The local option on gay membership in BSA

[KoreaScouter 13]

I had a post in another thread about the lad in our neighborhood who's mom won't let him join because of the ban on gays. Made me wonder (and I have no idea if anyone in Irving ponders this): Are we losing more POTENTIAL Scouts because of the current policy, or will we lose more CURRENT Scouts if the policy changes?

 

I have to admit, the debate on this thread has been pretty restrained compared to some others. I, for one, thought we'd have at least one "City of Brotherly Love" joke by now.

 

KS

[evmori 11]

Gives a whole new meaning to the "City of Brotherly Love" doesn't it!

 

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[THSHAW62 10]

http://www.colbsa.org/ Is the correct Link to the Cradle of Liberty Website

[Weekender 10]

National says no homosexuals. If you want to be a boyscout, folow their rules. The NBA wouldn't let you use a tennis ball, The NFL wouldn't let you wear a leather helmet, and NASCAR is not going to let you drive a funny car. If you want to be in an established organization you follow their rules. If you disagree with the rules you either work to change them or, if they are too far from your own beliefs, you leave the organization. You don't join and then decide to just break the rules when they don't suit you. What happened to our training in good citizenship and working within the system?

[Kuhfuss 10]

For some other opinions see the following.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/5981415.htm

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/columnists/5985552.htm

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Merlyn,

 

Maybe I misunderstood you, you write the only reason that BSA started a program that does not base membership on religious beliefs or sexual orientation was because of law suits etc. And you complain it has only been for the last few years.

 

If my above summary is wrong, please correct me.

 

Wasnt the intent of the laswsuits to do just that? TO have the BSA run a youth program that did not base membership requirements on religious beliefs or sexual orientation?

 

You complain the BSA has only made the changes in the last few years, but they made a change. If the BSA admitted gays and atheists into Boy Scouts, would you then complain that it should have been done 20, 10, 5 years ago? The BSA actually started the group that many here on the forum say others should do. Thats is start a youth group where sexual orientation and religion are not prerequisites for membership and instead of congratulating, you claim its not enough. Can you put yourself in the shoes of the conservative members of this forum and see why some feel "nothing ever makes you people (said without malice) happy?"

 

And Rooster, it wasnt the same without you,

 

I am not sure "the gays" whatever organized group that is, it sorta reminds me of the "vast right wing conspiracy" organized to discredit President Clinton ( I am not sure there was ever one, or for that matter was it ever really needed as he seemed to accomplish enough on his own without any help)or the mass Leftist Plot designed to eliminate the constitution and create a nation governed by the UN, you know the New World Order craze? (havent heard where the black helicopters are this month, first it was Montana, then Wyoming, etc)

 

Ok, where was I? Right, the Gays, I havent seen anyway that "the gays" (again whoever they are) want to take over the reins of the BSA. As far as I can tell, the lawsuits, petitions, whatever ask that Gays (and for Merlyn's sake I'll add Atheists) become members, I dont recall any mention of installing an openly gay/atheist member on any national board of the BSA as a demand from any group.

 

And again, OK, I think I know what comes next, first "they" become members, then Scoutmasters, District Chairs, Council Commissioners, Regional Representatives, etc. And then, all the people who fled the BSA when gays/atheists came in will be able to point to the BSA and say "See, didnt I tell you thats what they wanted, they all along wanted to run this great organization" and I will say it wasnt them comming in that caused the openings in scouting's hierarchy, it was all the people who left who created the opportunity for this to happen. At last glance Gays and Atheists are a small percentage of the country's population, although vocal (as is their constitutional right). If they want to take over the BSA it would only be by the implied permission of the entire membership.

 

Of course that could only happen if the BSA changed its membership policies, and that doesnt seem likely, but I guess it could happen. And if it does happen, I hope men and women who believe in scouting dont flee, but remain to deliver the program.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

OGE writes:

Maybe I misunderstood you, you write the only reason that BSA started a program that does not base membership on religious beliefs or sexual orientation was because of law suits etc. And you complain it has only been for the last few years.

 

If my above summary is wrong, please correct me.

 

Wasnt the intent of the laswsuits to do just that? TO have the BSA run a youth program that did not base membership requirements on religious beliefs or sexual orientation?

