Boy Scouts in U.S. sticks with ban on Gay

[æonpax]

NEW YORK—After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.

A special committee formed by top Scout leaders in 2010 “came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts,” the organization’s national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 (my note: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html ) and has remained controversial. Source - http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1227534--boy-scouts-in-u-s-sticks-with-ban-on-gays

`

I personally don't have a problem with the BSA excluding anyone they choose since they are a private organization. Do I think such discrimination is a good policy ? Not at all but I also do not believe in forcing private organizations to accept people they don't want involved.

Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept gay scoutmasters divides them from us further and hurts the cause of equality as it allows them to feel victimized. We have more than enough self-styled groups and people claiming victimization now.

This kind of discrimination will not stop when someone tries to force it away, the discriminators just get more creative in how they do it. Race relations in the US are proof of that.

I do believe that there are times it is appropriate for certain groups to be excluded from private groups.

[void()]

I was a boy scout for about a year. After that, my stepfather coerced mom to stop my scouting. It was alright though. My uncle had taught me based off army infantry. I could have been an eagle scout at thirteen, if the charter allowed. The charter prefers young boys be seventeen to eighteen for eagle scout. They are left in the wilderness with minimal supplies to survive for three days and nights. Did that for a week for my uncle.

I think as BSA seems to train boys toward military implementation, the military now accepting gays, the BSA should as well. However, that is simply personal opinion based upon personal perception and personal experience. Can also agree there are times private groups must be granted right to exclude. Not arguing, only expressing opinion. Take it or leave it.

[elian]

I was never a scout but I was in the explorer program and I've been to a few of the functions w/kids of my friends - I think it's a wonderful program that provides mentoring and support to our youth. The only thing I don't like about it is the fact that they are excluding LGBT people. Is my understanding of the policy correct that they aren't banning LGBT youth, but saying that a person in a leadership role cannot be LGBT?

This topic came up at work around the lunch table today and it made me sad, because people ought to be accepted for who they are..I hope that LGBT scouts are not looked down on because they did nothing wrong just by who they love. I am not out at work, although I sure have left enough hints. From what I understand their justification for leaving the policy stand is that they want to support parents' right to explain sexuality to their own children. The only comment I could make at lunch was, "What about all the sleezy sex laden crap they ALREADY see on TV?" Of course, maybe they are simply trying to side-step the issue of discussing sexuality all together, I hope so because otherwise the connotation would be that they view LGBT people as less moral.

Politics aside this is just sad, that people can't accept each other. I feel bad for the scout leaders that the kids have grown to know, love and trust that can no longer participate in the program.

[elian]

Must be a long day because I watched another video of a 19 year old gay Eagle Scout who was told to leave for being honeset. This on top of everything else has pretty much broken my heart, I'm going to be bed, maybe tomorrow will be a better day.

[Long Duck Dong]

I tend to agree with you, aeon.... a private organisation should retain the right to include or exclude.... in the same way that LGBT organisations have the same right.....

its the trouble with rights v's discrimination.... there is a fine line and often it is blurred so that the right of choice over inclusion and exclusion becomes a form of discrimination......

I have no issues with LGBT in the BSA... and often I have found that its not sexuality that causes most issues, its attitude and opinion that does.... but rights are rights and the BSA has the right, for better or worse.....

[æonpax]

I tend to agree with you, aeon.... a private organisation should retain the right to include or exclude.... in the same way that LGBT organisations have the same right.....
its the trouble with rights v's discrimination.... there is a fine line and often it is blurred so that the right of choice over inclusion and exclusion becomes a form of discrimination......
I have no issues with LGBT in the BSA... and often I have found that its not sexuality that causes most issues, its attitude and opinion that does.... but rights are rights and the BSA has the right, for better or worse.....



While I am against the BSA prejudicial exclusion of Gays from their membership, I balance that against any groups or individual’s “Freedom or Right To Associate”. - http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/12.html - I may not agree with, may take umbrage with or may be passionately opposed to what a group represents, nonetheless, they have a right to associate with others whom they choose to gather with.

Woody Allen once said, in reference to the KKK; "I think you should defend to the death their right to march, and then go down and meet them with baseball bats." Freedom of Associations runs hand in hand, with the Freedom of Speech. The same rights that allow the LGBT to become a political “tour de force” are the same rights that allow for people to publicly gather and voice opposition to LGBT.

