hater, etc.

Let me share a quote from an article, "The Intolerance of Today's Tolerance", as I found it rather interesting and insightful on what is currently taking place around the BSA topic.

"As people speak up for the protection of the values encapsulated in their chosen associations, others raise the cry of bigotry and intolerance, demanding that all others be allowed to join regardless of differing values and principles. In an effort to legitimize their values and purposes, these groups are accusing others of the sins they themselves are committing, hate and intolerance. The demand to be tolerated has morphed into a demand to be accepted which in turn has resulted in a cry and demand that the rights of others to their own sets of values and associations be set aside and denied."

Thank you Mooseman for a reasonable post.

I am deeply saddened that a large organization makes it its purpose to develop the bigots of tomorrow.

Tom (atheist)

[PunchKing]

You all are way to serious!


http://youtu.be/mZaCiP2_2RM

[Iceaxe]

They reaffirmed this position as recently as July, 2012. I'm not sure what has changed since last summer to prompt another round of consideration.


What has changed is the BSA is about to lose a butt load of money if they maintain their current position.

For better or worse.... Just about everyone's values and morals have a price.

:cool2:

[Iceaxe]

You all are way to serious!


http://youtu.be/mZaCiP2_2RM


Yo Tom.... Is that the Mount Carmel 2nd Ward? :lol8:

[rockgremlin]

But what if there's a rumor? I'm just curious, what steps are taken if somebody thinks a leader is Gay? Some sort of trial? Do they confront him? I was just wondering that.


That's an excellent question. I'm curious too.

To add....what specifically would disqualify a gay man to perform the same functions as a straight man? They're men just like anybody else, the only difference is who they choose to entirely devote themselves to -- which should be nobody else's business.

[rockgremlin]

BSA made this statement back in 2004: "The 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.


I get it now.

[Brian in SLC]

kSL ran a clip which included footage from I'm guessing the rally in Irving Texas which featured a person with a sign that said, "save our boys from homosexual acts". Geez. Really? Since they're boys, shouldn't they be saved from heterosexual acts too?

"God votes no on gays!"

Ahhh...the god of exclusiveness. Entrance to the country club does have restrictions...

[jman]

What has changed is the BSA is about to lose a butt load of money if they maintain their current position.

For better or worse.... Just about everyone's values and morals have a price.

:cool2:


I disagree. Remember the Chik Filet remarks? That drove sales for a long time for people in support of the owners comments.

[jman]

Thank you Mooseman for a reasonable post.

I am deeply saddened that a large organization makes it its purpose to develop the bigots of tomorrow.

Tom (atheist)

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I've known more people on the "anti" gay side who are more loving and respectful than those on the "pro" side. Of course there are bad apples in every bunch, we get that. Like mooseman said, those are my convictions and I hope you can respect that even if you disagree as I respect the other person and their convictions even if I disagree with it. No intolerance there.

[ratagonia]

I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I've known more people on the "anti" gay side who are more loving and respectful than those on the "pro" side. Of course there are bad apples in every bunch, we get that. Like mooseman said, those are my convictions and I hope you can respect that even if you disagree as I respect the other person and their convictions even if I disagree with it. No intolerance there.

Except institutionalized intolerance of gays and atheists... but that doesn't count does it?

T

[Brian in SLC]

I disagree. Remember the Chik Filet remarks? That drove sales for a long time for people in support of the owners comments.

Really? "Drove sales"?

Cite a credible source.

Interesting stuff on the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy

[Sombeech]

What has changed is the BSA is about to lose a butt load of money if they maintain their current position.

For better or worse.... Just about everyone's values and morals have a price.

:cool2:

Oh dude, support will go through the roof actually.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[jman]

Except institutionalized intolerance of gays and atheists... but that doesn't count does it?

T

That's been the point of many posts here - it's a institution aka private organization, and can do what they want essentially.

I think I can understand why you say " intolerance", but again, many examples can be given on why I can't join this fanclub, or this church, or that business, or the blood oath gang for secret canyons...

[jman]

Really? "Drove sales"?

Cite a credible source.

Interesting stuff on the wiki page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_same-sex_marriage_controversy


http://www.ibtimes.com/chick-fil-sets-sales-records-despite-antigay-publicity-company-claims-737364

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/25/chick-fil-a-business-thriving_n_2016864.html

http://www.qsrweb.com/article/207673/Chick-fil-A-s-annual-sales-up-12-percent. This last one was from 5 days ago.

The wiki you cited was informative, thanks for sharing that.

[accadacca]

http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs175/1101087153414/img/1329.jpg

For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, providing it's
youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. In the past two weeks,
Scouting has received an outpouring of feedback from the American public. It reinforces how deeply
people care about Scouting and how passionate they are about the organization.

After careful consideration and extensive dialogue within the Scouting family, along with comments
from those outside the organization, the volunteer officers of the Boy Scouts of America's National
Executive Board concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for
a more deliberate review of its membership policy.

To that end, the executive board directed its committees to further engage representatives of Scouting's
membership and listen to their perspectives and concerns. This will assist the officers' work on a
resolution on membership standards. The approximately 1,400 voting members of the national council
will take action on the resolution at the national meeting in May 2013.

In the coming days and weeks, more information will be shared with you. In the meantime, thanks for all
you do for Scouting.





http://ih.constantcontact.com/fs175/1101087153414/img/1330.jpg

[ratagonia]

That's been the point of many posts here - it's a institution aka private organization, and can do what they want essentially.

I think I can understand why you say " intolerance", but again, many examples can be given on why I can't join this fanclub, or this church, or that business, or the blood oath gang for secret canyons...


It IS a private organization, and CAN do what it wants. So is the KKK. And the Unitarian Universalist Association.

It is also a public person, meaning people do and can talk about it. For all us scouts, scouters and former scouts, the question is what is the best policy for the institution that we love or have loved. That's where I am coming from. Many, many, many atheists and gays have participated in scouting programs. It is only after the fundamentalists seized control of the National that litmus tests became part of the dogma.