 

The intent was to get the BSA to stop discriminating along these lines in ALL their programs, not just a "separate but equal" subdivision.. The BSA saw that it couldn't possibly continue to have Police departments or municipal Fire departments to run Explorer programs that excluded atheists and gays, but instead of stopping their discrimination, or at least stopping it in Explorers, they split it into Exploring and Venturing, with one section discriminating (Venturing) and one not (Exploring).

 

However, the BSA still continues to charter discriminatory BSA units to government agencies that can't legally practice their discrimination.

 

You complain the BSA has only made the changes in the last few years, but they made a change. If the BSA admitted gays and atheists into Boy Scouts, would you then complain that it should have been done 20, 10, 5 years ago? The BSA actually started the group that many here on the forum say others should do. Thats is start a youth group where sexual orientation and religion are not prerequisites for membership and instead of congratulating, you claim its not enough. Can you put yourself in the shoes of the conservative members of this forum and see why some feel "nothing ever makes you people (said without malice) happy?"

 

I will NEVER be happy as long as one government agency charters a discriminatory BSA unit, whether it's a public school, or a military base, or a fire search & rescue department. The BSA continues to dishonestly charter discriminatory BSA units to these government agencies; if the BSA were run by honest people, there would be a policy of NOT chartering discriminatory units to government agencies. This still constitutes a large fraction of the BSA's charter units, and they all have to go, because the government simply can't practice the BSA's invidious discrimination.

[KoreaScouter 13]

Sager;

 

If I can presume to speak for those who are suggesting an alternative program for those who don't qualify for BSA membership, I don't think their motive is as you characterize it. Rather than the "tip of the iceberg", I honestly believe their suggestions are intended to satisfy these youths' desires for an outdoor program, without the requirement to change BSA policy. I think that for many, if not a majority of us (Scouts/Scouters collectively, not just those who post on this forum -- we're into this to a greater degree than the average Joe/Jane), the gay policy is something they're rather ambivalent about. In other words, it doesn't bother them that there is one, and it won't bother them if there isn't one. Just my opinion, and probably depends on the unit and their CO. Again, I'm talking about the membership as a whole, not our little cracker barrel.

 

Here's another example of a BSA policy that some would see as "out of step" with the mainstream. Most countries' Scouting programs are co-ed; ours isn't as a matter of policy (Venturing excepted of course). We've camped with co-ed Scout units, and five of our Scouts have World Jamboree experience. To us, co-ed Scouting is no big deal; we've already seen it, and after all, our lads go to school, play sports, etc., with girls every day -- it wouldn't be a huge leap of logic if they were in Scouts, too. Would any of them quit? I don't know, but I don't think so, based on my observations when we're at events with BSK units.

 

If the gay ban were lifted tomorrow, would any of our Scouts quit? Our Scouters? Again, I don't know, but again, I don't think so. If a person quits any activity that includes people whose lifestyle, beliefs, behavior, is contrary to his own or he disagrees with on whatever grounds, that person will quickly become a hermit.

 

I'm not advocating a change. Rather, I'm willing to live with the policies of the organization I joined voluntarily, including the "no go-kart" rule and other head-scratchers. And frankly, I think BSA's position is more "live and let live" than the activists' position is.

 

KS

[Bob White 20]

"I've seen their advocates, gay or straight, vilified and told to "love it or leave it."

 

Perhaps Sager you have read or heard volunteers inappropriately do so, but you have not seen, heard or read the BSA do so. You need to read up on the BSA's position or talk to your Scout Executive and get scouting's real take on this topic.

 

The BSA has not villified anyone. They have said here are our aims, methods, and mission, we have the right to limit membership to those who accept and meet those elements.

 

Membership in the BSA is not a right it's a choice, and it is BSA's right to choose.

 

Bob White

 

[scoutldr 726]

Don't ask, don't tell. Or, "what we don't know can't hurt us." The BSA has evolved over the years. Change is inevitable. My prediction is it will become a Unit and CO option. There are all black troops in my Council, served by a black DE. Do they prohibit whites from applying? Probably not, but the perception is there. There are LDS troops. There are fundamentalist Christian troops, complete with a large cross on their troop neckerchiefs. Do they prohibit Jewish kids? Probably not, but I can't imagine one feeling comfortable and accepted there.