We live in a “constitutional republic” which is ruled by laws, not popular opinion or majority vote. There are times when this government has been legally compelled to enforce laws that were popularly opposed. This is most evident in dealing with “segregation” such as “Brown v. Board of Education”.

So long as these are private groups, such as the BSA, et al, that are not sustained by my tax dollar, then they have a right to exist.

[elian]

As you can tell, I'm not happy about it. Either the kid is an Eagle Scout or he's not..to spend 10 years of your life obtaining the highest rank, then volunteering to help in the organization, only to be told that you are no longer welcome. That's gotta hurt.

It would be interesting to hear the discussion that went on during this "special committee".

[Long Duck Dong]

I had to check with a couple of friends, but in NZ, the BSA would not be allowed to discriminate against LGBT, as the anti discrimination laws do not allow private organisations to refuse membership or admittance to LGBT.... private groups are allowed to vet people as to who is suitable for membership or admittance, and as long as they do not say that the person is unsuitable cos of race, religion, culture, gender or sexuality, they can say no to the LGBT joining the scouts.....

a female would not be allowed to join the BSA in NZ, not cos she is a female, but because she is not a male...and that would stand up in court, cos there was no discrimination against her cos she was a female as being female was not the reason for refusal to allow them to join

[void()]

As you can tell, I'm not happy about it. Either the kid is an Eagle Scout or he's not..to spend 10 years of your life obtaining the highest rank, then volunteering to help in the organization, only to be told that you are no longer welcome. That's gotta hurt.

It would be interesting to hear the discussion that went on during this "special committee".

Rather sure it was probably spun that in order to maintain a good public image, or to ensure young boys were not influenced by pedophiles. Everyone 'knows' bisexuals, homosexuals, transsexuals are all a bunch of lecherous deviants not to be trusted around children. More chains, honey.

And I'm not angry or upset now. I disagree with this policy of the BSA. It apparently is their right, though. One I had placed my life on the line, over. Sometimes even clearer minds get boggled. I do not feel 'bad' or guilty for disagreeing. It's my right to have and voice an opinion, to dissent. So, my dissent is lodged.

I also step to one side, know that dead is dead. Dead does not discriminated in any way. Life does not either. This is greatly comforting. It may be unfair these people can discriminate. It is also unfair the boys are victims, will not learn a different view, or be instructed by probably fine scouts whom would never let their sexuality interfere in any way. Life does not discriminate, unfairness and fairness visit all equally. So much for the motto I think. "Be prepared." How can you be if you only see out one window?

Unfortunate, no cure for stupid exists.

[tenni]

"I personally don't have a problem with the BSA excluding anyone they choose since they are a private organization."

I do not understand this type of thinking? Canadians have freedom of association in our Charter section 2 but section 15 deals with right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.

How is this different from excluding people based on religion, race, disability etc.?

Why is the BSA considered a "private" organization?

How is the exclusion different from hiring practises of exclusion of people? (ie We are a private business organization and we do not hire women, GLBT, Blacks, Siks, Muslims etc.)?
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.


Affirmative action programs

15. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[æonpax]

"I personally don't have a problem with the BSA excluding anyone they choose since they are a private organization."
I do not understand this type of thinking? Canadians have freedom of association in our Charter section 2 but section 15 deals with right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination.
How is this different from excluding people based on religion, race, disability etc.?
Why is the BSA considered a "private" organization?
How is the exclusion different from hiring practises of exclusion of people? (ie We are a private business organization and we do not hire women, GLBT, Blacks, Siks, Muslims etc.)?
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs


15. (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

`
The key here is that these are private organizations, that are not sponsored by the US government. The US constitution allows for freedom of association even though such groupings may be discriminatory.

For example;


* All religious organizations can legally discriminate in hiring only those of the same faith.

* Political organizations may legally discriminate in membership allowing only those whom espouse their ideology.

* The VFW may discriminate on membership based on their criteria of involvement within the US armed forces

* American Bar Association limits it’s membership to lawyers only.

* To be a member of Mensa, you must have attained a score within the upper two percent of the general population on an approved intelligence test that has been properly administered and supervise

* Private country clubs throughout the US legally discriminate on membership.

* Hooters can still get away with the subjective hiring of women only, who fit the companies motif.


