Report: Boy Scouts may drop ban on gay scouts, scout leaders

posted at 5:44 pm on January 28, 2013 by Allahpundit

A case study in why (most) gay-marriage supporters won’t despair even if SCOTUS ends up upholding Prop 8 this year: Over time, cultural change will help them achieve what courts can’t or won’t. The Scouts won an epic Supreme Court discrimination case in 2000 protecting their right as a private organization to exclude members based on orientation. A little more than a decade later, they may be ready to jettison the ban and let the local sponsors and parents involved with individual Scout units decide whether gays should be admitted. (Call it the “federalist approach.”) How come? Pressure, from both within and without. But mostly without:

Two corporate CEOs on BSA’s national board, Randall Stephenson of AT&T and James Turley of Ernst & Young, have also said they would work to end the ban. Stephenson is next in line to be the BSA’s national chairman. During the 2012 presidential campaign, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney said the BSA should admit gay scouts and scout leaders.

About 50 local United Way groups and several corporations and charities have concluded that the ban violates their non-discrimination requirements and have ceased providing financial aid to the Boy Scouts. An official of The Human Rights Campaign, an advocate for gay rights, said HRC planned to downgrade its non-discrimination ratings for corporations that continue to give the BSA financial support.

“It’s an extremely complex issue,” said one Boy Scouts of America official, who explained that other organizations have threatened to withdraw their financial support if the BSA drops the ban.

Curious that the Scouts aren’t worried about counter-boycotts by more socially conservative organizations. Maybe they should be:

The Southern Baptist Convention views homosexuality as sinful based on scripture and not acceptable as normal behavior, Mohler said. Ending a national policy on gays would raise a question in the mind of every Scout’s parent and require families to research the policy of each Scout troop and sponsoring organization before joining, he said.

“This is going to raise a fundamental question for the Southern Baptist Convention at national level and in the churches” about whether to reconsider a decades-old relationship with the Boy Scouts, Mohler said.

While that decision would be up to individual Southern Baptist churches, Mohler said: “I’m quite assured that those churches will be reconsidering that relationship if this policy goes into effect.”

Yeah, the key question here obviously is whether the “federalist approach” can satisfy either side or whether individual units’ decision to admit/deny gay Scouts will trigger a national ban of the BSA by some groups. Mohler seems to be hinting that it will in that excerpt (“at the national level”); a GLAAD spokesman who talked to USA Today called the new Boy Scout proposal a good “first step,” so presumably they’re hoping for further action (like, say, an order from the national board requiring individual Scout units to admit gays?) too. According to CNN, 70 percent of Boy Scout troops are affiliated with a church or religious group, but “some Scouts and Scout parents say that passing the decision to the local level will have little effect on the ground, because many troops have been ignoring the national policy anyway.” How that shakes out under the new policy, I don’t know. Does it actually end up being counterproductive by re-energizing a divisive issue at which most troops were already looking the other way?

Exit quotation from the GOP’s last presidential nominee: “‘I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,’ Romney said in the video from 1994 recently re-surfaced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. He added at the time that he supports ‘the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.’”

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I bet the Boy Scouts stay around longer than you, Pappy.

Capitalist Hog on January 28, 2013 at 8:11 PM

Given the statistics, that’s not very likely.

HIV prevalence stood at 10.5% among 1889 young men who have sex with men (MSM) studied by the CDC in 21 US cities –a rate twice higher than that among adults across sub-Saharan Africa.

I wonder why Capitalist Hog and chumpThreads can’t condemn the LGBT community for having sex with and giving lethal diseases to teenagers?

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

I wonder why Capitalist Hog and chumpThreads can’t condemn the LGBT community for having sex with and giving lethal diseases to teenagers?

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

You obviously want blacks in the back of the bus, rabble rabble…

tom daschle concerned on January 28, 2013 at 11:22 PM

tommyboy on January 28, 2013 at 11:11 PM
Yups, thanks … Google search was my friend. ;-)

pambi on January 28, 2013 at 11:24 PM

northdallasthirty on January 28, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Scary stuff.
But, hey OTax should cover it all, so .. Hey. Argggh.

pambi on January 28, 2013 at 11:26 PM

That’s the end of a great American organization.

MCGIRV on January 28, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Yep!

workingclass artist on January 28, 2013 at 11:57 PM

I am dismayed to hear this. Our son is the Senior Patrol Leader of his troop and has just earned his Eagle Scout rank. We haven’t even finished planning for his Eagle Scout Court of Honor where he will officially receive his rank and the awards that some with it yet. He will be devastated.

Out troop is with a church so funding has not been a problem.

sherrimae on January 29, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Oops! Out is supposed to be Our.

sherrimae on January 29, 2013 at 12:02 AM

Maybe the BS will offer a PC merit badge after this fiasco of a decision.

inspectorudy on January 29, 2013 at 12:08 AM

Deanna, my husband is an assistant scout leader because he cares about our son and the other boys in the troop. My husband and son have had unique chances to bond during Boy Scout activities (especially summer camp and the high adventure camps like Philmont) that they probably otherwise wouldn’t have had.

Boy Scout policy now is that a leader is never to be alone with a boy unless it’s his own son. Otherwise there must always be two leaders present. This is for the protection of the boys as well as for the protection of the scout leaders against possible false accusations that would ruin a leader’s reputation.

sherrimae on January 29, 2013 at 12:37 AM

SWalker on January 28, 2013 at 11:58 PM

Serious question.. Is this about to change at all , y’think ??
Sigh.

pambi on January 29, 2013 at 12:48 AM

sherrimae on January 29, 2013 at 12:00 AM

Congrats, regardless.
That’s a super accomplishment, tho I understand the underlying angst.
Dang.

pambi on January 29, 2013 at 12:53 AM

Don’t despair! The Southron Baptists have a solution!

cavalier973 on January 29, 2013 at 12:59 AM

Shame shame on the boy Scouts caving into the pressures of money. I was a big supporter but if they do this -no more! who in theri right mind wants there son to have a gay leader. How many unknown ones have abused a bo?? This is a terrible decision