 

There was a time when the Lone Scout Magazine proclaimed "The White Boys' Magazine" on it's cover. There was a time when women were not allowed to lead troops or serve in the OA. There was a time when a boy had to be 8 to join Cubs. There was a time when adults could earn Eagle. There was a time when girls had to be satisfied with Girl Scouts and CampFire Girls.

 

Times change. People change. Mores change. "Change will not occur until the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of the change."

[evmori 11]

OK. So the COL Council lets gays in. Then a council in Oklahoma lets sex offenders in. Then a council in Maine lets shoplifters in. Then a council in Washington allows atheists membership. Once the precedent is set, where will it stop!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Zahnada 11]

Ed,

 

We definitely take different stances toward the morality of homosexuality. Your last comment draws parallels between gays and criminals. No matter what our stance on the issue, I don't want to see gays compared to sex offenders. I would not want a sex offender around boys because they are a danger to the boys and safety always comes first.

 

If you honestly believe that having your son around a gay man puts him in danger, then I'll let your comment stand. However, I'm afraid it will affect my opinion of you. If I simply read too deeply into your comment, then I apologize.

[evmori 11]

Zahnada,

You missed the point. I wasn't comparing gays to criminals. My point is if you let gays in then where does it stop!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie 10]

(uh-oh - he's ba-a-a-a-ck!)

 

ed,

 

it stops when every decent, ethical law-abiding boy has access to scouting...

 

IF you are a very religious person, for example, wouldn't you think the reverence that is displayed at every scouting function would be a positive influence for a kid toying with atheism?

 

and for a boy who has no strong father figure, or father at all, scouting can certainly good provide role models.

 

regardless that, i think one giant step in the right direction would be for the BSA to authorize the use of the basic program - merit badges, rank, even access to camps - to a viable alternative youth group that can provide its own insurance. the BSA would provide guidance, a program outline, and resource access, but no direct funding; nor would it accept any liabilities.

 

let the para-scouts run for a while, even do some parallel events, maybe like co-camporees, and a few years down the road, let's all look at the possibility of uniting the groups.

 

I know the devil's in the details, but this proposal allows the BSA to extend a hand in establishing a "new program" while at the same time establishing a truly meaningful lab situation for an important social experiment.

 

Now, I am all for gay leaders in scouting, myself - decent, ethical gay leaders, ideally in committed relationships. AND I know there's a certain aspect of put-up-or-shut-up to the idea that could end up being its demise. Even so - it allows the benefits of scouting to a groups that wants it.

 

And come on folks - why wouldn't anybody want Scouting (once you strip it of its politics, ain't it the best!?)

 

Merlyn is right - and will always be right - about making sure that no public agency sponsors an exclusionary group. But if the BSA can help establish a similar group, even to the point of lending out its program, maybe that's the first real step towards healing for everyone.

 

The BSA could turn to S4A as a possible facilitator for such a program; if turned down, it's probably more appropriate to turn to a national GLBT group.

 

Frankly - and I don't feel this is in conflict with my basic position, tho' i expect some will - NAMBLA is OUT! This would not be an acceptable sponsor and I would prefer to see any member prohibited from participation.

 

Other than that kind of consideration, this can establish a meaningful local option while initially sidestepping some of the other issues.

 

And while it may seem like sidestepping a bigger issue, it's a sidestep FORWARD.

 

just a thot...

[Rooster7 11]

Zahnada,

 

If you honestly believe that having your son around a gay man puts him in danger, then I'll let your comment stand. However, I'm afraid it will affect my opinion of you.

 

I realize you were addressing this comment to EdHowever, I feel compelled to respond. If a man is willing to debase himself, despite Gods precepts and natures roar which scream its perversity, just so he can obtain physical gratification, then yes - I consider him a potential threat to my child. I realize that liberal supporters of homosexuality like to point to the relationship as one of mutual love, but lets be honest here. No one is claiming that its wrong for people of the same sex to love one another. Its the so-called physical expression of that love that has been deemed perverse by both God and nature. I love many men, some that arent even related to me by blood. However, I dont get physically aroused when I think of them. And if I did, Id recognize it very quickly as being depraved and offensive, most especially to God. If this offends you, then feel free to lower your opinion of me. While my opinion may not reflect the official BSA policy, I feel comfortable with itSo much so, Im willing to answer to God for it.