Boy Scouts: Keeping Policy Banning Gays

[secretlyevil]

tinyurl.com/buvco2j :@ :@ :@ :@ :@

[emilyj]

Well, fuck the Boy Scouts. That is all. :@

[secretlyevil]

“The committee included a diversity of perspectives and opinions. The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations – both from within Scouting and from outside the organization. The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth,” the statement said.

But did it include a representatives of the LBGT community is what I want to know.

[emilyj]

Jul 17, 2012 11:02:16 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

But did it include a representatives of the LBGT community is what I want to know.

I'm going to say no. Because why would they want to hear that perspective when their minds were already made up?

[UMaineTeach]

Jul 17, 2012 11:02:16 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

“The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth,” the statement said.

I wonder if it really does reflect the beliefs and perspectives of the members. Did they do a survey to determine that the membership believes in discrimination? Did they do a survey that said a substantial number of boys' parents would pull them out if the policy was changed? Do they have any idea how many potential members they might get if they over turn the policy?

Did they do any real research or did they just bitch about 'teh gays' around a table for 2 years?

[secretlyevil]

Jul 17, 2012 11:11:48 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

Jul 17, 2012 11:02:16 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

“The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth,” the statement said.

I wonder if it really does reflect the beliefs and perspectives of the members. Did they do a survey to determine that the membership believes in discrimination? Did they do a survey that said a substantial number of boys' parents would pull them out if the policy was changed? Do they have any idea how many potential members they might get if they over turn the policy?

Did they do any real research or did they just bitch about 'teh gays' around a table for 2 years?

I'm pretty sure it was the lateral.

I know a lot of people have mentioned positive local troop experience but if the national organization takes this stance, how many parents are going to keep their children in an organization that takes a hateful stance?

If people left the organization in droves would that make the leadership really take a look at this issue? Is fear and hate so very rampant in this country that those who leave can easily be replaced?

[penguingrrl]

Horrible. My husband used to be proud that he's an Eagle Scout and now he won't admit it in public because of this policy. He's afraid people will think he's a bigot because of the association. It's a shame because he really enjoyed his years in the scouts and learned a lot, but if baby 3 is a boy we won't allow him to join. All the good things about scouting wiped out entirely because of hate.

[mishap]

So gross. I was hoping they would reverse it because I wanted to enroll DS this year, but I'm not now.

I don't understand how this flies with so many people.

[bqbride]

Jul 17, 2012 11:00:48 GMT -5 emilyj said:

Well, fuck the Boy Scouts. That is all.

:Y:

And, thank god they're not the ones who sell the cookies!

[basilosaurus]

Aren't the mormons basically taking over the bsa? Obviously not in every locale, but at a more national level?

[feedthecrocs]

Jul 17, 2012 11:23:07 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

I know a lot of people have mentioned positive local troop experience but if the national organization takes this stance, how many parents are going to keep their children in an organization that takes a hateful stance?

They haven't just taken this stance, it has always been this way. When people justify joining because their local troop says 'gays are ok' they are still supporting the organization that is allowing this discrimination to happen.

[MrsDL]

Jul 17, 2012 11:23:07 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Jul 17, 2012 11:11:48 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I know a lot of people have mentioned positive local troop experience but if the national organization takes this stance, how many parents are going to keep their children in an organization that takes a hateful stance?

We haven't come as far as some like to believe which is why gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states, and states where you'd think propositions would pass overwhelmingly are razor tight.
Unfortunately, I don't think many, or at least enough, people view this as hateful. They think as long as the scouts are not out there beating up gays, then a policy that doesn't allow them is no biggie. It's sad, but I think it's true.

[twotrue]

Jul 17, 2012 14:35:26 GMT -5 feedthecrocs said:

Jul 17, 2012 11:23:07 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

I know a lot of people have mentioned positive local troop experience but if the national organization takes this stance, how many parents are going to keep their children in an organization that takes a hateful stance?

They haven't just taken this stance, it has always been this way. When people justify joining because their local troop says 'gays are ok' they are still supporting the organization that is allowing this discrimination to happen.