Bullhead on January 29, 2013 at 1:08 AM

This just like allowing an atheist to lead a Christian group.
What’s the difference ?
Can anyone explain that to me ?

pambi on January 29, 2013 at 1:11 AM

This just like allowing an atheist to lead a Christian group.What’s the difference ?Can anyone explain that to me ?pambi on January 29, 2013 at 1:11 AM

Just look at the board. There’s your leadership. Time to retire the scouts. But that’s what the gays wanted all along, defeat of any organization that views homosexuality as sin. The churches will fall soon and believers can only worship in secret meetings in the home. Gird up

AH_C on January 29, 2013 at 1:26 AM

AH_C on January 29, 2013 at 1:26 AM

Well girded, my friend. Have enveloped home meetings for 20-odd years.
Agreed, SOME churches will soon fall, but, at least we’ll see which/who are weak enough to do so.
Wheat, chaff, etc.
Just amazed to be living in these times, I must say.
Whew.

pambi on January 29, 2013 at 1:35 AM

When I was a boy scout, no less than three adult homosexuals went after the boys in our troop. Provisional scoutmasters, etc. They were all over the place, but lying about who they were. Maybe if they’re outed to begin with, it would help.

John the Libertarian on January 29, 2013 at 1:52 AM

Exactly where are getting your “understanding”?

It’s a bit condescending to say “…the overwhelming majority of gays who stick with consenting adults” as if gays are predisposed to pedophilia and somehow “stick” to someone their age.

JetBoy on January 28, 2013 at 7:24 PM

The proportion of victims of molestation that are male is grossly disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. This would indicate that male homosexuals have much more of a problem “sticking with consenting adults”. Yea – I agree that MOST male homosexuals do not bugger little kids, but the risk is much higher compared to heteros.

In the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal, the victims were 72% male. There is a message there.

SubmarineDoc on January 29, 2013 at 1:54 AM

Maybe if they’re outed to begin with, it would help.

John the Libertarian on January 29, 2013 at 1:52 AM

So…it’s a xanatos gambit?

cavalier973 on January 29, 2013 at 3:23 AM

For the Marxists (and the gay mafia is an integral part of the fifth column), the BSA’s existence is a threat that must be destroyed. Infiltrate and destroy from within, kill them financially with lawsuits and withdrawal of support — any option will do. It was never about inclusion. The atheist mafia and gay mafia could have just created their own groups that support their values, but they don’t create. They only destroy. Creating their own group wouldn’t solve the problem, you see — there still existed an organization which taught values like citizenship and morality and reverence and belief in God. The BSA is in direct competition for the hearts and minds of the next generation. And that just will not do. The god of Marxism is a jealous god, forbidding worship of all others.

My husband is the liaison between our church (SBC) and the troop that has met in the building for nearly 50 years. He’s heartbroken. He’s an Eagle Scout himself, as is our oldest who just made the rank a year ago. Husband came home from the meeting tonight — you can imagine the primary topic of discussion — and said it’s all about money. Too many businesses have withdrawn support. He was reaching to find a way to make it work: you know, we just won’t let our troop…

But it won’t work. If the BSA caves, they will be sending a terrible message: morality is relative and is for sale. And that violates everything our church teaches and the BSA supposedly stands for. I can’t see any way the church can keep the charter.

CJ on January 29, 2013 at 4:02 AM

Since men molest more than women, why don’t we just ban all contact between men and children.

All you men are potential rapists and sex offenders, and don’t you ever forget it!

Why do we even let men work as teachers or coaches? Think of the danger we are putting children in!

This whole thing is kind of silly. The ban is symbolic more than anything.

You guys act like there is going to be a huge increase of molestations if gays are knowingly allowed to be a part of the organization.

Was the ban holding back men from preying on children? I doubt it! People who do that are sick, and many are married and have children of their own. A ban on gays in the organization probably doesn’t do much of anything but give the organization a bad reputation as one that discriminates.

Seems like there are other, much better steps to take to ensure a safer environment.

What is really going to change if the ban is lifted? Probably not much of anything! Maybe a few scouts here and there will feel more comfortable being open out their sexuality. Ok, fine.

It’s not like the organization is going to stop performing checks on people who want to volunteer. Don’t most of them have kids in the group already?

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 5:50 AM

But it won’t work. If the BSA caves, they will be sending a terrible message: morality is relative and is for sale. And that violates everything our church teaches and the BSA supposedly stands for. I can’t see any way the church can keep the charter.
CJ on January 29, 2013 at 4:02 AM

Maybe the people advocating for the removal of the ban think it’s immoral to stupidly discriminate and stubbornly exclude certain kids simply out of principle. Is the act of being a particular orientation an immoral act in and of itself?

Face it, the ban on gay scouts is AN EMBARRASSMENT. This kind if stuff is what makes conservatives seem hateful and out of touch.

As for the scout leader part, why aren’t you demanding that all gays be kept away from children in all organizations. If they are such a threat, then surely you must be for requiring complete separation between gays and children. A student on a field trip with a male teacher is potentially in as much danger, if we accept your view, as scouts on a trip.

Just require that an adult cannot be alone with a minor without other other adults present. Is that so hard?

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:05 AM

“‘I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,’ Romney said in the video from 1994 recently re-surfaced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. He added at the time that he supports ‘the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.’”
-a great man who should be president now

Mitt, you are exactly right!!

I want to see Mitt raise his profile in the coming months.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:08 AM

Maybe the people advocating for the removal of the ban think it’s immoral to stupidly discriminate and stubbornly exclude certain kids simply out of principle.

I don’t care what those people think, they are wrong. Following scripture is never immoral. Apart from scripture there’s no such thing as objective morality.

This kind if stuff is what makes conservatives seem hateful and out of touch.

Only to the reprobate and, again, what they think is immaterial. The Boy Scouts have always promoted itself and acted as a Godly organization and that was what drew the support of many. If they make this change they have changed their entire identity. It’s sad to see something mostly clean and pure decide its more lucrative to become corrupt and dirty.

tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 6:22 AM

Maybe the people advocating for the removal of the ban think it’s immoral to stupidly discriminate and stubbornly exclude certain kids simply out of principle. Is the act of being a particular orientation an immoral act in and of itself?