It is important to remember, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. That is left up to the individual states. However, some states are now contemplating laws that will allow the legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. Montana just had such a bill voted down (http://www.transgenderlegal.org/headline_show.php?id=342 ) but a similar bill has been introduced in Tennessee ( http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/BillInfo/Default.aspx?BillNumber=SB0632 )

[darkeyes]

It shouldn't matter whether an organisation is private or public.. the key is whether they exist... even racist organisations here have to allow those of races they campaign against to become members... if we allow legal discrimination in one place it becomes more difficult to end it elsewhere.. the UK does have exemptions in some areas but mostly race, sex and sexual orientation laws make it illegal to stop people from becoming members of anything on those grounds.

So I agree with tenni here... where discrimination based on the criteria of what and who a person is exists, it should be rooted out and banned... legal discrimination on grounds of sex, race, origin or orientation is a cop out and should be fixed.. to allow private organisations to discriminate in these areas legally perpetuates that discrimination and does nothing to end it.. it doesn't matter whether it be boy scouts, the lgbt or the British National Party... that removing the right to discriminate legally will create problems is true in the short term, but as memory of that discrimination fades it will lessen and almost cease to exist.. we tolerate it or we don't.. we like it..or we don't.. we do something about it or we don't.. and not doing something should never be an option .. as long as we allow organisations to legally discriminate, then we are guilty of discriminating ourselves and become a party to some of the worst excesses of bigotry in our societies..

The fact that there is no federal or national law should not matter since as citizens we are able to campaign and argue against such discrimination and expose things for what they are. Even to the point of children straight or closeted bi or gay for instance leaving the boy scouts and leaving them stuck up a gum tree. Sympathisers of the lgbt and gay and lesbian parents in the US should be talking to their children who are or are considering joining the scouts and trying to persuade them that maybe that organisation is not one of which they should feel comfortable being a member for by being a member this too assists in perpetuating that bigotry.. a mass walk out of kids who are scouts and a bit of bad publicity for the American BSA could only do more good than harm. where no law exists does not mean we can do nothing.. where a law exists which allows such discrimination does not mean we can do nothing.. on the contrary it means we have an even greater obligation to act.. after all, where would our kind be now if people accepted what was back in the 1950s and 60s and thereafter?

[tenni]

Post 11
"It is important to remember, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. That is left up to the individual states. However, some states are now contemplating laws that will allow the legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. Montana just had such a bill voted down (http://www.transgenderlegal.org/head...how.php?id=342 ) but a similar bill has been introduced in Tennessee ( http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...lNumber=SB0632 )"

That seems all great developments!

Not meaning to be negative but a country proclaiming such slogans as "land of the free" etc. seems to have difficulty dealing with equality issues a bit more than Britain, Canada and other Western nations for the past fifty years. The question in my mind is whether the US federal constitution rather than laws has historically dealt with such equality issues as the "right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination". If not, why not?

[æonpax]

It shouldn't matter whether an organisation is private or public.. the key is whether they exist... even racist organisations here have to allow those of races they campaign against to become members... if we allow legal discrimination in one place it becomes more difficult to end it elsewhere.. the UK does have exemptions in some areas but mostly race, sex and sexual orientation laws make it illegal to stop people from becoming members of anything on those grounds.

So I agree with tenni here... where discrimination based on the criteria of what and who a person is exists, it should be rooted out and banned... legal discrimination on grounds of sex, race, origin or orientation is a cop out and should be fixed.. to allow private organisations to discriminate in these areas legally perpetuates that discrimination and does nothing to end it.. it doesn't matter whether it be boy scouts, the lgbt or the British National Party... that removing the right to discriminate legally will create problems is true in the short term, but as memory of that discrimination fades it will lessen and almost cease to exist.. we tolerate it or we don't.. we like it..or we don't.. we do something about it or we don't.. and not doing something should never be an option .. as long as we allow organisations to legally discriminate, then we are guilty of discriminating ourselves and become a party to some of the worst excesses of bigotry in our societies..

The fact that there is no federal or national law should not matter since as citizens we are able to campaign and argue against such discrimination and expose things for what they are. Even to the point of children straight or closeted bi or gay for instance leaving the boy scouts and leaving them stuck up a gum tree. Sympathisers of the lgbt and gay and lesbian parents in the US should be talking to their children who are or are considering joining the scouts and trying to persuade them that maybe that organisation is not one of which they should feel comfortable being a member for by being a member this too assists in perpetuating that bigotry.. a mass walk out of kids who are scouts and a bit of bad publicity for the American BSA could only do more good than harm. where no law exists does not mean we can do nothing.. where a law exists which allows such discrimination does not mean we can do nothing.. on the contrary it means we have an even greater obligation to act.. after all, where would our kind be now if people accepted what was back in the 1950s and 60s and thereafter?

