Pale Horse

We've never had the problem where one brother is registered and the other isn't.

We have always allowed siblings to attend and participate in out Pack events. However, now that girls are allowed to officially register, what is everyone's feelings toward allowing non-registered (but eligible to be registered) sibling participation. Informal discussion with a few of parents seems to be "daughter is not sure she wants to join, but wants to come to the fun activities". Seems like a case of having her cake and eating it too.

This. 100% accurate. There needs to be a simple set of easily-enforceable guidelines. When the rules become too voluminous and impossible to enforce, people begin to willfully disregard all rules or volunteers simply walk away. Neither of which is the desired outcome.

Careful, you might not like the answer to that question. https://www.google.com/search?q=divorce+statistics+gay+vs+straight&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS775US776&oq=divorce+rates+gay+&aqs=chrome.2.0j69i57j0l4.9023j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 Take your pick of studies.

Honestly, if I had a daughter, I would just want her to be happy. (Doesn't everyone say this?) But really it's up to her whether that's through finding love and heterosexual companionship to raise a child or through other avenues. We all want the "best" for our children, but everyone's "best" is subject to interpretation. I'd much rather she find happiness through a non-traditional route than follow the path of least resistance. Should I also verify that any potential suitors my (imaginary) daughter brings home has the financial means to support X level of lifestyle? And try to convi

Absolutely not. To even think that one family is inferior than another is beyond the pale. I'm sure there's things that everybody wishes were different about their family or life (inlaws anyone?), but to feel that because of how life works out somehow makes it inferior is quite alarming. To extend your argument about it being more difficult for single parent families, would a traditional middle-class family be inferior to one in the upper class? After all it's more difficult to raise kids on your own without the help of a nanny. Difficulty does not equal inferiority. Some may even

I guess I just don't understand. Please explain to me what in fact is the role of the father...what is the role of the mother? To me those roles are exactly the same: love, nurture, educate and discipline as needed. None of those are unique to either a mother or father, nor are they specific to a certain sex when a one parent of a same-sex couple "assumes" the role of the opposite sex parent. In a traditional family, a mother and father may approach those tasks in different fashions, just like I would approach it differently than other dads out there. Doesn't mean one of us isn'

Sorry, I have to disagree. Regardless of anyone's feelings either way on the issue, by their very nature and setup, the 3 above requirements infer all-too-bluntly, that single parent or non-traditional families are inferior to those with both a mother and father. For many (most?) families the role of Mother and Father are interchangeable. We won't even begin down the path of families with 2 mothers or fathers.

I would hardly call an article that accuses BSA of "sexualizing" its Scouts and throwing a two-week orgy a "well-written" point of view.

You keep assuming some level of condensation, not sure why. Further, just because someone believes it's true, doesn't make it true. Nor does it give someone any more right to speak negatively about leadership than I have to, as you say "speak condescendingly to them". To counter your point, what part of the Scout Law would accusing someone of un-scoutlike behaviour fall? I believe your logical fallicy falls somewhere along the lines of "No true Scotsman...", or more apropos, "No true Scout..."

My post was directed at those that believe National is on a deliberate path to destroy BSA and accuse them of moral turpitude. Are those posts respectful of leadership or fall within intellectual dialogue? Regarding swaying minds...I'd venture that the vast majority (dare i say 90%+) of forumn posts never come close to convincing anyone to change their mind.

Obviously, leadership is playing the ultimate long game. In 2002 our present leaders saw that condoms were available at World Jamboree, so launched a campaign to host the 2019 Jambo in the US, knowing the firestorm that would rain down, very much like the prophylactics that will surely rain down as they're launched from one of those T-Shirt cannons into the crowds. Their superior foresight and planning skills also allowed this apocalypse to coincide with the world-shocking announcement to allow girls into Boy Scouts (forgetting for a minute that they've been in since the 70s). Now their ma

I think it'd be more appropriate to say "they couldn't join openly", which is unfortunate. For one of those demographics, the barrier still exists. I know several closeted atheists who, though no less moral than their spiritual counterparts, are exceptional leaders in every capacity.

I also heard no more diamond patches on the tan uniforms, so it doesn't make sense...Scout earns his bear badge at the end of 3rd grade, then immediately switches to tan uniform the next year, when does he get to wear his bear rank?

The link above may not work since it was posted to a closed group. Attempting to add the video as a file. 10000000_361714104321469_5985668609291059200_n.mp4

I think that was a rhetorical question, and that you probably know the answer.

Although not released to the broader group: Anthony Berger, National Director of Cub Scouting, released a video to the private early adopter group on Facebook. In the video the dropped a bombshell that when girls registration opens nation-wider on June 11, 2018 there will be additional requirements for female leadership. Any units hoping to register as all-girl or family packs must have the following: Each den must have a woman registered as DL or ADL Each pack must have a woman as CM or ACM Moderator note: Video is inserted a few posts down, (announcement is around 5

Cute story, but I imagine this is exactly the type of thing that will get GSUSA riled up and never allow boys in Girl Scouts. I can just hear it now: "You, as a male, went to camp to prey and seduce girls who were just there to be empowered. Girls weren't even free to be girls without concern of having to look pretty for the opposite sex." P.S. My mother and aunt also ran a GS troop for a while and I was a "tag-along" too. Still remember that Brownie song about turning your frown upside down.

My money is on "Scout Life" not to be confused with the rank of Life Scout.

Hmm, I wonder where you could find a quality scouting program for girls....have you thought about one of those Girl-Only Troops from that new organization - Scouts BSA?

Attended BALOO last month and they never alluded to anything so silly as not carrying water. Someone is mistaken or off-script.

Is this a grab for money? Sure, but there's nothing wrong with that. Bills need to be paid. As an avid hiker and backpacker, this would be an exciting trip, IMO. I may actually do it without my son (Cub Scout). All my PTO is scheduled for this year, but if they do it again next year... I grew up in an area without Boy Scouts, so was never one as a youth. Maybe this will allow me to go and experience it without living vicariously through his adventures and intruding on his experience.

Refer here for a great resource that show's common themes and similar requirements.

It was a joke, don't lose your head over it.

Looks like the contract was for only 2 of MCC's ~6 camps, just the 2 on the west side. We attended Cub Resident camp at Rota-Kiwan last year. Food was pretty good.