Then why not just start another organization that meets your ideals? Everyone knows the scouts’ stand on the issue (and others). If you disagree, don’t join. You know, kind of like how leftists have been telling us for decades that if you don’t like a certain TV show/movie/etc., don’t watch it. If you don’t like a certain group’s beliefs, don’t join it.

Face it, the ban on gay scouts is AN EMBARRASSMENT.

Face it, the attack on the scouts is AN ORGANIZED ATTEMPT BY THE LEFT TO DESTROY THEM.

As for the scout leader part, why aren’t you demanding that all gays be kept away from children in all organizations. If they are such a threat, then surely you must be for requiring complete separation between gays and children. A student on a field trip with a male teacher is potentially in as much danger, if we accept your view, as scouts on a trip.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:05 AM

Have you ever seen the stats for students molested by teachers? Makes the Catholic church scandal minor in comparison.

CJ on January 29, 2013 at 6:24 AM

Face it, the ban on gay scouts is AN EMBARRASSMENT.

Right. The ban on homosexual acts is an embarrassment but the acts themselves, e.g. two men sodomizing each other – THAT isn’t an embarrassment?

You are mentally and morally corrupted, dude.

Cleombrotus on January 29, 2013 at 7:13 AM

Just require that an adult cannot be alone with a minor without other other adults present. Is that so hard?
bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:05 AM

You, and many other commenters, are forgetting one of the primary purposes of the male leadership element and that is to provide correct male role models.

A man who is psycho-sexually dysfunctional so as to want to have sexual relations with other men has long ago forfeited his status as a proper male role model for young men.

Cleombrotus on January 29, 2013 at 7:21 AM

Right. The ban on homosexual acts is an embarrassment but the acts themselves, e.g. two men sodomizing each other – THAT isn’t an embarrassment?
Cleombrotus on January 29, 2013 at 7:13 AM

Actually, unless I’m mistaken the ban is on gay scouts, not “acts.” Try to follow. You want to keep gay scouts from getting their badges or whatever? Let them be scouts if they want to. Seems like a wholesome activity and I don’t see why people would want to limit membership like that. Is someone a bad person simply for being gay? I don’t think so! What good does it do to keep out someone just for being gay? Apparently according to the article lots of scout organizations haven’t even been enforcing the silly rule.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Perhaps this is naive, but gay, straight, or whatever…we’re talking about boys. Why does sex have to be an issue here? This insidious sexualization of children is also disgusting. Let these kids be kids!

freedomfirst on January 29, 2013 at 7:29 AM

By the way, I support the status quo.

freedomfirst on January 29, 2013 at 7:32 AM

A man who is psycho-sexually dysfunctional so as to want to have sexual relations with other men has long ago forfeited his status as a proper male role model for young men.
Cleombrotus on January 29, 2013 at 7:21 AM

You’re entitled to your opinion, of course. But I think that claiming that simply being gay disqualifies someone from being regarded as a role model is laughable, to say the least. You can try to argue that all day, but the ship has sailed on that one. Homosexuality is regarded as a normal part of society, especially among young people. And I think that’s a good thing. People should be judged by their character, not their orientation.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:33 AM

As for the scout leader part, why aren’t you demanding that all gays be kept away from children in all organizations. If they are such a threat, then surely you must be for requiring complete separation between gays and children. A student on a field trip with a male teacher is potentially in as much danger, if we accept your view, as scouts on a trip.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:05 AM

Because dumb dumb, a scout leader has unique access to a child. If gays want equality, equality comes with bad as well as good.

Idiots like you think I should have a lower standard and less scrutiny on a gay male who has access to my son than I do for a heterosexual male who has access to my daughter. Why in the hell as a parent would I take that risk? So that idiots like you can say “Oh well Johnny gay isn’t discriminated against and his sensibilities aren’t hurt”? And yes most males – gay or straight don’t molest, but that still doesn’t mean that we don’t protect our children IN CASE one of them happens to be one.

What you want isn’t equality; it is special treatment-capice?

melle1228 on January 29, 2013 at 7:35 AM

“‘I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,’ Romney said in the video from 1994 recently re-surfaced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. He added at the time that he supports ‘the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.’”
-a great man who should be president now

Mitt, you are exactly right!!

I want to see Mitt raise his profile in the coming months.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:08 AM

Yeah we had to know you would get Mitt worship in here somewhere..

melle1228 on January 29, 2013 at 7:37 AM

But I think that claiming that simply being gay disqualifies someone from being regarded as a role model is laughable, to say the least</blockquote

Maybe in the reprobate world this is true but the Scouts have always held themselves out as a Godly organization. There is no place for such perversion in a Godly organization. You like it? You wallow in it.

tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM

Perhaps this is naive, but gay, straight, or whatever…we’re talking about boys. Why does sex have to be an issue here? This insidious sexualization of children is also disgusting. Let these kids be kids!
freedomfirst on January 29, 2013 at 7:29 AM

I agree with you, but I think we are talking about high school and older. Not exactly little children.

I just don’t think it should be an issue either way.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM

melle1228 on January 29, 2013 at 7:35 AM

Look, I think the organization should do whatever it wants. I didn’t realize it was tied in so much with church groups.

I’m just saying that lifting the ban makes sense to me and probably won’t do any harm to day-to-day activities. If anything, it might help out a few scouts here and there. Even if individuals disapprove of homosexuality and the official group position is that it’s morally wrong, singling out sexual orientation and banning scouts just for being of a particular orientation seems unnecessary, unhelpful, mean and, yes, bigoted The organization isn’t going to do itself any favors if it keeps up the ban on gay students. And now some of you are saying that you’re going to boycott the scouts if they allow gay members? Is this issue really that big a deal to you?

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:50 AM

I agree with you, but I think we are talking about high school and older. Not exactly little children.

I just don’t think it should be an issue either way.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM

For what it’s worth, I believe Boy Scouts include boys from age 11 until age 18 (through age 17).

freedomfirst on January 29, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Is this issue really that big a deal to you?

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Yes it is.

Why don’t they go to other “scouting” organizations? Why the Boy Scouts? Why not create their own organization that suits their needs?