That the BSA derives considerable financial support from many, many government agencies is also a concern. If it took all comers, I would not be concerned about this, but since it has staked a claim as homophobic and religiously-select, then it is inappropriate for government entities to provide it support, other than the tax exemption provided to all religious organizations.

Tom :moses:

[jman]

It IS a private organization, and CAN do what it wants. So is the KKK. And the Unitarian Universalist Association.

It is also a public person, meaning people do and can talk about it. For all us scouts, scouters and former scouts, the question is what is the best policy for the institution that we love or have loved. That's where I am coming from. Many, many, many atheists and gays have participated in scouting programs. It is only after the fundamentalists seized control of the National that litmus tests became part of the dogma.

That the BSA derives considerable financial support from many, many government agencies is also a concern. If it took all comers, I would not be concerned about this, but since it has staked a claim as homophobic and religiously-select, then it is inappropriate for government entities to provide it support, other than the tax exemption provided to all religious organizations.

Tom :moses:

Thanks for you explanation Tom,

I do agree with your comments on the tax exemptions and government support. That should change.

[jman]

NEWS RELEASE
Church Cautions Against Speculation
On Scouting Decision
SALT LAKE CITY

[James_B_Wads2000]

But once and for all, can we quit DIRECTLY linking homosexual discrimination to racism against African Americans? It's not even close to what the Blacks went through.

Congratulations Justin. You have derailed another thread arguing some tangent and nobody gives a shit about. After all these years I still can't figure out if you are incredibly stupid or incredibly smart.

Blacks=gays=Mormons=retards=who gives a shit.





James

[Sombeech]

arguing some tangent and nobody gives a shit about.

They don't care about it so much, that it is brought up consistently!

But hey, better late than never to the party.

[Sombeech]

then it is inappropriate for government entities to provide it support, other than the tax exemption provided to all religious organizations.



This makes me think, what if the BSA stated themselves as a religion, or started to head in that direction for the tax exempt status?

[Scott P]

"The 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's values and beliefs."

To be fair, in the LDS Church at least, it’s homosexual conduct (as in the sex acts themselves), and not being homosexual that is viewed as not morally straight. In that church at least, no one, whether heterosexual or homosexual is supposed to participate in sex acts during the age of the scouting years. Having attractions is not viewed as immoral, only acting upon them (regardless of sexual orientation), including dwelling on those thoughts (regardless of sexual orientation).

As for myself, I’d worry about a homosexual going on campouts with my boy no more than I would as with a heterosexual going on a campout with my girl.

Sadly, in this world, we still have to be cautious. When I worked at the scout camp at age 16, there was a scout in my (big) tent because I was showing him some maps on where we were going. I didn’t even think about it, but did get talked to afterwards that it was a serious violation of scout rules (and I didn’t think about or know about that rule). Being cautious applies to all regardless of sexual orientation.

[ratagonia]

This makes me think, what if the BSA stated themselves as a religion, or started to head in that direction for the tax exempt status?

BSA already has tax exempt status as an educational organization.

So.... what are you suggesting, :afro:? Maybe they should come out as an explicitly religious organization, like the Knights of Columbus? Hmmm, that gets real complicated because once you start being explicit, the Evangelicals and the LDSers (not to mention the Catholics) don't really get along so well.

One of the good things about the Boy Scouts, even when sponsored by a church, the troops themselves tend to be secular. BSA has a purpose that transcends religion. My understanding is that LDS-sponsored troops take in non-LDS boys, though there is a strong religious component to the the BSA in Utah, as it is the official Young Men's organization of The Church.

In other parts of the country, with a greater mix of religions, some church sponsors the troop, but it is a BSA organization and has no religious component - the church gives a place to meet and perhaps some problem-solving resources.

Tom :moses:

[Iceaxe]

When I worked at the scout camp at age 16, there was a scout in my (big) tent because I was showing him some maps on where we were going. I didn’t even think about it, but did get talked to afterwards that it was a serious violation of scout rules (and I didn’t think about or know about that rule). Being cautious applies to all regardless of sexual orientation.

I coach football.... and my most stressful day each year is the day I have to teach my QB's and center's how to properly snap the football. 30 years ago I didn't think much of it, but as the world has changed this day becomes more stressful each year.

:cool2:

[Brian in SLC]

So, you teach the shotgun formation?

Ha ha.

I was a center briefly...

[2065toyota]

BSA already has tax exempt status as an educational organization.

So.... what are you suggesting, :afro:? Maybe they should come out as an explicitly religious organization, like the Knights of Columbus? Hmmm, that gets real complicated because once you start being explicit, the Evangelicals and the LDSers (not to mention the Catholics) don't really get along so well.

One of the good things about the Boy Scouts, even when sponsored by a church, the troops themselves tend to be secular. BSA has a purpose that transcends religion. My understanding is that LDS-sponsored troops take in non-LDS boys, though there is a strong religious component to the the BSA in Utah, as it is the official Young Men's organization of The Church.

In other parts of the country, with a greater mix of religions, some church sponsors the troop, but it is a BSA organization and has no religious component - the church gives a place to meet and perhaps some problem-solving resources.

Tom :moses:

Even living in Cedar City & St. George, my son has had non LDS kids in his group. I do believe it is harder in this area to be non LDS and be involved in scouting, but with any effort of the boy or the boy's parents they will be included with no hesitation.

The BSA needs to be supported no matter what their final decision of the subject ends up even if you don't agree with it. There are many boys that without scouting will not every see the mountains, go hiking, or end up on a wilderness camp. Kids need to get out of the city life, the XBOX entertainment (except Black Ops 2 - that is worthwhile entertainment. gamertag PRIZ1234 ) :haha: Hopefully you don't get my son on there. I seen him go 83-4 on capture the flag the other day. Now I'm sidetracked so my post ends

[Sombeech]

My understanding is that LDS-sponsored troops take in non-LDS boys, though there is a strong religious component to the the BSA in Utah, as it is the official Young Men's organization of The Church.


