GernBlansten

Gary, A few observations about the LDS scouting program differences I've experinenced in my 50% LDS district. Age banding. Patrols are age specific, probably to coincide with the Church's YM program. Patrols do not span 11 to 17 year olds, but 11/12, 13/14, 15/16 etc. All non-LDS do not do that. Many would consider it counter to the goals of the patrol method. The requirement of priesthood to hold the SPL position in a unit. How can a non-LDS member become a SPL in an LDS unit? This is directly against every non-LDS unit I've been associated with where every member of the unit

Good catch Pack. But your 95% number is subject to the millions we've spent on those "higher" education pinheads. Just considering the source!

Aren't units formerly known as vocational Explorer units, now LFL units?

When trying to get my head round such lofty topics as the origins of our species, I try to consider the source. Whether its a bunch of nomadic goat herders scratching on scrolls, or a sci-fi writer scribbling on a napkin in a diner, or a treasure seeker using seer stones to interpret golden plates, you gotta consider the source. Take from it what makes sense, discard the rest. Considering all sources, I'm pretty sure we aren't that far advanced from the chimp. Looking at this political season, I'm not sure we've regressed.

A conviction removes several of your rights. Free speech, gun ownership, voting, free association, free movement.

Explorers still exist, but under the name of Learning for Life. The BSA founded LFL to counter the gay/atheist thing with Fire/Police charters. See, LFL doesn't have that requirement for membership. Our local police dept has an Explorer post, but its really LFL. This allows LFL to have gay and atheist members. But its still owned by the BSA. Go figure.

Ed, you really can't be serious. Voting is a right. It isn't a privilege. So when women won the right to vote, that was a privilege. When blacks won the right to vote, that was a privilege. Gee Ed, you sound like you are from Delaware.

Gee, look at all the gymnastics you have to go through, when just dropping the discriminatory rules would accomplish the same thing.

Beavah, that's like saying rape is a crime of passion. It isn't. It's a crime of violence.

I get it. Marriage is a privledge. Like a drivers license. I guess it only becomes a right when someone takes it away from you, at least in from the point of view of the rejected. Eh?

"I am not gay, I have never been gay. I love my wife." Famous Foot Tapper.

I'm pretty sure Dale allows a private organization to set its membership rules. Period. No compelling reason to justify those rules. It has the rights to set them. Beavah can probably elaborate.

So Ed, if marriage isn't a right, you wouldn't be upset if it was taken away? Right?

"If you went back and looked at polls on gay issues from back in the 1980's, you'd see the same thing." Brent, go back 50 years, do the same polls on race hold true?

So Ed, if say Pennsylvania had a popular vote and banned all marriages, you'd be ok with that since its not a right and that's what the people demanded?

"The right to free association is now considered un-American? Wow. I didn't get the memo. " The right of free association is truly American. How you choose the exercise that right may not be. BTW, I support the Dale verdict. I think private organizations should have the freedom to establish their membership requirements. I also am 100% behind those organizations to reap the seeds they sow. The BSA can become racist, they chose wisely not to. They can become misogynist, they chose wisely not to. They choose to be homophobic. I disagree with that choice and think it un-American

I would hope that you even bringing up sodomy in a scouting setting would have you removed. Scouting is supposed to be asexual. You brought sodomy into the discussion, not me.

You do know what the definition of sodomy is don't you? I will guarantee you that sodomites are already in our midst. And they meet BSA membership standards.

A BSA prohibition of racial discrimination of volunteers, if it does exist, would be voluntary. BSA could clearly establish a racial test on adult leadership, if it wanted to go down that path. The Dale decision gives them that right.

Non-religious COs would probably not be targets as they would probably not ban them.

Should minority rights be put up to popular vote?

Can't help that Eagle92. Gays already exist in those venues. Parents would be naive if they didn't already know that.

Majority rule is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on the dinner menu.

I think I understand your comment Beavah. I was approaching the discussion as if BSA were to drop their anti-gay ban, you are approaching it from the standpoint of overturning the free association decision, gay issue aside. Yes that would restrict freedom. However if the BSA voluntarily dropped the ban, it would increase freedom, allowing CO's freedom to choose for themselves and face the consequences of their choices.

"Is this really, literally true? Could a CO discriminate on the basis of race in the choice of its leaders? I think the answer would be no." They clearly can discriminate based on sex and religion. Why not race?