If someone wants to be gay around children, then they can practice their mental perversion in their own group. Nothing is stopping them from creating their own group. Or is there not enough interest in it?

LoganSix on January 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Future headline: “Lady Gaga named new imperial head of the Boy Scouts of America”
It’s stands to reason that they can leave no moral entity in existence in their diabolical war against Nature’s God who alone gives us each and every one of our rights.

But, we fools still think we can dump God and still miraculously maintain our rights.

Don L on January 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM

Nothing like a bunch of young boys getting together to learn about their sexuality with a homosexual troop leader to guide them!
Think of all the opportunities to ‘discover’ their gheyness!
All those camping trips in the mountains!

I wonder how many parents truly want to send their young boys away with such a leader?

Everybody cries out at the Catholic priests who diddled the choir boys, but this is somehow OK?

Now I do not believe every gay man who would be a troop leader is someone who would molest young boys.
But being around young gay men as a young girl in SoCal, I do know personally they were all diddling young boys & it was exactly why they became YMCA camp counselors: to give them access to young boys.
My experience was limited, but EVERY gay man I knew was doing this!
So you know, perhaps the temptation ought to be removed.
If parents want their young boys led by gay men, then let them form their own organization to do so instead of FORCING an established Christian based organization to do such things.

Badger40 on January 29, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Badger40 on January 29, 2013 at 8:37 AM
Don L on January 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM
LoganSix on January 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM

+1,000,000

It’s time to take a stand Lord knows that bluegill and the rest of the Vichy Republicans won’t.

kingsjester on January 29, 2013 at 8:41 AM

I didn’t realize it was tied in so much with church groups.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:50 AM

Let me get this straight (er, no pun intended). You come on this forum and advocate that an organization you know little about make a major — we could even say, transformational — change.

Good grief. Please tell us you don’t vote.

CJ on January 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Just like with the Girl Scouts it won’t end with “passive/don’t ask-tell” gay scout leaders, but programs for Gay and TG “appreciation” day and lore. Time to retreat to the Heritage Scouts — just watch out who’s on your board!

jamesgreenidge on January 29, 2013 at 8:48 AM

You obviously want blacks in the back of the bus, rabble rabble…

tom daschle concerned on January 28, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Please don’t equate my race with a psychological condition. Thank you.

jamesgreenidge on January 29, 2013 at 8:55 AM

Good grief. Please tell us you don’t vote.

CJ on January 29, 2013 at 8:47 AM

Unfortunately she does. Low info type, our side. Well the left doesn’t have them all.

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 8:57 AM

I want to see Mitt raise his profile in the coming months.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 6:08 AM

Arrrrgh!

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 8:59 AM

jamesgreenidge on January 29, 2013 at 8:48 AM

No, sir. Thank you and God bless!

kingsjester on January 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM

But being around young gay men as a young girl in SoCal, I do know personally they were all diddling young boys & it was exactly why they became YMCA camp counselors: to give them access to young boys.
My experience was limited, but EVERY gay man I knew was doing this!
So you know, perhaps the temptation ought to be removed.
If parents want their young boys led by gay men, then let them form their own organization to do so instead of FORCING an established Christian based organization to do such things.
Badger40 on January 29, 2013 at 8:37 AM

How old were when you supposedly knew all these gay guys doing this stuff? How many men were doing this? Did you report this to the police? Have you since then? This is rather shocking to me. I know people of all orientations and I have never heard anything like this. I have a hard time believing this.

As it is, I think you all sound like a bunch of backwards, ignorant bigots trying to smear gays as molesters. Yours is the kind of anti-gay bigotry that gives some on the right a bad name.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM

I think you all sound like a bunch of backwards, ignorant bigots trying to smear gays as molesters. Yours is the kind of anti-gay bigotry that gives some on the right a bad name.

And we couldn’t care less what you think.

tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 9:13 AM

John the Libertarian on January 29, 2013 at 1:52 AM

I completely agree. As the parent of a boy who made it to life scout, I completely agree John. After a Trail to Eagle Camp a number of years ago I honestly think this is a controversial decision for an organization that has issues. Maybe this decision is the best one because currently what is going on is not all out in the open, at least then it would be buyer beware.
And whoever said it is spot on, this is not a problem in cubscouts. Same organization but completely different program.

ORconservative on January 29, 2013 at 9:24 AM

This is rather shocking to me. I know people of all orientations and I have never heard anything like this. I have a hard time believing this.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Don’t you need to get ready for school? The bus will be here soon.

I mean, for pete’s sake, it wasn’t that long ago — just before the invention of the spam filter, in fact (wonderful invention, BTW. Ranks up there with flush toilets and electric lighting) — spammers used to regularly send out email solicitations with titles like “Nubi1e young women!” “Bare1y 18!” and a host of other terms suggesting I wanted to view images of high school seniors in various states of dishabille. (What the spammers didn’t seem to figure out was that as a married female and mother, I was not a good candidate for their … advertising campaign.)

That was the promo aimed at heterosexual males. Do you think it would be a good idea for a 40-something heterosexual dad to hang out with 16- and 17-year old girls? No? (And as the mother of a 17-year-old boy, I can tell you that some of those teenaged girls are more predatory than many an adult male.) It’s well documented that homosexual males have a greater propensity for acting on the attraction to just-past adolescent males. (And no, I’m not saying all homosexual males…good grief, do we really need to make a disclaimer every time we invoke politically incorrect statistics???)

When I was pregnant, I didn’t drink caffeine or alcohol. I gave up hobbies that had high risks of injury. Why? Because whether it made a difference or not, it wasn’t worth the extra risk to the baby. There are enough things I can’t control, so why not do everything I could to protect my child?

If I was willing to give up tea and ice skating because of their miniscule risks, you can bet your bippy we’ll end our association with the BSA if they take this step.

CJ on January 29, 2013 at 9:33 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 9:09 AM

Keep digging gilled one. I see you already have a shovel in each hand. (fin)

Bmore on January 29, 2013 at 9:34 AM

Scouting USA has gotten several hundred dollars each year from me for the last ten years or so, due to directed contributions to the United Way here at work (payroll deduction), and I’ve gotten a few nice thank you letters from them. If they change this policy, they won’t get any more money from me, as soon as the UW campaign starts up again in the fall. I’ll find another UW affiliate to give my money to.