I'm not exactly sure what is meant by LDS-sponsored troops. To my understanding, the LDS church has zero ruling over the scouts, except that they provide a convenient meeting place for the boys and so of course they have to follow the conduct rules while in their building. And then of course the boundaries will often (but not always?) influence the troop boundaries, but mostly out of group convenience.

Of course non LDS boys are welcomed into the troop, because again I don't think it's really an LDS (owned) Scout group. It just very likely happens to contain a lot of the same group of boys, and anybody else that is interested in the group is more than welcome to join.

If by LDS sponsored, you mean they donate money, then yes. And it is also Sombeech sponsored too because I donate money, along with a lot of people in the neighborhood.

Can the scouts meet at somebody's house instead of the church building? Sure, but why? To get away from LDS influence? No, what would change really? If it's the same group of boys, it doesn't matter where they meet. But when the LDS Church offers their heated meeting rooms complete with chairs, tables, gymnasiums and other facilities, a great big thank you should be in order :2thumbs:

[hank moon]

That's been the point of many posts here - it's a institution aka private organization, and can do what they want essentially.


Actually, they are private-ish.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America

The BSA holds a Congressional charter under Title 36 of the United States Code,[19] which means that it is one of the comparatively rare "Title 36" corporations in the United States.[20] The 1916 statute of incorporation established this institution amongst a small number of other patriotic and national organizations which are similarly chartered,[21] such as the Girl Scouts of the USA, the American Legion, the Red Cross, Major League Baseball, and the National Academy of Sciences. The federal incorporation was originally construed primarily as an honor, however it does grant the chartered organization some special privileges and rights, including freedom from antitrust and monopoly regulation, and complete control over the organization's symbols and insignia. As example, outside of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, no other youth organizations may use the term "scouts" or "scouting" in their name.

[hank moon]

Scout news from the UK (Tom might enjoy):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9719221/Scouts-welcome-atheists-a-century-after-Baden-Powell-demonised-them.html


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/07/boy-scouts-atheist_n_2259146.html


http://youtu.be/EqvE6xj0kRI

[hank moon]

One of the side benefits of a good (i.e. civil) thread like this is the googlin up history fun. For instance, I did not know that the world scouting movement began in the UK, or that it grew so incredibly quickly from its beginnings in 1907. Purty fascinating stuff, if you're interested:

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

[accadacca]

One of the side benefits of a good (i.e. civil) thread like this is the googlin up history fun. For instance, I did not know that the world scouting movement began in the UK, or that it grew so incredibly quickly from its beginnings in 1907. Purty fascinating stuff, if you're interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scouting
Yes sir! I've been to the Baden Powell House in London. :popcorn:

https://plus.google.com/113853267396578290107/about?gl=us&hl=en

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baden-Powell_House

[Scott P]

For instance, I did not know that the world scouting movement began in the UK, or that it grew so incredibly quickly from its beginnings in 1907. Purty fascinating stuff, if you're interested:


Yes. When I worked at Scout Camp we would wear both Bayden Powell shirts and scout uniforms.

Another interesting piece of trivia is that more scouts are Muslim than they are Christian, which is demonstrated in the wiki page.

[accadacca]

Two months ahead of the Boy Scouts of America

[accadacca]

Interesting... I just got this today.

64423

[accadacca]

Boy Scouts propose allowing gay scouts but banning gay leaders

The proposal — a revision of a plan the Scouts floated in January that would have left it up to local troops whether to accept gay members and leaders — left advocates on both sides of the issue dissatisfied.

Opponents of accepting gay scouts complained that the organization would be abandoning its decades-old values, while supporters said the organization would be abandoning gay youths on their 18th birthdays.

"The Boy Scouts are once again forcing me to look my children in the eyes and tell them that our family isn't good enough," said Jennifer Tyrrell of Bridgeport, Ohio, who was expelled last year as a den master for her 7-year-old son's Cub Scout den because she is a lesbian.

"My heart goes out to the young adults in Scouting who would be able to continue as scouts if this is passed, but then be thrown out when they reach the age to become leaders," Tyrrell said Friday.

But John Stemberger, founder of On My Honor, a coalition of Scouting parents and leaders who support the ban, said the proposal was "cleverly worded ... to dodge criticism from gay activists" while creating "a myriad of problems for how to manage and ensure the safety of the boys in the program."

"When it comes to young boys, parents should still have the final say on the issues of sexuality and politics, Stemberger said in a statement. "Allowing open homosexuality in the BSA injects both those topics right into the program."

The Scouts, one of the U.S.'s most popular private youth groups, said Friday that its National Council would vote on the proposal the week of May 20.

In an unexpected move in January, the organization proposed a resolution that would let local Scouting organizations decide for themselves whether to admit gay scouts and adult leaders. But it said Friday that it changed its mind after it was flooded with hundreds of thousands of responses to surveys it commissioned on the idea.

Among the 280 administrative local councils, half recommended no change, 38 percent recommended a change and 14 percent took a neutral position, the Scouts said.

"While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting," the organization said in a statement.
Read the entire proposed resolution (.pdf)

The membership policy has roiled the Boy Scouts in recent years, particularly after the ouster of Tyrrell and the denial of the Eagle Scout rank to California teenager Ryan Andresen because he is gay.

While many of the more than 116,000 local Scouting organizations nationwide are sponsored by religious groups that oppose gay and lesbian rights, the new resolution declares that "the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization."
Zach Wahls, founder of the nonprofit activist group Scouts for Equality, disagreed. "We will continue to fight to push discrimination out of Scouting once and for all," he said.

While "we are glad that the Boy Scouts of America is taking this historic step forward," the proposed ban on gay leaders would "continue to prevent many great and loving parents from sharing the joys of Scouting with their children," he said.

But Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian advocacy group, urged the Boy Scouts not to "jettison the core value that homosexual conduct is immoral."

"This resolution would introduce open homosexuality into the ranks and eventually the leadership of Scouting," Perkins said in a statement. "This is totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Scouting parents who want to keep their exclusive right to discuss issues of sexuality with their sons."

Hundreds of comments on the Scouts' Facebook page reflected those divisions, with many weighing in to urge the Scouts to continue its ban and others saying they were disappointed that the organization was splitting the difference by differentiating between gay youths and adults:

"No person — youth or adult — should be denied Scouting membership because of their sexual orientation. This proposed resolution is a step in the right direction, but it is wholly insufficient. Now is the time for the Boy Scouts of America to take a firm stand and become a preeminent leader in morality and equality. Intolerance and bullying are not Scouting values."

"Possibly the worst solution they could have come up with. It will satisfy no one, and will only prolong the issue. Almost any other alternative, from a complete acceptance of gays to a complete upholding of current policy would have been more defensible."

"Evasive once again! They need to change the policy across the board and be done with it. Enough "beating around the bush" and trying to avoid the issues at hand! As a Cubmaster, I am truly fed up with the whole thing and can't wait to be done!"

Source: http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/19/17828322-boy-scouts-propose-allowing-gay-scouts-but-banning-gay-leaders?lite

[Chivas]

As in Constitutional cases, we should go back to the intent of the Founders: in this case, Baden-Powell. While doubtless aware of the gay tendencies in a minority of Scouts, Baden-Powell made it clear that sex - of any kind - was not to be a part of the Scout movement. There would be plenty of time for that in adulthood! Honor, discipline and other virtues were to be cultivated.
I suspect that this whole "issue" has less to do with "civil rights" than it is an attempt by the aggressive homo-paedophile militants to undermine yet another bastion of Western civilization.

[double moo]

I heard Baden-Powell was a closet homosexual who was also known to dabble in young men. So let's not cite him on this one...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/scoutings-gay-founder.html

[Chivas]

All the more reason to cite him, since he had the wisdom to keep sex out of the Scouts. Let boys be boys! Why the rush to deprive children of their innocence? Baden-Powell was a war hero and great man by any stretch. His sexuality is irrelevant to his accomplishments...as it should be.

[double moo]

Or... he was a pedophile who formed an entire organization to keep himself surrounded by available prey. Kinda like a Catholic Priest in Boston.

[Scott P]

Real classy double moo. :roll:

[Brian in SLC]

Oh, come on, Scott...there's classy, then there's classy...


I suspect that this whole "issue" has less to do with "civil rights" than it is an attempt by the aggressive homo-paedophile militants to undermine yet another bastion of Western civilization.

[accadacca]

24937084

SALT LAKE CITY

[accadacca]

The vote passed (61%) to allow gay scouts. Gay leaders are still not allowed.

[Sombeech]

Good news for the boys at least. Its terrible to be discriminated against at such a young age.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Scott P]

Because I was a scout leader, I was asked to participate in the survey.

I voted yes on letting gay scouts in and commented that I believed that to be morally straight, boy scouts, regardless of sexual orientation shouldn't be having sex at that age (11-17). I commented that I believe that as long as a boy doesn't participate in sexual activity, it doesn't matter what their sexual orientation is.

I had to vote different on leaders though. I wouldn't want my daughter to go on a campout with a male leader, even though the risk of something happening is small. There was just too much to consider. Nothing would probably happen, but even if it didn't, I didn't think it a good idea. Even if nothing really happened, and if someone didn't like their leader, there could be false accusations as well. Again, the chances might be small, but it didn't seem like a good idea.

[oldno7]

Heres some questions for ya'alls.

Since they are going to allow gay children into scouting, how will a determination be made that they are gay?

If you have no formal way of determining sexual orientation of a child, how do you know who your letting in?(gay or straight)

So are the scouts going to produce a questioner to be filled out by children as to their sexual orientation, prior to joining a scout troop?

If you never question children who are entering scouts, what their sexual orientation is, how do you know you are allowing gays in?

What a quagmire!!!

[Scott P]

Since they are going to allow gay children into scouting, how will a determination be made that they are gay?

If you have no formal way of determining sexual orientation of a child, how do you know who your letting in?(gay or straight)



That's what I have wondered as well. At least early on, I'd imagine that most scouts don't even understand what a sexual orientation is. I for one hope that scouts are never asked.

[accadacca]

Heres some questions for ya'alls.

Since they are going to allow gay children into scouting, how will a determination be made that they are gay?

If you have no formal way of determining sexual orientation of a child, how do you know who your letting in?(gay or straight)

So are the scouts going to produce a questioner to be filled out by children as to their sexual orientation, prior to joining a scout troop?

If you never question children who are entering scouts, what their sexual orientation is, how do you know you are allowing gays in?

What a quagmire!!!

Exactly. I guess it doesn't really matter now anyway...

How will sleeping arrangements work? Any thoughts?

[RedSpecialized]

I am currently a scout master. My biggest concern is how other scouts would treat any gay scouts in the troop. Not that I really think any boy 12-13 would really know if there gay at that age. I wouldn't care if there was a gay scout in my troop. I just know how brutal boys at that age can be. And I think there is a big chance they would be made fun of when the leaders weren't around. And the question that has already been brought up, how do sleeping arrangements work? I think what this will do is you will ultimately end up having gay only Scout troops.

Also as a leader I have zero experience with gay youth. It seems like this might open up an entirely new can of worms for an already law suit happy nation. ....?

I really don't think I will ever see anyone at 12-13 knowingly be gay. So I don't even seeing this changing anything for me. Although at 14-18 I see this more likely but still not much. Really, at what age does one know there gay. ...? I really don't know the answer.

I guess only time will tell how if and how this will effect if anything.

