Boy Scouts Tp (Possibly) End Homosexual Ban

522 posts / 0 new
Last post
Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427
Boy Scouts Tp (Possibly) End Homosexual Ban

Boy Scouts close to ending ban on gay members, leaders - U.S. News

Will this be good for the Scouts, or bad for them? Do you see more people joining the scouts as a result of this, leaving it, or neither? Other thoughts?

boilermaker's picture
Joined: 08/21/02
Posts: 1984

I think it is a GREAT thing for scouts. I've not let my son participate in it bc of this ban. I can't support them bc of it, and yet I see so many good things about scouting.

I think it is a step in the right direction (though admittedly, I think each pack/den is different. Here they vary between quite liberal groups and groups mostly of LDS folks.)

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

ITA with Audra. Scouting is something we have chosen, so far, to NOT participate in because of the ban on gays. It's definitely a step in the right direction, although I'm not sure this alone is enough to sway us to join. Our lives seems full enough as it is.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

I do not have any boys, but even if I did this alone would not be the reason/not a reason to join or not join the boy scouts.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

I agree with Stacey and Audra. I haven't been confronted with the issue yet, but I was prepared to say no to Scouting specifically because of this ban. I would still have to find out what the individual pack is all about (this decision would leave it up to the pack to decide to ban or not ban) and the religious angle is something that I'm not super comfortable going into until I know more about what that individual pack "preaches" but this is enough for me to lift my over all ban on them and be willing to investigate individual packs for one that fits more with our beliefs if that is something that T is interested in later.

Rivergallery's picture
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

The way BSA works -
Each Pack or Troop, usually there are both.. have a Chartering Organization. Often a church, but could be other groups like LIONS, ELKS etc.
That Chartering Organization provides - the space, 2 adults, and any help the Pack or Troop need. They also must sign the leaders registration (which is yearly).. they must approve them. This is ideally to prevent criminals or negative influences to affect the pack/troop.
The Pack and or Troop is required to follow by the guidelines of that Organization. This is seen very apparently in LDS packs/troops.

The change would be that the BSA would take no stand on sexual issues. And leave the decision up to the Chartering Organization.

I am ok with it, in our country as I view we should all have that freedom of religion. HOWEVER. I personally as a very conservative parent would not be ok with putting my children into a group with any leaders that discuss sexuality period, or have any PDA.. it is currently taboo even for heterosexuals, and I think that is great. Right now in fact we are LONE SCOUTS, as we disagreed with local BSA leadership. It is an offshoot of BSA, but I am my own children's leader period.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"Rivergallery" wrote:

The way BSA works -
Each Pack or Troop, usually there are both.. have a Chartering Organization. Often a church, but could be other groups like LIONS, ELKS etc.
That Chartering Organization provides - the space, 2 adults, and any help the Pack or Troop need. They also must sign the leaders registration (which is yearly).. they must approve them. This is ideally to prevent criminals or negative influences to affect the pack/troop.
The Pack and or Troop is required to follow by the guidelines of that Organization. This is seen very apparently in LDS packs/troops.

The change would be that the BSA would take no stand on sexual issues. And leave the decision up to the Chartering Organization.

I am ok with it, in our country as I view we should all have that freedom of religion. HOWEVER. I personally as a very conservative parent would not be ok with putting my children into a group with any leaders that discuss sexuality period, or have any PDA.. it is currently taboo even for heterosexuals, and I think that is great. Right now in fact we are LONE SCOUTS, as we disagreed with local BSA leadership. It is an offshoot of BSA, but I am my own children's leader period.

I didn't take it that it's now going to become a Thing for pack leaders to discuss human sexuality with the boys; why would they? And as for PDA, I agree that other than small things (like a quick peck goodbye or putting an arm around your partner) that's not appropriate either. But I would feel that way whether the person was gay or straight. I just don't see this as being a huge change in the way the packs would interact with the boys, other than now people are allowed to be gay.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I have never heard of BS meetings discussing sexuality.

Although, our local Boy Scouts takes place at the Catholic church...we did have sexuality classes there (which, surprisingly were actually pretty decent...although no BC talk Wink )

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

It's about time.

wlillie's picture
Joined: 09/17/07
Posts: 1796

I think it's good. It leaves the options up to the individual pack which means it'll be easier to find one that meets your needs. We were going to do boy scouts either way (I think, I have to look at the time committment) but this way I'll be able to sign up guilt free. I would have a fit if there was any talk about sexual preferences or real PDA whether the scout leader was straight or gay.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

I think it will definitely hurt the boy scouts. I think the number of scouts and sponsoring organizations that will pull out will far outnumber those that will join because of the changes. Especially since 70% of scout troops are chartered by religious organizations.