Ward Cleaver on January 29, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Boy Scout policy now is that a leader is never to be alone with a boy unless it’s his own son. Otherwise there must always be two leaders present. This is for the protection of the boys as well as for the protection of the scout leaders against possible false accusations that would ruin a leader’s reputation.

sherrimae on January 29, 2013 at 12:37 AM

I know the policy today has changed, sort of sad it had to be done though. But it would still be possible for a leader to be alone with a boy or become close to a boy. Unfortunately evil finds a way.

Deanna on January 29, 2013 at 9:44 AM

Wow, you guys are on quite a losing streak: Obamacare, immigration, guns, the debt ceiling, and now gays in the Boy Scouts.

Permanent irrelevancy is just around the corner!

cornfedbubba on January 29, 2013 at 9:46 AM

due to directed contributions to the United Way here at work
Ward Cleaver on January 29, 2013 at 9:42 AM

You should give directly to the Scouts and not United Way. United Way has been one of the groups pushing this on the Scouts.

LoganSix on January 29, 2013 at 9:47 AM

cornfedbubba

Before you go back to abusing your poor farm animals, just bear in mind that it has nothing to do with you, your party or even your mind-molesting friends in academia and media. AS much as it irks me to say it, we’re letting you win, by giving your b.s. any legitimacy, in other words, by listening to your b.s.

avgjo on January 29, 2013 at 9:56 AM

Actually, unless I’m mistaken the ban is on gay scouts, not “acts.”

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:26 AM

There is no difference since gay “acts” are the entirety of what makes someone gay in the first place.

HotAirian on January 29, 2013 at 10:24 AM

Permanent irrelevancy is just around the corner!

cornfedbubba on January 29, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Millions of armed Americans will not be irrelevant. Before that happens we will clean the land of parasites like you. You are much closer to being irrelevant than conservatives.

Flange on January 29, 2013 at 10:26 AM

As long as the individual troops and/or councils have veto power, I’m cool with it. Scouting’s already under extensive scrutiny for sexual abuse as it is, and as the parent of a Cub Scout I have to take “Safe Environment Training” courses every couple of years for my son and myself to stay active in the pack. All these gay activist groups know it’s gonna be a thin-ice environment… if the abuses escalate, the ban can easily come right back. And anyone who tries to put any moves on my boy is gonna find out some unpleasant new ways to put a Scout Knife to use.

TMOverbeck on January 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Boy Scouts is an organization that exists to build moral character and citizenship in its members. It accomplishes this by putting boys in an environment where they are exposed to adults and older boys who exhibit moral character and exhort others to do the same.

Having a homosexual leader in the troop implies to the boys that homosexuality is a morally good behavior. It would be exactly the same thing as having a leader who is cheating on his wife.

That is an issue for most of the parents who send their boys to Scouts. We believe that homosexuality is morally wrong. It’s actually a pretty common and historically normal viewpoint, just like cheating on your wife.

I don’t want homosexual Scout leaders in my son’s troop because I don’t want my boys to be taught that homosexuality is moral. That doesn’t mean that I hate homosexuals anymore than I hate guys who cheat on their wives. I disapprove of that behavior in both circumstances. And I refuse to put my children in an environment where they will be taught morality by those who justify their immoral lifestyle.

Boy Scouting is not a camping organization. It is a moral character development organization.

johnsl14 on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

2. Why did you include guns in this? America won with the Heller decision, the increasing number of states that issue concealed carry permits, and the increase polling of opinions regarding the 2nd Amendment.
blink on January 29, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Not to mention that Obama and the left put all their efforts into organizing a massive pro gun control rally in Washington last weekend and couldn’t even draw 1000 participants.

tommyboy on January 29, 2013 at 11:08 AM

I want to see Mitt and BlueGill lower their profile in the coming months, and then disappear forever.

SparkPlug on January 29, 2013 at 11:09 AM

If you notice they go after organizations and their financial supporters.

Why aren’t we organizing together and banning United Way contributions?!

How many boycotts will it take for them to back off? Probably just a couple.

Fight these groups financially. Fight the corporations that fight us.

GardenGnome on January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Nothing like a bunch of young boys getting together to learn about their sexuality with a homosexual troop leader to guide them!
Think of all the opportunities to ‘discover’ their gheyness!
All those camping trips in the mountains!

I wonder how many parents truly want to send their young boys away with such a leader?

Everybody cries out at the Catholic priests who diddled the choir boys, but this is somehow OK?

Now I do not believe every gay man who would be a troop leader is someone who would molest young boys.
But being around young gay men as a young girl in SoCal, I do know personally they were all diddling young boys & it was exactly why they became YMCA camp counselors: to give them access to young boys.
My experience was limited, but EVERY gay man I knew was doing this!
So you know, perhaps the temptation ought to be removed.
If parents want their young boys led by gay men, then let them form their own organization to do so instead of FORCING an established Christian based organization to do such things.

Badger40 on January 29, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Pederasty is encouraged in Gay Culture…They just aren’t honest about it.

Hence….Twinks!

workingclass artist on January 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM

I think I’m going to cry tears of joy. I’m gay, and of a family of Eagle Scouts. The son, grandson, cousin and nephew of six Eagle Scouts. I have to text them. :’)

ZachV on January 28, 2013 at 5:58 PM

Gay: having or showing a merry, lively mood: gay spirits; gay music. Synonyms: cheerful, gleeful, happy, glad, cheery, lighthearted, joyous, joyful, jovial; sunny, lively, vivacious, sparkling; chipper, playful, jaunty, sprightly, blithe. Antonyms: serious, grave, solemn, joyless; staid, sedate; unhappy, morose, grim; sad, depressed, melancholy.

So you’re so happy you’re crying; whoop-de-doo.

Nutstuyu on January 29, 2013 at 11:26 AM

In one fell swoop the Boy Scouts Opponents have now accomplished their objective; to destroy the organization through a divide and conquer strategy.