Sent from my SPH-L900

[Sombeech]

I'm a leader as well, currently with the 16-18 age group.

What a disaster it would be if gay scouts weren't allowed, then when one was suspected of being gay, what - interrogate him?

With the Leaders it's clearly a different issue though. My advice? If you are a Scout Leader and you are Gay, and scouting means the world to you, just keep quiet about it. Fight the policy anonymously, or just happily continue to live the life of Scouting and realize there is never an appropriate time to talk about sexual activity or sexual attraction of any kind to either gender in the Scouting program.

Unless I'm forgetting one of the merit badges, sexual discussion just doesn't belong in the program. So if you are gay and it is never brought up, mentioned, or an issue of any kind, go happily on your way and enjoy the program.

[Udink]

Unless I'm forgetting one of the merit badges, sexual discussion just doesn't belong in the program. So if you are gay and it is never brought up, mentioned, or an issue of any kind, go happily on your way and enjoy the program.
Is it just me, or did Justin just pass up a chance to play Devil's Advocate? :lol8:

Nah, seriously though, kudos to you for taking this stance. I didn't expect that from you.

[Appalachia]

This is a very encouraging and thoughtful thread. So nice to hear from men who aren't homophobes.

I had an openly lesbian girl guide (scout) leader back in the 70s and it was no big deal. It gave my mom a chance to explain what a lesbian was. She just said, "Well, some women have boyfriends and other women have girlfriends. She has a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend." No big deal.

(But then again, that was in Canada...so maybe it's different? Seems nothing terrible has happened in the past 10 years since people of a minority sexual orientation have been allowed to marry in Canada....)

[accadacca]

It's brewing again...

LDS Church to Monitor BSA Policy Discussion

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded Thursday to an indication by the Boy Scouts of America of possible policy changes (http://scoutingnewsroom.org/blog/watch-and-read-bsa-president-dr-robert-m-gates-addresses-boy-scouts-of-america-national-annual-meeting/) in relation to gay scout leaders by issuing the following statement:

We have noted the comments by Boy Scouts of America President Robert Gates in relation to possible policy changes in the Boy Scouts of America. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will, of course, examine any such changes very carefully to assess how they might impact our own century-long association with the BSA.


http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-monitor-bsa-policy-discussion

[Kuya]

I think the LDS church will support what ever decision is made. President Monson and other General Authorities are on the BSA Board of Directors. No decision will come as a surprise to them. Honestly I don't think letting adult Gay leaders serve will be an issue at all. (WOAH! did I just say that?!?! LOL) And the BSA is right, if they don't begin to open up to the gay's it will be to their detriment.

[rockgremlin]

I am currently a scout master. My biggest concern is how other scouts would treat any gay scouts in the troop. Not that I really think any boy 12-13 would really know if there gay at that age. I wouldn't care if there was a gay scout in my troop. I just know how brutal boys at that age can be. And I think there is a big chance they would be made fun of when the leaders weren't around. And the question that has already been brought up, how do sleeping arrangements work?


My thoughts exactly.

[Sombeech]

Yeah, it doesn't matter what rules are set by responsible adults, this will do nothing to stop teenage boys from being cruel.

This certainty could reinforce the concept of keeping your private life private if you wish to be in scouts - let me rephrase that, be in the scouting program

Otherwise, if gays are allowed, and you are still mocked, ridiculed and made fun of by a bunch of immature teenage boys, who then could you protest to? What actions could you take if the rule has been set, but teenagers are acting like teenagers?

Rules and policies sometimes do nothing to solve a problem.

[Don]

Yeah, kids are often assholes. I doubt that will change. But it seems easy to justify bigotry when the whole organization is bigoted, maybe not so much if the organization teaches tolerance and acceptance, or if acceptance is still too difficult, maybe they could start with empathy.

[rockgremlin]

Yeah, kids are often assholes. I doubt that will change. But it seems easy to justify bigotry when the whole organization is bigoted, maybe not so much if the organization teaches tolerance and acceptance, or if acceptance is still too difficult, maybe they could start with empathy.

X2

[Sombeech]

Hey I say open it up! But if we are expecting better treatment of people because rules and policies are made, that is unfortunate.

[ratagonia]

I am currently a scout master. My biggest concern is how other scouts would treat any gay scouts in the troop. Not that I really think any boy 12-13 would really know if there gay at that age. I wouldn't care if there was a gay scout in my troop. I just know how brutal boys at that age can be. And I think there is a big chance they would be made fun of when the leaders weren't around.

Kids are cruel, but kids are also flexible. They look for cues from adults and peers. An organizational bigotry supports the kid's bigotry. Organizational acceptance would encourage kid's acceptance.

The two LDS young men who beat and killed Matthew Sheppard had their prejudices inflamed by the adults around them, including local LDS functionaries. They GOT the message given, which is that Gays should be dead!!! They were not old enough to realize that this was NOT permission to go out and kill Gays.


And the question that has already been brought up, how do sleeping arrangements work?


I remember a piece (probably NPR) when the discussion was about having (open) gays in the army. One lieutenant said "I don't want to shower with gay soldiers". His sergeant looked at him and said "you already have".

This question is a question steeped in prejudice. Gays are not predators and rapists, at least not moreso than Heteros. Kids already sleep next to their gay or straight friends. And no, before you suggest otherwise, sleeping in a tent with a gay kid will not make a straight kid gay.


I think what this will do is you will ultimately end up having gay only Scout troops.

Or gay-accepting only Scout troops. We already have that - but the Unitarian Church is not real strong in Utah. There is also a gay-accepting version of Scouts that split off when the BSA got captured by the bigots - not sure how much traction they have gotten. Separate But Equal - it worked so well before... (Sarcasm). Again, this is a statement steeped in prejudice. Again, doing a Pine Wood Derby with a gay scout will not make a straight scout gay.


Also as a leader I have zero experience with gay youth.

You think? I remember a piece (probably NPR) when the discussion...