Will the Scouts now be split between troops with gay-friendly policies and those that keep the ban? What will a National Jamboree be like if it brings together these disparate groups with conflicting ideologies?

A top official of the Southern Baptist Convention, whose conservative churches sponsor hundreds of Scout units that embrace the ban, was among those alarmed that the BSA is proposing to allow sponsoring organizations to decide for themselves whether to admit gays as scouts and adult leaders.

"We understand that we are now a minority, that it is not popular to have biblical values, not popular to take stands that seem intolerant," said Frank Page, president of the SBC's executive committee. "This is going to lead to a disintegration of faith-based values."

Page had been scheduled to speak in July at the Scouts' National Jamboree in West Virginia, and he's now apprehensive there could be conflict as troops with differing policies converge. Asked if he might decide not to speak, Page said he would pray about it.

Of the more than 110,000 scouting units across the U.S., nearly 70 percent are chartered by religious organizations. Some were pleased by the proposed change, others were troubled.

Read more: Boy Scouts could face division and defections if it proceeds to end mandatory ban on gays | Fox News

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

I think putting an end to discrimination may make them lose some people, and that's a good thing.

I also think that it's not accurate that religious organizations are automatically anti-gay. Many of them aren't.

Alissa_Sal's picture
Joined: 06/29/06
Posts: 6427

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

I think it will definitely hurt the boy scouts. I think the number of scouts and sponsoring organizations that will pull out will far outnumber those that will join because of the changes. Especially since 70% of scout troops are chartered by religious organizations.

Keep in mind too that at least according to the article, this decision isn't going to make it so that individual packs can't discriminate - it is only going to remove the policy from the Scouts organization over all and then leave the decision up to individual packs as to whether they want to continue to discriminate. So religious organizations that want to keep discriminating against homosexuals will be able to do so. But now they have to take responsibility for it themselves and admit that it is their own discriminatory policy, rather than simply following the rules set out by the BSA. Smile

I don't see why they would feel the need to pull out of the organization simply because others can choose NOT to discriminate, but I probably underestimate the depth of anti-homosexual sentiment in some corners.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Welcome to 2013 boy scouts! I'm not worried about them losing members ~ most people join scouts because they love scouting or join their kids because they had a nice experience of it as a child. If the anti`inclusive crowd pulls out all the better! Who wants to belong to an organization with bigots? Many, many people I know had boycotted the scouts because of their exclusion of homosexuals, I'm sure that they will pick up a ton of new members and new sponsors.

We won't do it because its a huge time suck and we have other things we focus on as a family, but I think that it can be great for kids.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

What about Girl Scouts? Do they have a similar policy?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

Girl scouts are cool with teh gay.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"Potter75" wrote:

Girl scouts are cool with teh gay.

Good to know. DD's in Sparks and she really loves it.

ange84's picture
Joined: 12/28/09
Posts: 6564

Scouts here is likely different, I have never heard of a gay ban for scouts in Australia. My DS will be joining scouts once he is old enough. My disappointment with scouts here is they allowed girls to start joining years ago which is not something I really agree with. I come from a Guiding background, my Mum was a Guide and a leader as I have been since I was 7.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

It's sad that they're only still "considering" it. I'm sure the bigoted members will pull out but that will be for the best. My son will not and has not participated in boy scouts.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

So I wonder if they would have to change the Scout Oath too....

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
To keep myself physically strong,
... mentally awake, and morally straight.
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So I wonder if they would have to change the Scout Oath too....

Excellent point. They should have already ~ its hard to argue that being a bigot is morally correct!!!

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

Scouts is a great program because of the moral values it is based on. Someone who doesn't share those values should start their own group instead of trying to change a group that already exists.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

No one is making them change. The scouts are initiating this change of their own accord, as they should. My husband was an Eagle scout, but we would never let our sons join unless they became tolerant of all Americans.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So I wonder if they would have to change the Scout Oath too....

Scout Oath
On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
To keep myself physically strong,
... mentally awake, and morally straight.
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Because of "morally straight"? I don't think it's referring to sexual orientation.

There is no conflict with this and homosexuality.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Because of "morally straight"? I don't think it's referring to sexual orientation.

I think that Gloria believes that being Gay is Immoral.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

No one is making them change. The scouts are initiating this change of their own accord, as they should. My husband was an Eagle scout, but we would never let our sons join unless they became tolerant of all Americans.

You are right no one is making them change. I'm not sure about them initiating anything though. I think all the hype is just activists trying to put media pressure on them to change again.

NBC News reported earlier this week that BSA leaders might rescind their ban and gay/lesbian adult volunteers and scouts. If leaders take that controversial step, the churches and other organizations that sponsor Cub Scout packs and Boy Scout troops could set their own membership policies on a local-option basis.