The Scouts sine qua non has mostly been the values they instill. That would be traditional values of young, responsible men.

People who believe their children will find camaraderie with others who share the same values are once again the losers and therefore being discriminated against.

Traditional values, that is, traditional marriage between a man and woman, naturally having children and living a life that hopefully is centered around that family and includes God is now apparently a bigots life.

That is opposed to a life based on unnatural sex, false societal acceptance and unions that now serve as some type of catharsis.

Marcus Traianus on January 29, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Why are we always worried about making clear that we don’t hate homosexuals, anyway? They sure don’t make it clear that they don’t hate traditionalists. That’s not to say we should hate them, of course. But why be on the defense?

I notice someone above mentioned that the scouts already have sexual molestation problems, but that they primarily don’t want homosexuals as scout leaders because the said leaders will teach boys being homosexual is okay. I have a question: of the abuses that have already happened, were the majority of offenders MALE or FEMALE?

avgjo on January 29, 2013 at 11:40 AM

No organization is safe from homosexual activists..if you don’t admit them, you are bigot..if you don’t marry them you are bigot..this country is in a world of hurt..God can’t be happy with this decision by the boy scouts..a group that has(or had) Godly principles…

sadsushi on January 28, 2013 at 7:25 PM

Why do you think it took fire from heaven (meteors? volcano?) to purge them?

Nutstuyu on January 29, 2013 at 11:43 AM

If parents want their young boys led by gay men, then let them form their own organization to do so instead of FORCING an established Christian based organization to do such things.

Badger40 on January 29, 2013 at 8:37 AM

Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Gays is about forcing Christianity to accept Homosexuality. It is about forcing God to Accept Homosexuality. It is about destroying the moral and ethical foundation of America.

The Naked Communist written in 1958.

The list of communist goals contained in the book was read into the Congressional Record by U.S. Congressman Albert S. Herlong, Jr. of Florida, on January 10, 1963.[2]
List of Communist goals

The following is the list of Communist goals contained in The Naked Communist:[2] (Note: there is no such list in the original edition of the book.)

U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
Do away with all loyalty oaths.
Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
Gain control of all student newspapers.
Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
Control art critics and directors of art museums.
Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce.
Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
Internationalize the Panama Canal.
Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

SWalker on January 29, 2013 at 11:51 AM

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Based on what Hollywood portrays as “mainstream gay”, I’m thinkin that I would not want one as a role model for the Boy Scouts.

BigAlSouth on January 29, 2013 at 11:52 AM

Note: Just so you understand, blue, my comment is directed more towards Hollywood and less toward you.

BigAlSouth on January 29, 2013 at 11:54 AM

The LDS church has also threatened to pull support for the Scouts in the past, if they cave on this issue. That’s a pretty big threat since Mormons make up a slightly disproportionate amount of Scout members.

Mind you, I read about this years ago, and things may have changed.

WolvenOne on January 29, 2013 at 12:43 PM

And I refuse to put my children in an environment where they will be taught morality by those who justify their immoral lifestyle.

johnsl14 on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

So don’t.

FTA:

“The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.”

If your son’s troop is sponsered by a church that views homosexual behavior as a sin, they don’t have to allow gay leaders.

Bobbertsan on January 29, 2013 at 1:12 PM

And I refuse to put my children in an environment where they will be taught morality by those who justify their immoral lifestyle.

johnsl14 on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM
So don’t

“The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.”

If your son’s scout troop is chartered by a church that believes homosexuality is wrong, they don’t have to allow gay scout masters.

Bobbertsan on January 29, 2013 at 1:17 PM

The proportion of victims of molestation that are male is grossly disproportionate to the percentage of homosexuals in the general population. This would indicate that male homosexuals have much more of a problem “sticking with consenting adults”. Yea – I agree that MOST male homosexuals do not bugger little kids, but the risk is much higher compared to heteros.

In the Catholic Church pedophilia scandal, the victims were 72% male. There is a message there.

SubmarineDoc on January 29, 2013 at 1:54 AM

I’d love the sources you used to come to that conclusion…

And of course the Catholic Church pedophile cases were done by men to boys, because all priests are men, and although girls can be and are altar servers…many parishes still don’t allow them, so the majority of altar servers would be boys.

JetBoy on January 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

JetBoy 1:26

And i’m still waiting for non-biased (non-leftist and non-pro-gay organization) evidence from your side of the aisle that homosexuals do NOT molest kids in higher numbers (proportionally) or that homosexuality is not a mental disorder (don’t forget the APA reversal on that was political, not scientific).

I always think of former APA Dr. Nick Cummings’s comment that the decisions made by the APA on homosexuality are now based on politics, and not on science.

avgjo on January 29, 2013 at 1:34 PM

I’d love the sources you used to come to that conclusion…

JetBoy on January 29, 2013 at 1:26 PM

Somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3 of child molestation cases involve boys, and the vast majority of child molestations are perpetrated by men. Even using the overinflated number of 10% (of the population being gay) shows a wildly disproportionate rate of man-boy molestation.

CJ on January 29, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Bobberstan,

I won’t. That’s the whole point. If the BSA wants to normalize homosexuality they can do so without my participation.

The “federalist” position won’t work. Troops don’t exist in isolation, well. Every camp is run by a local council or the national organization. Every Camporee or Klondike or Jamboree or summer camp or high adventure camp will have homosexual leaders.

And it is only a matter of time before the Scout manual will start changing to include homosexual families as part of family life merit badge, or “tolerance” is added to the Scout Law as the supreme good. There is no stopping once you’re on the slope.

johnsl14 on January 29, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I’m the Committee Chair for a Cub Scout Pack. This business about letting the local units decide is a flagrant ruse. Once the national issues that delegation, no pack or troop will be able to enforce a “no gays” policy. All a gay will have to do is file a lawsuit and the pack or troop is sunk by the cost of the lawsuit. National won’t defend us. And, even if a pack could afford the lawsuit, it’s position is undercut by the national position and would likely lead to a court-ordered elimination of the ban across all packs and troops within a few years (if that long). Tell me that’s not Stephenson and Turley’s intention – I need the laugh.