`
In my humble opinion, all humans are exclusionary by nature. We seek our own kind, one way or another. History is nothing but a long list of exclusionary kingdoms, nations, tribes and clans whom for ethnic, cultural or religious reasons, excluded those whom do not meet some kind of requirement. It’s the human condition.

In regards to this issue;

I looked at this incident as a homosexual and as a Libertarian. As a bisexual, I am disgusted with BSA’s continued refusal to accept gays. But from a libertarian perspective, they are exercising their rights. No government or popular opinion should force them to do what they don’t want to, as legally reprehensible as it is.

The high court ruled in 2000, Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html that the First Amendment’s freedom of association allows private organizations to exclude whomever they choose. Like abortion, it became a contentious issue.

I personally think that eventually, the BSA will change and as is, it poses no immediate threat to anyone’s life, rights or beliefs, they are not proactively anti-gay nor as offensive as let’s say Westboro Baptist Church is. There are far larger and more immediate threats in the US and to gay rights, that require more attention than this issue…but it should serve as a reminder that such prejudicial groups exist.

The fact that exclusionary groups can legally exist is the hallmark of free society.

[void()]

Post 11
"It is important to remember, there is no federal law that specifically outlaws discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the private sector. That is left up to the individual states. However, some states are now contemplating laws that will allow the legal discrimination based on sexual orientation. Montana just had such a bill voted down (http://www.transgenderlegal.org/head...how.php?id=342 ) but a similar bill has been introduced in Tennessee ( http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...lNumber=SB0632 )"

That seems all great developments!

Not meaning to be negative but a country proclaiming such slogans as "land of the free" etc. seems to have difficulty dealing with equality issues a bit more than Britain, Canada and other Western nations for the past fifty years. The question in my mind is whether the US federal constitution rather than laws has historically dealt with such equality issues as the "right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination". If not, why not?

It's actually in the Bill of Rights tenni, or at least that is how some view it.


Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So, I ought to have the right to criticize our government in means of addressing grievances, or just to give our government hell.


Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And while it is true one must own a press to be free to use it, the internet has leveled that field a bit. I can consider myself and postings as a press. I can assemble with hundreds, thousands or more of other folks. My mom suggested all those without homes due this screwed up market should go live on the White House lawn. Of course, we can look at Kent state to see how that would go, or WACO.

Ah but to dream.

[darkeyes]

`
In my humble opinion, all humans are exclusionary by nature. We seek our own kind, one way or another. History is nothing but a long list of exclusionary kingdoms, nations, tribes and clans whom for ethnic, cultural or religious reasons, excluded those whom do not meet some kind of requirement. It’s the human condition.

In regards to this issue;

I looked at this incident as a homosexual and as a Libertarian. As a bisexual, I am disgusted with BSA’s continued refusal to accept gays. But from a libertarian perspective, they are exercising their rights. No government or popular opinion should force them to do what they don’t want to, as legally reprehensible as it is.

The high court ruled in 2000, Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html that the First Amendment’s freedom of association allows private organizations to exclude whomever they choose. Like abortion, it became a contentious issue.

I personally think that eventually, the BSA will change and as is, it poses no immediate threat to anyone’s life, rights or beliefs, they are not proactively anti-gay nor as offensive as let’s say Westboro Baptist Church is. There are far larger and more immediate threats in the US and to gay rights, that require more attention than this issue…but it should serve as a reminder that such prejudicial groups exist.

The fact that exclusionary groups can legally exist is the hallmark of free society.
That exclusionary groups exist in society which exclude on grounds of base prejudice does not make a free society but one which is chained to the tree of bigotry.

[æonpax]

That exclusionary groups exist in society which exclude on grounds of base prejudice does not make a free society but one which is chained to the tree of bigotry.

Touché. Let me take this a step ahead and say it is the, Tree of Ignorance that is at fault. It is a fruit that is hard for anyone, mortal at least, to resist. Nonetheless, you are free to be a bigot, to be ignorant or even a politician.

Perhaps Mustapha Mond might explain it more convincingly but for me at least, I'd sooner exist as an ignorant fool than not exist at all.