This would be an odd flip-flop given that the BSA just reaffirmed its anti-gay membership policy seven months ago after a two-year period of study. Why would the group’s leaders make an abrupt 180?

National BSA leaders — mostly high-powered businessmen who volunteer their time to scouting — are scheduled to meet next week in Irving, where the scouts maintain their national HQ.

But there is no guarantee they will rescind the ban on gay scouts and gay adult volunteers. In fact, there’s no guarantee that BSA’s leaders will even discuss the policy during three days of meetings planned next week at the organization’s national HQ in Irving.

BSA is a tax-exempt nonprofit company and is not subject to the laws that require governmental bodies to post their meeting agendas and then allow the public to observe the proceedings.

Transparency is a dirty word at the Boy Scout’s HQ in Irving | The Scoop Blog

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

I don't see a need to change it. Your morals are your own. Mine are mine. I keep morally straight to mine every day.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Potter75" wrote:

Excellent point. They should have already ~ its hard to argue that being a bigot is morally correct!!!

While I do not care one way or the others about the boy scouts, I detest the word bigot. It is no more appropriate in my opinion to call one group of people a bigot for their beliefs than it is to call another group of people dumb looser because of theirs.

Spacers's picture
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4100

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

While I do not care one way or the others about the boy scouts, I detest the word bigot. It is no more appropriate in my opinion to call one group of people a bigot for their beliefs than it is to call another group of people dumb looser because of theirs.

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I'm sorry, Bonita, but if the definition fits, then I'm not going to sugar-coat my sentiments. If someone doesn't want to be called a bigot, then they should treat all other human beings with respect. The Boy Scouts are prejudiced against and intolerant of gays, that means they are bigoted. Bigot is just much more concise.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Spacers" wrote:

Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

I'm sorry, Bonita, but if the definition fits, then I'm not going to sugar-coat my sentiments. If someone doesn't want to be called a bigot, then they should treat all other human beings with respect. The Boy Scouts are prejudiced against and intolerant of gays, that means they are bigoted. Bigot is just much more concise.

"hatred and intolerance" - In my experience, the people that use the word bigot have "hatred and intolerance" toward anyone who does not share their view points on homosexuality. The word has no purpose other to shame and belittle a large group of people. The very things that you are trying to prevent, it does the opposite. It is an ugly word that has no positive or uplifting qualities.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

It is an ugly word...for ugly actions.

Not allowing someone to participate in your group because you feel they shouldn't be allowed due to _____...is a bigoted point of view.

If I said I don't hire Vietnamese people...you would say I was bigoted...correct? You wouldn't think that that was appropriate. At least I hope not. Same for our gay friends. They should be allowed to be who they are and join everything you and I can join. To not allow them is discrimination and discrimination is done by bigots.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Jessica80" wrote:

If I said I don't hire Vietnamese people...you would say I was bigoted...correct?

I would not use that word no. I would not call a girl a B_____ even if I thought she was. I would not call the child with unmarried parents a Ba_____rd, and I would not call someone that was prejudice a Bigot. It is just not polite conversation.

Joined: 08/17/04
Posts: 2226

Well I guess we are different then. I think of the other words as slang words (and the B**** word as swear when used in the context you are referring) while saying a view is bigoted is an accurate term. I don't use "polite" words to describe people who actively discriminate against others. Polite words for polite people and they are not.

mommytoMR.FACE's picture
Joined: 04/10/09
Posts: 781

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

"hatred and intolerance" - In my experience, the people that use the word bigot have "hatred and intolerance" toward anyone who does not share their view points on homosexuality. The word has no purpose other to shame and belittle a large group of people. The very things that you are trying to prevent, it does the opposite. It is an ugly word that has no positive or uplifting qualities.

I cannot be tolerant of intolerance.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

You are right no one is making them change. I'm not sure about them initiating anything though. I think all the hype is just activists trying to put media pressure on them to change again.

Transparency is a dirty word at the Boy Scout’s HQ in Irving | The Scoop Blog

Well, that's good. This change means progression. And about time.

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

dp

ClairesMommy's picture
Joined: 08/15/06
Posts: 2299

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

"hatred and intolerance" - In my experience, the people that use the word bigot have "hatred and intolerance" toward anyone who does not share their view points on homosexuality. The word has no purpose other to shame and belittle a large group of people. The very things that you are trying to prevent, it does the opposite. It is an ugly word that has no positive or uplifting qualities.

So, a person who fits the definition of 'bigot' should feel positive and uplifted by those who oppose their views? Please. I will call a spade a spade. If you exhibit yourself as a bigot, I will call you (general you) a bigot. I don't care how 'polite' the word sounds. Do you take issue with a racist being called a racist? It doesn't make for polite conversation, but why bury the truth under niceties?