So don’t try to feed me this Federalist baloney: we are an Antifederalist nation now, on our way to social “democracy.”

For BSA to allow the destruction of a principled stand on morality for the sake of Stephenson and Turley no longer having to feel uncomfortable at a cocktail party is contemptable.

I will resign my post in the pack the day that happens and remove my son from scouting for the duration of his childhood.

Cricket624 on January 29, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I agree with you, but I think we are talking about high school and older. Not exactly little children.

I just don’t think it should be an issue either way.

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:39 AM

You would be wrong about the little children part. Cub Scouts start with 5 or 6 year olds in first grade and ends with fifth graders. Boy Scouts start with 10.5 to 11 year olds (~fifth graders) and finish with 18 year olds. Both are under the auspices of Boy Scouts of America. Several other scouting organizations go past 18 years old, like Venturing.

Boy Scouting starts with young boys and ends with young men. As a former District Executive once told me, we watch out for predators because this is where a concentration of boys are. An adult asking to be a leader with no children in scouts or no background as a scout draws more scrutiny because of that.

I fully understand the difference between a homosexual and a pedophile. I also have a visceral reaction to the thought of a homosexual man taking “his boys” out for a weekend camp out.

Parabellum on January 29, 2013 at 2:28 PM

Pederasty is encouraged in Gay Culture…They just aren’t honest about it.

Hence….Twinks!

workingclass artist on January 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Word to the wise. Do not google “twinks” if you don’t know what it is already!

theblackcommenter on January 29, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Even if individuals disapprove of homosexuality and the official group position is that it’s morally wrong, singling out sexual orientation and banning scouts just for being of a particular orientation seems unnecessary, unhelpful, mean and, yes, bigoted The organization isn’t going to do itself any favors if it keeps up the ban on gay students. And now some of you are saying that you’re going to boycott the scouts if they allow gay members? Is this issue really that big a deal to you?

bluegill on January 29, 2013 at 7:50 AM

You don’t understand the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. You want Boy Scouts to disavow their founding principles and either disavow the Scout Oath and the Scout Law, or keep them intact and say one thing while doing something completely contradictory. I Scout says that on their honor they will do their best to do their duty to God… and to keep themselves morally straight.

“unhelpful, mean and, yes, bigoted”

Your beef isn’t really with Boy Scouts. Your beef is with God. You don’t like what the bible says about homosexuality. You say homosexuality is normal. God says homosexuality is an abomination.

You are free to have your own beliefs about homosexuality.

You are free to have your own “scouting” organization that includes homosexuals.

But you are not free to impose your beliefs on others.

You want to label as a “bigot” anyone who believes what the Bible says homosexuality. You expect them to renounce their beliefs and accept your belief that homosexuality is normal.

If the sin of homosexuality is confessed and repented, it is forgiven. But unrepented sin, which is proclaimed “loud and proud”, is not forgiven, and fails to live up to the Scout Oath and Scout Law.

ITguy on January 29, 2013 at 2:56 PM

But, we fools still think we can dump God and still miraculously maintain our rights.

Don L on January 29, 2013 at 8:33 AM

If we don’t have the proper fundamental moral background, we will finally wind up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.

- President Harry S. Truman

ITguy on January 29, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Pederasty is encouraged in Gay Culture…They just aren’t honest about it.

Hence….Twinks!

workingclass artist on January 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM

sleeping with multiple partners is also encouraged in the ghey community. not just multiple, but MULTIPLE. but that’s just fine, right? you and your wife or husband has an open relationship right? you emotionally tethered to your spouse, but you sleep with many others on the side, right? or maybe on occasion your spouse joins in on the act. how wonderful! isn’t that just wonderful? how wonderful role models gay men will be for your young boys!

GhoulAid on January 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM

That’s the end of a great American organization.

MCGIRV on January 28, 2013 at 6:46 PM

And more quickly than some might anticipate, had this occurred when my sons were in Scouts I would have (reluctantly) pulled them out. I am certain that my church will not go along with this at all and the church supports 3 troops of Boy Scouts alone, not to mention the support of both Girl Scouts and the Cubs.

This is not an insignificant decision. And I can assure you that the only gays who will benefit will be the predators.
Interestingly, we have a female gay couple in our church who are dismayed that this might happen. The deliberately enrolled their adopted son into the cubs/scouts primarily to provide a wholesome masculine example their son lacks in their home life.

During a discussion at church yesterday the first thing they said they were worried about was that their son and his fellow scouts would be targets for the radical gay proponents.

This is not about some nebulous issue about “rights”, it is an abdication that some gays view as a win and a chance to build possible acceptance for their lifestyle by a young group that had been off limits to them in the past. Capitulation like these in the past in our schools have confirmed this fear.

Sad.

E9RET on January 29, 2013 at 3:08 PM

I didn’t wade through all 3 pages of comments so this may have been answered earlier.

1. Don’t leaders have to have a son in the program – NO. All adult leaders have to go through a background check to be a registered leader with a unit (Pack, Troop, Venture Crew, Ship, Post).

2. The BSA has a strong youth protection program to limit the opportunities for abuse. We must have “2 deep leadership” on all outings. That means at least 2 adults with at least 1 being over 21. Though with the co-ed Venture Crews (14-21) if the opposite sex is present you must have a minimum of one male and one female over the age of 21 present on an outing. As a leader you should never have one scout in a room or a car alone. There should always be at least 2 scouts in a car with 1 adult when traveling. Since we typically use personal automobiles for travel to outings we don’t often have enough seats to have two adults in each car. One on one meetings are held in public spaces in full view of other leaders.

3. Females can are are leaders in Cub Packs and Boy Scout Troops. In co-ed Venture Crews it is required to have female leaders.

4. The BSA has studied doing a parallel program for girls (Cubs and Scouts) where the girls would earn the same rank awards as the boys. Not sure where this is going or if national dropped it. There has been talk of co-ed units at that level as well. Most Scouting organizations in the rest of the world are already co-ed including the UK and Canada.