[barterbear2001]

How many scouts had a gay sexual experience while being a scout with another scout or leader?

[tenni]

post 15
"It's actually in the Bill of Rights tenni, or at least that is how some view it."

Void
A point of clarification if I may?
What takes greater priority the text of your constitution or the Bill of Rights?

In my country, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of our constitution. Neither take precedence over the other. Therefore, I wonder about your Bill of Rights and your constitution. Is the Bill of Rights an amendment of your constitution and therefore part of the US constitution...stronger than any law. All laws must adhere to the constitution?

If all the rights regarding right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination are only believed to be in your Bill of Rights, that is strange and confusing? It seems like an amendment is needed with the constitution to clarify rather than constant Supreme Court cases?

Thanks for confusing me more void.(kid'n)

[Realist]

That's a good question Barterbear.

I don't remember having a sexual encounter when I was in the scouts.

I did, however, have more than one male lover who had their first orgasmic experience, during boy scout camp-outs.

[pasco_lol_cpl]

I am saddened by this decision. Yes BSA is a private organization. Yes in the US you do have the freedom as a private group to discriminate as you wish. That is the cost of freedom. Now I will say that excluding this policy it is a fantastic organization that offers so much more to the boys than what they would have access to otherwise. The skills they learn just arent taught any more. I'm talking about more than just camping and knot tying. A boy who sticks with scouting will have a leg up against his peers in life. I will say that on the BSA adult leader form there is no question about one's orientation. Based on this many troops have adopted a policy of not asking and unless someone forces the issue to ignore it. At least that is how our troop operates. For the times that a parent has posed the question "Don't you think Johnny's dad is.." we simply say it is none of our business and we do not conduct witch hunts in our troop. So far that has been enough. I know for a fact that is how it is in a lot of troop. What does bother me is how the vote was taken. It should have been open and not a closed door vote. The best way to change an organization is from within and I and many others are working towards that goal.

[darkeyes]

Don't ask don't tell eh? Very progressive... there are many things private organisations cannot do and many they have to do to stay on the right side of the law.. what your first few sentences argue, Pasco, is for complete deregulation of all private organisations to do what they like to whomsoever they like whenever they like without having any responsibility to society as a whole.. that's the logic of what u say... which of course means that in respect of the BSA and other such youth organisations, it then becomes quite legal for them to indulge in any activity whatsoever without legal redress... now think that through... and I wont even go into the logic of that argument regarding individual rights and freedoms... freedom is a double edged sword... true freedom does not exist without responsibilities, and responsibility to society often means legal constraint... some day, millennia hence, human society may not require legal bounds within which it must operate.. it is something I dream of.. unfortunately, such is the state of human endeavour and failing that legal rules must be imposed to prevent chaos and discrimination...

[12voltman59]

Even though I do not agree with the policies, views, etc of the Boy Scouts of America in this regard---the fact does remain---the organization is a private entity and as such--it does have "the right" to hold to such views and such.

One thing about the Boy Scouts with this stance--at least it is very open and clear with no ambiguity----and if you like that thing--then join them--if not--then don't--stay far away from them.

Perhaps someone or some group of people can start up a new scouting organization that is open to all and does not discriminate in this and any other fashion that the BSA might care to see fit to follow.

To me though---to be so against "gays" actually does seem to be against the very values that this organization has otherwise, long been about. I am kind of sorry that the current leadership of the organization cares to follow a more fundamentalist and almost evangelical view in regards to homosexuality instead of other "christian" views of acceptance as promoted by religions such as the Unitarian Universalists and Unity that are religious faiths that are open and accepting of "gays."

[void()]

post 15
"It's actually in the Bill of Rights tenni, or at least that is how some view it."

Void
A point of clarification if I may?
What takes greater priority the text of your constitution or the Bill of Rights?

In my country, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is part of our constitution. Neither take precedence over the other. Therefore, I wonder about your Bill of Rights and your constitution. Is the Bill of Rights an amendment of your constitution and therefore part of the US constitution...stronger than any law. All laws must adhere to the constitution?

If all the rights regarding right of equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination are only believed to be in your Bill of Rights, that is strange and confusing? It seems like an amendment is needed with the constitution to clarify rather than constant Supreme Court cases?

Thanks for confusing me more void.(kid'n)

LOL

Good points though. And it has left me confused as well. Maybe one day I'll study and get a law degree just to sort it out. Yeah sure right.