It seems like this might open up an entirely new can of worms for an already law suit happy nation. ....?

Lawsuit-happiness is a myth propagated successfully by the insurance companies to increase their profits. There will be some issues to be worked out, but...


I really don't think I will ever see anyone at 12-13 knowingly be gay. So I don't even seeing this changing anything for me. Although at 14-18 I see this more likely but still not much. Really, at what age does one know they are gay. ...? I really don't know the answer.

Clearly, you don't know the answer. When did you (presumably male and hetero) first notice interest in girls? I know by the time I was in Scouts I was interested in girls, because I learned about porno in Scouts. You seem to think that being homo is very different from being hetero... it is not.

:moses:

[jman]

I remember a piece (probably NPR) when the discussion was about having (open) gays in the army. One lieutenant said "I don't want to shower with gay soldiers". His sergeant looked at him and said "you already have".

:moses:

Question - so if there is a male who is a homosexual and is changing with an "attractive" male in the changing room and checking him out or getting off, etc... (I'm not generalizing and saying that all do - but the point of homosexuality is that you are attracted to YOUR same sex, so naturally, they are going to be attracted to other males in that changing room)...then why shouldn't women be allowed to go into a men's bathroom then? What's the difference there??

So why then, is a there a barrier between men and women while changing? Do a bunch of hetero women want a bunch of hetero men watching them change? This is just a guess but 99% of women will say no. Do a bunch of hetero men want to watch a bunch of hetero men watching them change? This is just a guess, but most men will say no. FYI - *Watching=checking-out that individual in area that is suppose to be private.

If you label yourself as homosexual, then do you naturally want to watch other men change? Yes. If you are a homosexual woman, do you want to naturally watch other women change? Yes.

(I'm trying to make that a distinction clear, but sometimes my mind and words don't match).

[Scott P]

This question is a question steeped in prejudice. Gays are not predators and rapists, at least not moreso than Heteros.

Tom, what you say is true, but I'd still be concerned about sleeping arrangements for any leader that was sleeping overnight with scouts of the same sex that they are attracted to.

For example, I don't thing I'd want my daughter to go on campouts with heterosexual male leaders.

[Sombeech]

The two LDS young men who beat and killed Matthew Sheppard had their prejudices inflamed by the adults around them, including local LDS functionaries. They GOT the message given, which is that Gays should be dead!!! They were not old enough to realize that this was NOT permission to go out and kill Gays.

Another successful media lie. Matthew Sheppard was beaten to death... NOT because he was gay, NOT because the LDS boys got the message that Gays should be dead (OMG are you serious?). His attackers intended to extract information out of him regarding a large DRUG shipment, and it went South from there.

He wasn't beaten to death because he was gay.

[Scott P]

Another successful media lie. Matthew Sheppard was beaten to death... NOT because he was gay, NOT because the LDS boys got the message that Gays should be dead (OMG are you serious?). His attackers intended to extract information out of him regarding a large DRUG shipment, and it went South from there.

Off topic perhaps, but one of the main motives for the murder/robbery was because he was gay, at least this is what witnesses, as well as the defendants themselves said in the trial and it is what the perpetrators themselves told to police.

If you are referring to Stephen Jimenez book (and 20/20 interview), the police, witnesses, and most other people involved disputed the book's information.

[qedcook]

This question is a question steeped in prejudice. Gays are not predators...

Motives must come into question, at least a bit, when a gay adult male wants to be a leader in an organization for boys. How could motives not come into question? Perhaps it's one of those situations where you just avoid the easy entanglements, if for no other reason than propriety. I wouldn't go to a friend's house if I knew they had cocaine in the house. It's no reflection on how I feel about my friend. It's just wiser to not.

[Sombeech]

one of the main motives for the murder/robbery was because he was gay,

This point may be debated until the end of time, but one thing is for damned sure, he wasn't killed because the "LDS Church taught these boys that Gays should be dead" - WHAT THE SHIT

[Scott Card]

The two LDS young men who beat and killed Matthew Sheppard had their prejudices inflamed by the adults around them, including local LDS functionaries. They GOT the message given, which is that Gays should be dead!!! They were not old enough to realize that this was NOT permission to go out and kill Gays. Ahhh, Tom, do you have a source for this statement?

[qedcook]

Ahhh, Tom, do you have a source for this statement?

Shhhh, Scott... Don't encourage him...

[Tiemac]

I would not want my young boy spending time alone in the woods with a gay guy. Just like I would not let my daughter go spend time in the woods with a heterosexual man.

[ratagonia]

Tom, what you say is true, but I'd still be concerned about sleeping arrangements for any leader that was sleeping overnight with scouts of the same sex that they are attracted to.

For example, I don't thing I'd want my daughter to go on campouts with heterosexual male leaders.

Pedophiles, even those that prefer boys, identify as heterosexual. You should be worried about youth group leaders that are pedophiles, not those that are homosexual.

Tom

[ratagonia]

I would not want my young boy spending time alone in the woods with a gay guy. Just like I would not let my daughter go spend time in the woods with a heterosexual man.

In Boy Scouts, youth do not spend time alone in the woods with adult leaders.

You should be concerned about your youth being out in the woods alone with a pedophile, whether the pedophile identifies as homo (unlikely) or hetero (more likely).

Tom

[ratagonia]

Ahhh, Tom, do you have a source for this statement?


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

the movie version.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Motives must come into question, at least a bit, when a gay adult male wants to be a leader in an organization for boys. How could motives not come into question? Perhaps it's one of those situations where you just avoid the easy entanglements, if for no other reason than propriety. I wouldn't go to a friend's house if I knew they had cocaine in the house. It's no reflection on how I feel about my friend. It's just wiser to not.

Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
Gays are not pedophiles.
etc.

[ratagonia]

Tom, what you say is true, but I'd still be concerned about sleeping arrangements for any leader that was sleeping overnight with scouts of the same sex that they are attracted to.