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

While I do not care one way or the others about the boy scouts, I detest the word bigot. It is no more appropriate in my opinion to call one group of people a bigot for their beliefs than it is to call another group of people dumb looser because of theirs.

" dumb losers" is quite subjective. Bigot is 100% accurate. And while I think you calling me hateful for using correct terminology is ignorant of you- I will proudly be called intolerant of bigotry.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"Potter75" wrote:

And while I think you calling me hateful for using correct terminology is ignorant of you-

I did not call you hateful. I do think that Bigot is a hateful term.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

DP

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I did not call you hateful. I do think that Bigot is a hateful term.

I will be honest; I have never heard of the word bigot being in that category.

Joined: 05/31/06
Posts: 4780

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So I wonder if they would have to change the Scout Oath too....

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

"hatred and intolerance" - In my experience, the people that use the word bigot have "hatred and intolerance" toward anyone who does not share their view points on homosexuality. The word has no purpose other to shame and belittle a large group of people. The very things that you are trying to prevent, it does the opposite. It is an ugly word that has no positive or uplifting qualities.

You did call me hateful and intolerant. Fact. You did say I am trying to shame and belittle bigots. Fact. If you find the word to be so troublesome and offensive to you perhaps you should examine why. Maybe it pains you to realize that the definition is accurate and the ACTIONS are so ugly and hateful, not the word you purport to hate.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"Potter75" wrote:

You did call me hateful and intolerant. Fact. You did say I am trying to shame and belittle bigots. Fact. If you find the word to be so troublesome and offensive to you perhaps you should examine why. Maybe it pains you to realize that the definition is accurate and the ACTIONS are so ugly and hateful, not the word you purport to hate.

No, she said using the word bigot is hateful and intolerant. You put yourself in that category. But it is ok as long as it is used against against convervative Christians, right? I would say that there are many on this board that are bigots they just choose a different category of people, conservative Christians to be hateful toward. I do think calling someone a bigot just because they have different beliefs than you is an ugly and hateful ACTION.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

I will be honest; I have never heard of the word bigot being in that category.

Whether or not you agree with that the term is accurate, it is still calling someone names.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

No, she said using the word bigot is hateful and intolerant. You put yourself in that category. But it is ok as long as it is used against against convervative Christians, right? I would say that there are many on this board that are bigots they just choose a different category of people, conservative Christians to be hateful toward. I do think calling someone a bigot just because they have different beliefs than you is an ugly and hateful ACTION.

That is not why people use the word. It's not about a category of people who have a religious belief, it's people who discriminate against homosexuals, who assume that being gay is being immoral, that gay people shouldn't be trusted around kids, and should be in any sort of different category because they are gay.

Substitute "black people" for "gay people" and you will understand the sentiment, whether or not you agree.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

Whether or not you agree with that the term is accurate, it is still calling someone names.

But anything is "calling someone names". What puts that word on the "bad word" list, like b**ch? I don't think it is viewed that way generally. I won't argue that you feel that way when you hear/read it, obviously, but it's not considered a "bad" word, it wouldn't ever get bleeped, etc.

Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3187

One more try: if I say, "Jewish people shouldn't be in school next to non-Jewish kids, sharing classes and water fountains and things," and you call me a racist, is that a bad word?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Substitute "black people" for "gay people" and you will understand the sentiment, whether or not you agree.

It is still calling people names because you do not like them.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

Another example would be to call someone a "fag" because you do not like their homosexual behaver. In my opinion, that is not different than calling someone a bigot for their discriminatory behaviour. In my opinion, neither one accomplishes anything other than to put others down.

GloriaInTX's picture
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4116

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

That is not why people use the word. It's not about a category of people who have a religious belief, it's people who discriminate against homosexuals, who assume that being gay is being immoral, that gay people shouldn't be trusted around kids, and should be in any sort of different category because they are gay.

Substitute "black people" for "gay people" and you will understand the sentiment, whether or not you agree.

I know why people use the word. They use it to belittle Christians who think homosexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is a behavior, not a group of people. So just because I think their behavior is immoral doesn't have anything to do with how I treat or feel about gay people. I think it is immoral for 2 unmarried straight people to live together outside of marriage too. Does that make me a bigot against straight people?
So if you are going to sustitute the term "black people" for "gay people", you could also also substitute the term "conservative Christian people". So yes if you use the term bigot to describe a group of people you are guilty of being a bigot in the same way.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6560

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

and you call me a racist, is that a bad word?

If someone were to call someone else on this debate board a racist (whether or not it was true), I would say that yes, that is calling someone a name and not appropriate for this kind of forum.

Pages