Several major “chartering organizations” are going to have major heartburn with this concept. The largest chartering orgs are: The LDS Church, the Catholic Church and the Methodist Church. The Baptists are somewhere in the top 10 as well. I suspect one or more of them probably won’t allow it in units they charter. If the LDS church pulled out, it would be a major blow for the BSA. Boy Scouts is their youth program for boys. On the other hand, Girl Scouts is NOT the youth program for girls in the LDS Church.

The GSUSA program isn’t very outdoor oriented these days and a lot of girls would like to do the activities that the BSA does as normal business with our Scouts. Canoeing, whitewater rafting, climbing, kayaking, backpacking, skiing, snowboarding etc. GSUSA is a cookie marketing firm that does crafts on the side. I had a daughter who gave up on GS in the 7th grade.

With Boy Scouts the “chartering organization” owns the Troop/Pack/Crew/Ship/Post. Girl Scout Troops are owned by the Council and they only ask churches and schools for space to meet.

I’m an Eagle, father of an Eagle and a former Scoutmaster and current Charter Org Rep for the Troop sponsored by my Lutheran Church. We haven’t had to deal with this issue with a Scout or parent/leader in my tenure with the Troop.

Sparky on January 29, 2013 at 3:21 PM

As long as the individual troops and/or councils have veto power, I’m cool with it.

TMOverbeck on January 29, 2013 at 10:37 AM

You’re OK with different moral standards in different troops?

That alone is a significant problem. But then think about the scout camps… where multiple troops are represented. Do you force the camp to allow homosexual scouts if even one scout or one leader in one troop is homosexual? What happens if a scout camp keeps the moral stance that homosexuality is immoral, and refuses to allow gay scouts at the camp? Will the same forces that are pressuring the national organization leave the camp alone? No, they will “divide and conquer”. Individual camps (and eventually individual troops) will be pressured to change their founding principles.

ITguy on January 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM

johnsl14 on January 29, 2013 at 10:57 AM

+1

ITguy on January 29, 2013 at 3:30 PM

GardenGnome on January 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM

+1

ITguy on January 29, 2013 at 3:31 PM

That alone is a significant problem. But then think about the scout camps… where multiple troops are represented. Do you force the camp to allow homosexual scouts if even one scout or one leader in one troop is homosexual? What happens if a scout camp keeps the moral stance that homosexuality is immoral, and refuses to allow gay scouts at the camp? Will the same forces that are pressuring the national organization leave the camp alone? No, they will “divide and conquer”. Individual camps (and eventually individual troops) will be pressured to change their founding principles.

ITguy on January 29, 2013 at 3:28 PM

There have always been gay scouts and there always will be. I’m not sure I’m cool with gay leaders but with the Scouts I think we need to give the kids all the support we can.

Sparky on January 29, 2013 at 3:42 PM

this will have gays rejoicing, since priesthood no longer seems the option it once was for access to young boys.

olesparkie on January 29, 2013 at 4:21 PM

The troop I grew up in was chartered by my church. All of the leaders belonged to my church. There are catholic troops, Mormon troops, episcopal, etc. and while you don’t have to belong to the particular church who charters the troop, it still centers around the religious believes of the sponsor organization. For example, if If a boy belongs to a catholic sponsored troop, he should expect to hear catholic prayers. Likewise, if you show up at a particular church for your scout activities, you should expect like minded activities, the bottom line is, scouts are religious. And they send their parents choose to participate in wholesome activity that aligns with THEIR values.

Rusty Allen on January 29, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Somehow, I doubt this is really true. But if it does happen, the Boy Scouts will shrink to about a quarter of its size within 2-5 years. There wouldn’t be an influx of gays or progressives just because they dropped the ban, but there would be a mass exit from parents who don’t really want to have to worry about predators joining the Scouts in hopes of find new prey.

And if you think that wouldn’t happen, you know nothing of sexual predators.

tom on January 29, 2013 at 10:49 PM

Do I think homosexuals molest anymore then hetero- No, but I won’t take a chance with my children.
melle1228 on January 28, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Since the Scouts are an exclusively male organization, it’s irrelevant whether homosexuals molest more or less than normal men. Any molesters in the Scouts would necessarily be homosexual, so there’s no point in even making a comparison.

I think you’re mistaken in your presumption that homosexuals are no more predatory, but the end result is the same in this instance.

tom on January 29, 2013 at 11:00 PM

So — sex between men is no longer a transgression of the law of God? I mean, that whole thing’s settled, and adhering to the bits in scout literature about deference to God is no longer incompatible with acceptance of homosexual behavior?

Axe on January 28, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Adultery is also a transgression. Should we ban anyone who has ever committed adultery?

I also don’t think the kids are having sex.

darwin on January 28, 2013 at 6:45 PM

That’s a silly argument. Adultery occurs between heterosexual adults by definition. And since the Scouts are all male, as are the scoutmasters, there’s no reason to presume that adulterers would be more likely to prey on boys.

tom on January 29, 2013 at 11:04 PM

This is a perfect example of winning the battle but losing the war.

The BSA’s image has been badly tarnished by discriminating against gays and atheists. They, like most of the retrogrades commenting here, don’t understand that gay rights is the civil rights movement of this generation.

You don’t have to agree with it and you don’t have to like it, but it’s a fact.

Discriminating against gays today holds the same cachet as discriminating against blacks back in the 60s.

Rightists gonna wail, Bible thumpers gonna thump.

chumpThreads on January 28, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Typical leftist argument. You have no reason to declare that homosexuality is healthy, or normal, or harmless. So you resort to attacking anyone who will not be “politically correct” as a bigot. But if homosexuality is unhealthy — and it is — then rejecting it is not bigotry, but good clear sense and rationality.

The problem you have is that you can’t just appoint a Supreme Court of Christianity to carefully “re-interpret” Scripture to mean what modern culture wants it to mean. No, it still means what it says.

On the contrary, the Christian believes things like this: “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. For all this is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but of the world, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof, but he that doeth the will of God abideth forever.”

IOW, if the whole world ever agrees that homosexuality is perfectly normal, it is still an abomination to God.

A whole lot of the push for same-sex marriage is impotent rage on the part of homosexual activists who know they can’t change that.

tom on January 29, 2013 at 11:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4