You mean, you do not want your kid sleeping in the same tent as a pedophile?

Gays are not pedophiles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_toward_homosexuality#Associatio n_with_child_abuse_and_pedophilia

etc.

[Sombeech]

Gotta agree with Tom, pedophiles are something else. But... there are a lot of strict rules in place with having ZERO one on one time. I wasn't able to drive a scout home alone, even if he was the last in my vehicle. The last two scouts had to leave my vehicle at the same time whether I'm straight or Gay. This happened every Tuesday where I would drive them home. Or if there was 1 boy left, I would need another leader with me. This is a good rule for starters. It prevents the chance for allegations too.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[Scott P]

Pedophiles, even those that prefer boys, identify as heterosexual. You should be worried about youth group leaders that are pedophiles, not those that are homosexual.

So in your opinion, should male leaders go camping with girl scouts?

[rockgremlin]

I would go to a friend's house if I knew they had cocaine in the house..


Fixed it...:haha:

[Sombeech]

Technically with the rules in place, men could go camping with little girls and if the rules were followed, the only incident would be the gossiping parents.

This goes with my other point, we can make the rules, we can follow the rules, but these will not force people to think a certain way. So when the rules are in place and all of the political beaurocracy BS is in place, where then will we turn when things still aren't according to our idea of utopia?

Go ahead and pass / delete these rules just to get it over with and then we get to the realization that policies do not erase prejudice and misconceptions. Only time.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[qedcook]

Gays are not pedophiles.

Not much of an argument to counter what I was saying. Please just answer the question I asked. Why would a gay adult male want to be a leader in an organization for boys?

[Sombeech]

I can offer an answer, for the same reason a straight guy like me might want to be a scout leader. There is no sexual motivation and my boy isn't old enough for the program, but some people just love the scouting program. I wouldn't say I'm one of the guys that gets all excited about a jamboree, but there are plenty of straight guys out there wanting to donate their time to give these boys a great program. Gay or straight. But dammit, don't be surprised when rules are opened up and people are not magically unbiased. This alone is a good reason to not rush into this. It's going to take some time and careful consideration. If you are openly Gay and you then decide to flaunt your sexuality, you should be kicked out on the basis of causing a commotion. Sexual preference has zero place in the scouting program and you should be kicked out if you try to involve it. Just be smart about it.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

[Scott Card]

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

the movie version.

TomOh, the movie version. Well, let me just say that "P.S. The "blue pool" is NOT in Bluejohn Canyon."

[qedcook]

I can offer an answer, for the same reason a straight guy like me might want to be a scout leader.

I agree, but there are also other possible reasons. The reasons a straight person would want to be, and the reasons a gay person would want to be are not a perfect subset of each other. That was whole my point. It's appearances, it's propriety. It's motives. A gay person's motives for wanting to be a scout leader, almost all of the time, are ok. But there are clearly times when a gay person's motives are for wanting to be a scout leader not ok.

[ratagonia]

Not much of an argument to counter what I was saying. Please just answer the question I asked. Why would a gay adult male want to be a leader in an organization for boys?

Why would any adult male want to be a leader in an organization for boys, aside from pedophilia?

Same.

Perhaps their son has entered Boy Scouts, and they want to contribute.

You make it sound nefarious.

Tom

[ratagonia]

Oh, the movie version. Well, let me just say that "P.S. The "blue pool" is NOT in Bluejohn Canyon."

The movie version is a documentary, not a fiction. As I remember (always suspect), the movie interviewed members of their church that said basically what I said. However, the movie also downplayed the LDS aspect, more pitching it as a conservative Protestant-ish church, rather than specifically LDS.

(re-evaluation: the film is mostly documentary, but is not stated as such, as it is based on the play, which is mostly documentary. There are disputes about the motives behind the crime - I tend to believe it was mostly gay-hate, but rational people can believe it was drug-oriented. See what happens when the boys don't go off on mission?)

Tom

[ratagonia]

I agree, but there are also other possible reasons. The reasons a straight person would want to be, and the reasons a gay person would want to be are not a perfect subset of each other. That was whole my point. It's appearances, it's propriety. It's motives. A gay person's motives for wanting to be a scout leader, almost all of the time, are ok. But there are clearly times when a gay person's motives are for wanting to be a scout leader not ok.

perhaps you did not get the memo.


Adult male who has sexual interest in adult males = gay.

Adult male who has sexual interest in children = pedophile.

So your question is, why would a pedophile want to be a Scout Leader?

The answer now is, in general, they don't. The Scouts have taken steps to reduce pedophilic opportunities to near zero, and therefore... perhaps the pedophile would enjoy the titillation of hanging around possible targets, but I suspect that they would prefer sitting in the basement cruising the Interwebs.

Tom

[ratagonia]

So in your opinion, should male leaders go camping with girl scouts?

Absolutely.

Better if the Girl Scout Troop has competent female role models to lead such outings. Certainly better if the leadership team includes at least some female leaders. But sometimes that is not how it works out.

What are you afraid of?

Let me answer that - pedophiles and gossips.

The defense is good systems that include always-paired leaders and zero one on one time.

Are you afraid of Lesbian leaders camping with Girl Scouts? Because the GSA are a tolerant organization, and that happens now.

Do I need to mention that Lesbian does not equal pedophile?

Tom

[qedcook]

Perhaps their son has entered Boy Scouts, and they want to contribute.

You make it sound nefarious.

Tom

I starting to see your side of the argument, and I agree on a number of points. Thanks for the new insights. As a person involved in scouting (but not ever really wanting to be involved too much), i always wonder why anyone would want to be involved. I still maintain that a straight person's reasons and a gay person's reasons are not a perfect subset of each other.

[Sombeech]

As a person involved in scouting (but not ever really wanting to be involved too much), i always wonder why anyone would want to be involved.