[BorderCpl]

Hmmm... I find it interesting that this forum also holds a thread on first time sucking a dick and there were quite a few mentioning boy scouts and tents. I think sexual activity PERIOD is what the scouts are trying to avoid. That's why they don't encourage boys and girls to sleep in tents together or female leaders with boys and male leaders with girls. I don't think it's just homosexuality, personally. There has been so much about molestation of late (and it's usually male perpetrators) that they have to watch where they step. Of course, the more "in the know" someone is about this kind of thing, the more they realize the majority of perpetrators are hetero men with females. But, like I said, they also don't have male leaders at girl scout camp :) I think we look differently on two 12 yr old boys playing around than a 12 yr old boy and a 45 yr old man.

[12voltman59]

Well Border---the issue of the Boy Scouts being "anti-gay" is more about the fundamentalist view regarding sex and in that----they feel that ANY SEX act not performed by a married man and woman--primarily for the act of procreation is wrong and even should be outlawed with severe punishment meted out for fornicators, sodomites and adulterers.

I have seen some of the statements coming from some of the leadership of the BSA and it takes that very fundamentalist Christian tone---I don't think that their opposition to gays being in the ranks of the scouts really has much to do with sexual activity among the kids themselves or even if a scout master molests the kids-they already do run criminal background checks on those who serve in those functions to at least see if they don't have a prior record of doing such a thing.

While the whole issue of sexual activity between kids and certainly the potential of sexual abuse by adults in leadership roles is one issue--what is really at issue when it comes to the re-statement of this policy by the BSA is that from what I gather---based on some kids who have come out on Facebook and elsewhere who are gay--and when it became known by the other kids and the leaders---the attitude was that "you have to repent your sin of homosexuality, get right with God" and such stuff from the adults---and from the kids---being bullied, beaten etc--with the adults looking the other way----the real jist of that is that the Scouts really didn't have a position on homosexuality in the past and that in such cases things of this sort came up---it was handed on a case by case basis--with the goal being that they would be supportive of the kids no matter what--but with this "new" policy---they have created an actively hostile environment for those kids who are dealing with coming to the realization that they are something other than "purely straight" and to me---that is why it totally sucks that the leadership of the BSA have taken an aggressively stance towards the kids who come to find that they are not heterosexual.

From what I understand--in some parts of the country in some scouting regions---there is a promotion of the idea that "we need to pray away the gay" and anyone with half a brain cell knows---that is total BS!!

Such a policy by the Scouts to be this way might actually lead to kids doing things like committing suicide or other negative outcomes.

I know that when I was in the Scouts---we had a few boys with "Such issues" and it was handled on a way that helped them figure it out and get through it--and the kids could stay in--now it is my understanding with the Scouts---you had either "shape up, fly right or ship out" -meaning you either had better "stop all this gay nonsense"----repent your sins and then you can stay--if not--"you had better leave because you are perverted, evil, sick and we won't tolerate you anymore--FAGGOT!" (of course-they are not so directly crude and crass0--but they have established a less than friendly and welcoming attitude in regards to THE KIDS who are trying to figure out if they are gay, bi or straight--and to me---that all takes away from the good things that Scouting represents.

[Bishyguy1958]

Many scout leaders backed the movement to lift the ban. The Policy of BSA is to have "two-deep leadership" at all times. Minimum of 2 boys, minimum of 2 leaders. At NO time, should there be any reason to be alone one on one with any of the boys. Separate sleeping quarters, it goes on and on.

Try to explain that to a parent who doesn't want their son to join because they're afraid he's going to be molested by the scoutmaster. (Never mind such cases are RARE!)

In my 20+ years as a leader, ZERO problems! (Shh...don't tell them I'm bi and have NO interest in anyone under 20!)

[BorderCpl]

I do understand :) First: husband is bi and made it up the ranks to Order of the Arrow (bypassing Eagle by choice) and is bisexual. His best friend was gay and was kicked out. Of course, that just closeted my husband more and gave him more guilt to deal with. And currently, he is in a leadership position as well, so hears all about the thoughts of local area leaders. A lot of the thought is that gay leaders should lead the gay kids, a branch so to speak.
To Bishyguy: I SOOOO feel you! It used to be that you dropped your kid off for camp at the bus pick up point and waved good bye for the week. Now? They want cell phones and facebook or whatever to make sure that the parent is in complete control of the child while they're gone. Because someone might abuse (physically, emotionally or sexually) their little bundle.
But private organizations can limit memberships to those who have the same belief systems or same skin color or same religious backgrounds or same socioeconomic groupings.

