Eric Holder attacks BSA policy before LGBT pressure group

[Pack18Alex 92]

As a non-Christian, I will stay out of the Christian morality discussion on homosexuality. That is at the core of BSA's values issue, and I don't have a dog in the fight. However, MOST peoples interaction with BSA is Cub Scouts (2/3 the program). When they here "boy" they think 6-11 year olds, and think that taking issue with homosexuality for Cub Scout leaders (Den Leaders, etc.) is worrying about pedophilia and confusing pedophiles with homosexual men, which they aren't. Homosexual men are attracted to physically mature men (14+ or so), not "boys." However, when Boy Scout leaders talk about "boys" they mean Boy Scouts, boys from 11-17, and really focused on the older set, 14-17. Therefore, a homosexual man would find those "boys" within the range of people to whom they are attracted. So we have a divide. The world sees us as calling homosexual men pedophiles, because they interact with the Cub Scout program of 6-10 year olds. Perhaps if we switched to the term, young men for Troop, and reserved boy for Cub Scouts (which is the modern American vernacular), we'd have less confusion. In modern American vernacular, boy = pre-pubescent, young-man = puberty aged, man = post-puberty age. GSUSA doesn't permit men to be the sole leader for Girl Scouts. When dealing with the bulk of their members (Daisy, Brownie, and Juniors), girls ages 6-11, this seems preposterous. When you deal with Seniors/Ambassadors (high school age), it makes total sense. However, because as a culture we view protecting "young women" as virtuous and "young men" as coddling, we look like weirdos in BSA. If BSA adopted the policy of: Local Units interpret reverence and role models based upon the values of their CO Openly homosexual men serving as Scout leaders may not attend a campout unless the campout is also attended by a heterosexual man or woman. You'd shut this down quickly. If GLAAD demanded the right for gay men to accompany 17 year olds alone on camp outs, they'd look ridiculous. The number of openly gay men looking to be Scouters is trivial and religious COs won't allow, so the whole thing is dumb. And if a Gay-friendly Church/Synagogue opens a troop and allows Gay Leaders, why on earth do we care? If the parents join knowing that, then that's between the parents and the Church. Let's go back to serving our country.

[Huzzar 39]

It's a nice idea, Pack18Alex, but it won't shut things down so much as possibly destroy the BSA. As has been said on here before, local option ends at District, Council and National events. If BSA allows any unit to have openly gay men as leaders then all joint Scouting activities are adult gay friendly. That's why a greater number of people would leave than was caused by the change for youth.

[AZMike 173]

Holder, a man who never himself found a need to serve in the military, may be surprised to learn that the military services of the United States do not allow the "T" in LGBT to serve in the military.

[skeptic 997]

Huzzar; Local option should have little or no effect on district or higher if it is not made a public issue. Why would my unit care, as long as we were not required to directly interact or be subjected to political or social commentary related to it? If the individual(s) felt they needed to publicize it outside their unit, then they would be in violation anyway, just like the Methodist unit that lost its charter. Lets be real; we are all subject to exposure just by going out in public; but it is seldom an issue, as we are not normally interacting knowingly. Half the problem is that for some reason, people seem to feel they need to broadcast everything they do on personal levels. And of course, units that did have problems interacting could still function with almost no contact with other units if they chose to.

[Huzzar 39]

At this point it doesn't matter what we guess the practicalities are of a local option. BSA seems to be trying to deal with the fact that the negative effects of the youth change were worse than they anticipated. To me at least, they look very scared of appearing to favor the same change for adults.

 

The cold, hard reality is BSA is worried about losing a lot more members and a lot more $$ if they entertain the idea of allowing homosexual men to be adult leaders. Local option would not be considered anything but a capitulation to the gay lobby by the 60% of parents and leaders at the Scout level that did not want to see the membership criteria change.

[Pack18Alex 92]

Last I checked, events are for the youth not the adults. None of our boys can identify and district/council/national personnel. Why is that an issue?

[Huzzar 39]

Local option for gay adults = BSA allowing openly homosexual men as leaders.

 

It really isn't that difficult to understand, Pack18Alex.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

Local option for gay adults = BSA allowing openly homosexual men as leaders.

 

It really isn't that difficult to understand, Pack18Alex.

 

So if CO's are allowed the option to deny women as unit leaders = BSA disallowing women as leaders?

[Huzzar 39]

I take it that you didn't read this thread... [h=2]Just for fun; "Ten Commandments of Logic". All of us might refer to this at times, me included.[/h]

[RememberSchiff 3683]

So your answer to my question is no?

[Huzzar 39]

My answer to your question is #9. Non sequitur.

 

I'll humor you though and rewrite your statement in its logical form.

 

Local option for adult female leaders = BSA allowing adult female leaders.

 

BSA knows this is logically correct so they don't bother with the left side and simply state "BSA allows adult females to be leaders."

[MattR 2659]

I'd say they aren't equal (for whatever this has to do with the thread). There's a difference between local and not allowing the refusal of some group. My understanding is that no unit can refuse a gay scout. That's not local. I don't know if locally a unit can officially refuse a woman leader.

[King Ding Dong 540]

I'd say they aren't equal (for whatever this has to do with the thread). There's a difference between local and not allowing the refusal of some group. My understanding is that no unit can refuse a gay scout. That's not local. I don't know if locally a unit can officially refuse a woman leader.

A local unit can refuse a gay scout. From my understanding it must be done in a consistent manner such as a religous CO only allows members of its congregation in the troop, in order to be a membership the congregation you cannot be gay.

[King Ding Dong 540]

One other thing, I believe LDS troops can refuse a female leader.

[RememberSchiff 3683]

My answer to your question is #9. Non sequitur.

 

I'll humor you though and rewrite your statement in its logical form.

 

Local option for adult female leaders = BSA allowing adult female leaders.

 

BSA knows this is logically correct so they don't bother with the left side and simply state "BSA allows adult females to be leaders."

 

The BSA has since 1988 allowed female leaders, local option is a don't care in your logic statement.