This is me too. But then you go to the jamborees and scouting events, and you see the guys that are REALLY into it, they are having an absolute ball and they are sad when it's over. These are the guys that should be involved in scouting, and the guys like you and I are just there to do our good deed I guess.

Some of these guys that love the scouting program are gay. They aren't in it for attraction to the boys. They love the activities, the teaching, the skills and the fun.

But damnit, if they want to flaunt their sexuality as a "neener neener the rules say I can be gay and still be a leader", then they shouldn't be in the program at all, they should be expelled. Just be smart about it.

[ratagonia]

But damnit, if they want to flaunt their sexuality as a "neener neener the rules say I can be gay and still be a leader", then they shouldn't be in the program at all, they should be expelled. Just be smart about it.

Is there a lot of this?

I know the hetero scout leaders do this a TON! Showing off their wives, kissing them in public, telling the scouts all the time how great hetero life is! So disgusting!

Oh wait, no; that is considered normal behavior. What is your claim?

I agree, Som, that preening and taunting is inappropriate. I just disagree that this is likely to happen, especially in Utah.

Tom

[Sombeech]

To be honest, in all the years of scouting I've been involved with, I can't think of a time where I've talked about dating my wife, and I don't think the boys have seen me kiss her in public, hell she's never even dropped me off to scouts.

They do know I'm married because we're all local and we associate with each other in various situations other than scouts.

But I've NEVER talked about sexuality or sex at any Scouting function, there's zero place for that.

So I expect it to be the same way with a Gay leader.

[hank moon]

http://www.advocate.com/print-issue/current-issue/2013/09/13/have-we-got-matthew-shepard-all-wrong?page=0,0

"...he amassed enough anecdotal evidence to build a persuasive case that Shepard’s sexuality was, if not incidental, certainly less central than popular consensus has lead us to believe."


http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews37_20/mobile/page1.cfm (http://www.sgn.org/sgnnews37_20/mobile/page1.cfm)

"Perhaps it was retired Police Chief of Laramie, Dave O'Malley, who said it best. "My feelings have been that initial contact was probably motivated by robbery because they needed money. What they got was $30 and a pair of shoes," said O'Malley. "Then something changed, and changed profoundly. But we will never know, because Matt's dead and I don't trust what McKinney and Henderson said."

[accadacca]

It's official.

Boy Scouts of America votes to end ban on gay adults (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33516801)

The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has unanimously approved a resolution to end the organisation's ban on gay adults working as leaders.

The group's national executive board will meet to ratify the resolution on 27 July, the Boy Scouts said in a statement (https://www.scoutsforequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Adult-Leadership-Standards-Update-and-Resources-for-Key-3.pdf).

It is a major step towards ending a policy that has caused deep rifts in the group, which was set up in 1910.

The BSA voted to end a ban on allowing open gay boys to become scouts in 2013.

Earlier this year, former US defence secretary Robert Gates, who is BSA president, told the group's national meeting that the ban on gay adults needed to end, saying it was no longer sustainable.

The selection of Mr Gates as president in 2014 was seen as an opportunity to revisit the policy since he helped end the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that barred openly gay people from serving in the US military.

The resolution, which was passed by the BSA's 17-member executive committee on Friday, will become official policy if it is ratified by the 80-member executive board later this month.

It will allow scout units to set their own policy on the issue and mean they can select adult leaders without regard to sexual orientation.
It will, however, also allow units with religious ties to "continue to choose adult leaders whose beliefs are consistent with their own".

Several denominations that sponsor large numbers of scout units - including the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention - have been apprehensive about ending the ban on gay adults.

The resolution was hailed by Zach Wahls, an Eagle Scout (the highest boy scout rank) raised by two lesbians who now heads the advocacy group Scouts for Equality.

"While this policy change is not perfect - BSA's religious chartering partners will be allowed to continue to discriminate against gay adults - it is difficult to overstate the importance of today's announcement," Mr Wahls said.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33516801

[accadacca]

KSL reported that they will stay with the Boy Scouts of America

[accadacca]

SALT LAKE CITY — The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement Wednesday saying it would stay with the Boy Scouts of America.
The church released a statement early Wednesday morning:

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appreciates the positive contributions Scouting has made over the years to thousands of its young men and boys and to thousands of other youth. As leaders of the Church, we want the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to succeed in its historic mission to instill leadership skills and high moral standards in youth of all faiths and circumstances, thereby equipping them for greater success in life and valuable service to their country.

"In the resolution adopted on July 27, 2015, and in subsequent verbal assurances to us, BSA has reiterated that it expects those who sponsor Scouting units (such as the Church) to appoint Scout leaders according to their religious and moral values "in word and deed and who will best inculcate the organization's values through the Scouting program." At this time, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will go forward as a chartering organization of BSA, and as in the past, will appoint Scout leaders and volunteers who uphold and exemplify Church doctrine, values, and standards.

"With equal concern for the substantial number of youth who live outside the United States and Canada, the Church will continue to evaluate and refine program options that better meet its global needs."

On July 27, the Boy Scouts of America lifted a nationwide ban on gay leaders. At the time, the church said it was "troubled" by the decision.

Members of the church who are on the BSA National Board, including Quorum of the Twelve member Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, General Young Men's President Stephen Owen and General Primary President Rosemary Wixom voted against the new policy.

"The Church has always welcomed all boys to its Scouting units regardless of sexual orientation," church spokesman Eric Hawkins said in a prepared statement. "However, the admission of openly gay leaders is inconsistent with the doctrines of the church and what have traditionally been the values of the Boy Scouts of America."

Hawkins confirmed at the time that the church was considering the possibility of creating an international program similar to Scouting for young men ages 12 to 18.

Approximately 430,000 of the BSA's 2.6 million Scouts belong to LDS Church-sponsored units. It is the largest charter in the country.

Utah is home of the Great Salt Lake, National Parks and Trapper Trails councils.


http://ksl.com/?sid=36178007