[Long Duck Dong]

was talking to a friend about the thread... and his reaction was similar to something I was thinking..... we both wonder how many people that are opposed to gay people in the boy scouts, remember their own youth and the mischief they got up to.... and that is part of their concern.... that their sons may follow in their footsteps with some things......

if I think back to my younger days on scout camps, and the risks I took with a couple of the other boys... we never really thought about what would happen if we got caught....but now that I am a old fart, I see things differently...... and while I still can not see anything wrong with gay teens in the BSA.... I know that the world has changed, and things are so different now.... there is more support and understanding of LGBT people, but there is also more of a risk of bullying and legal action....

I am not sure that I would take the risks that I did when I was younger and in the scouts, if I was a teenager today... specially with the way a pic caught on a phone can be spread faster than a sti at a drunken barebackers orgy....

most gay teens would not take risks.... but hey.... they are teens just like I used to be, and I know what mischief I got up to..... and some teens today, make me look tame lol

[BorderCpl]

Nods at LDD! I was wondering the same thing..laugh..since some of the "first" posts were at scout camp! I'm old...so I remember the days when anything other than straight, vanilla, monogamy was considered to be "deviant behavior" to the point of being in the mental illness lists! I've been bi-convinced since I was 17 yrs old and had always hung out in gay bars, etc. I remember watching a Rikki Lake episode on fantasies and the oddest thing occurred: Apparently the #1 fantasy of women was being with another woman...followed closely by fantasy rape/domination...and interracial sex. I don't even remember what the men's turned out to be but homosexual behavior was NOT in the top 3. More interesting, while a higher number of women reported being bi/curious than men? The number of men reporting homosexual activity as children was THROUGH THE ROOF and these guys identified as straight ONLY. The world still never ceases to amaze me :)

[elian]

Well, just like the LAST time this policy came up the local BSA chapters are now in danger of losing $90,000 in grant money from the United Way; it seems that the local United Way has a policy of not giving contributions to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. Part of me feels bad that the children won't have those resources but part of me also says, "damn right!" Also in the article it mentioned that the local surrounding counties combined have a budget of @ $3M.

[12voltman59]

Nods at LDD! I was wondering the same thing..laugh..since some of the "first" posts were at scout camp! I'm old...so I remember the days when anything other than straight, vanilla, monogamy was considered to be "deviant behavior" to the point of being in the mental illness lists! I've been bi-convinced since I was 17 yrs old and had always hung out in gay bars, etc. I remember watching a Rikki Lake episode on fantasies and the oddest thing occurred: Apparently the #1 fantasy of women was being with another woman...followed closely by fantasy rape/domination...and interracial sex. I don't even remember what the men's turned out to be but homosexual behavior was NOT in the top 3. More interesting, while a higher number of women reported being bi/curious than men? The number of men reporting homosexual activity as children was THROUGH THE ROOF and these guys identified as straight ONLY. The world still never ceases to amaze me :)

I think that at the time you are talking about and even still---the bigger culture holds that bisexuality is kinda cool when its two chicks--its hot and all--but with men--there is no such a thing as bisexuality and even if there was-its not at all hot that two guys might be bi----so its no wonder that men are not going to say that a top fantasy for them is to be with another guy. It just ain't cool for guys to admit that they "are into each other" along with being into women--but wow---get two gals who say they want to "do it" with one another--holy cow!! That is just "SO FREAKING HOT, DUDE!!!"

[darkeyes]

While on me hols don't usually keep in touch with the media much, but me mum sent me this which is pertinent... bit of an eye opener for me in a sense cos really owt I know 'bout the boy scouts ne where on the planet I've learned in the last few weeks.. and while the gist of the article doesn't surprise me, parts of it should shock some peeps a little...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/18/politics-behind-boy-scouts-america-anti-gay-ban

[aLABiM75 & StrF51]

.



I was a Cub Scout and an Assistant Scout Master for the Boy Scouts.
Unless a person is flaming, I do not see how they find out....
None of the time I spent in the Scout's had the issue ever come up or been "educated" upon.



.

[Bishyguy1958]

I think that at the time you are talking about and even still---the bigger culture holds that bisexuality is kinda cool when its two chicks--its hot and all--but with men--but wow---get two gals who say they want to "do it" with one another--holy cow!! That is just "SO FREAKING HOT, DUDE!!!"

YES! YES!!! My feelings exactly.

On the other hand, you know how many openly gay women are involved in Girl Scouts? More than I ever suspected!

[Delilah]

I would trust my kids with gay people then I would with catholic priests. I'm just saying.

[aLABiM75 & StrF51]

I would trust my kids with gay people then I would with catholic priests. I'm just saying.


I think you got a point, Delilah.

I would sooner send my grand kids of with someone openly gay, then take the chance of doing so with some closeted person looking for a secret screw.

[Bishyguy1958]

It also sort of plays on peoples' bi/homophobia. Just because someone is gay, does NOT necessarily mean they want to be gay with YOU!

[darkeyes]

This is interesting.. its shows what some involved in the movement at least think of the ban... the more the merrier.. http://boingboing.net/2012/07/25/more-men-join-the-ranks-of-for.html

[Long Duck Dong]

what amuses me fran, is most people that are handing back their awards in outrage.... got them, while they were in a anti gay association, a anti gay society, and a country that have anti LGBT laws..... and at the time, those facts never mattered......

they are handing back a award to a association that has always had a anti LGBT stance, its just that nobody really took any bloody notice until the BSA made a statement about it....

people amuse me with the way they take a stance, based on their outage, and forget that for much longer, they were ignorant of the very issue they now speak out about, cos it was never something they actually acknowledged, was always there anyway....

[pasco_lol_cpl]

Don't ask don't tell eh? Very progressive... there are many things private organisations cannot do and many they have to do to stay on the right side of the law.. what your first few sentences argue, Pasco, is for complete deregulation of all private organisations to do what they like to whomsoever they like whenever they like without having any responsibility to society as a whole.. that's the logic of what u say... which of course means that in respect of the BSA and other such youth organisations, it then becomes quite legal for them to indulge in any activity whatsoever without legal redress... now think that through... and I wont even go into the logic of that argument regarding individual rights and freedoms... freedom is a double edged sword... true freedom does not exist without responsibilities, and responsibility to society often means legal constraint... some day, millennia hence, human society may not require legal bounds within which it must operate.. it is something I dream of.. unfortunately, such is the state of human endeavour and failing that legal rules must be imposed to prevent chaos and discrimination...
It's as progressive as the system can allow us to be. Do I like it? No. but in this case it is where we are ignoring it. As for the complete deregulation of all private organizations..yep. That is how things are in the states thankfully. Any individual or organization has the right to be as closed minded as they want. If they want to be like that, then fine, I do not have to patronize them with my freedom. These organizations do not have one iota of obligation to anyone but themselves. It's called freedom of association, its in our constitution and has been there for 200 years with out any problems. The problems arise when actions take place against another group or individual outside of the group and which are illegal in other areas. We have seen the US has been quite effective in that area in the last 50 years. To try to take it in any other direction is a strawman.

[aLABiM75 & StrF51]

.



That is just the thing though Long Duck.... Not sure what others experiences were or how they came about, but I never experienced any of it even when it was in the news.
Maybe it was because we were out of New Orleans, people just did not see that it mattered enough to come up in conversation.

If there was never a statement against the LGBTQ community I could have gone my whole life never knowing about it.

Just like Gays in the Military, I had no clue until "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" hit the media.




.

[Long Duck Dong]

lol yeah, and thats my point alabi....... the BSA never accepted LGBT people... nothing has changed, but society.... and now that people are out and they have rights.. its highlighted something that has always existed but at the same time never existed cos the LGBT were hidden within the BSA anyway.....

discrimination only actually works when you have a visible target to discriminate against....

same with the army, the right for LGBT to serve in the NZ army never existed until a law was passed, but the LGBT was never stopped from serving in the military anyway, unless they made themselves a visible target and that was the only way they could be discriminated against.....

the argument is used that it forced the LGBT to hide... trouble is many LGBT were not out and visible to start with.... something that many LGBT still are, by choice, even with the freedom to be out and visible

[Paddarick69]

I don't care one hoot what the boy scouts' policy is, private entities can believe whatever they want - I HAVE my own secret, smirking knowledge that it was while a scout this bisexual man had his first sex with another guy! It's my own private revenge :)