Sure, but people still joined the military after DADT was put into place. They chose to join an organization that was allowing discrimination. But had they not the downfall of DADT might not have happened already. It look people from within the Army, saying 'hey, this rule isn't right' for things to change.

Look, I'm not a fan of the BSA but I'm starting to believe the line of thinking, that things within BSA won't change until the people making up their membership starts to change, is correct.

If everyone who hates homophobia stops joining just because of the national rule than it's hard to get change on the local level. And I just don't see an organization like this changing at the national level until widespread change happens locally.

That said I realize it would still be a difficult choice to make.

ETA - removed duplicate quote (hopefully).

[mishap]

Jul 17, 2012 14:53:16 GMT -5 twotrue said:

Jul 17, 2012 14:35:26 GMT -5 feedthecrocs said:

They haven't just taken this stance, it has always been this way. When people justify joining because their local troop says 'gays are ok' they are still supporting the organization that is allowing this discrimination to happen.

They haven't just taken this stance, it has always been this way. When people justify joining because their local troop says 'gays are ok' they are still supporting the organization that is allowing this discrimination to happen.

Sure, but people still joined the military after DADT was put into place. They chose to join an organization that was allowing discrimination. But had they not the downfall of DADT might not have happened already. It look people from within the Army, saying 'hey, this rule isn't right' for things to change.

Look, I'm not a fan of the BSA but I'm starting to believe the line of thinking, that things within BSA won't change until the people making up their membership starts to change, is correct.

If everyone who hates homophobia stops joining just because of the national rule than it's hard to get change on the local level. And I just don't see an organization like this changing at the national level until widespread change happens locally.

That said I realize it would still be a difficult choice to make. [/quote]

I don't think you can compare joining the military to joining the BSA. Our nation needs a military. It does not need an extracurricular activity.

I do agree that the best way to change the BSA is from within, but I still don't want to have my kid wearing a uniform that signifies that we agree with this policy. This is not the military and he/we will do just fine without its existence.

[brookles]

Gross. Eff that effing committee.

[2vermont]

Jul 17, 2012 14:52:16 GMT -5 MrsDL said:

Jul 17, 2012 11:23:07 GMT -5 secretlyevil said:

Jul 17, 2012 11:11:48 GMT -5 UMaineTeach said:

I know a lot of people have mentioned positive local troop experience but if the national organization takes this stance, how many parents are going to keep their children in an organization that takes a hateful stance?

We haven't come as far as some like to believe which is why gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states, and states where you'd think propositions would pass overwhelmingly are razor tight.
Unfortunately, I don't think many, or at least enough, people view this as hateful. They think as long as the scouts are not out there beating up gays, then a policy that doesn't allow them is no biggie. It's sad, but I think it's true.

Does anyone even know what their policy states? Does it explain why they choose not to have gay leaders?

Personally, if they are fingerprinted and tested like any other person dealing with children, I don't see the problem. But I'm curious as to what they actually state as their reasoning.

[cattledogkisses]

Urgh, I hate this.

DH is an Eagle Scout, and loved being a Scout when he was growing up, so I know if we have a son someday he'll want him to do scouting. Is it wrong I'm hoping for girls? At least GSUSA is awesome.

[Deleted]

Jul 17, 2012 18:46:09 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Does anyone even know what their policy states? Does it explain why they choose not to have gay leaders?

Because homosexuality is incompatible with being "morally straight" and "clean."

This is from a press release put out following the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dale case:

1. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms "morally straight" and "clean." The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight," (see SCOTUS BSA Brief), and that it does "not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."
Obviously, the Scout Oath and Law do not expressly mention sexuality or sexual orientation. And the terms "morally straight" and "clean" are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being "morally straight" and "clean." And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being "morally straight" and "clean." The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category. It is their organization and they have the right to define their oath any way they wish (that was one of the issues at stake in the Dale case).
...
3. The BSA feels that if an AVOWED homosexual was put in a leadership role in the organization he would be telling the boys, by example, that homosexual behavior was acceptable behavior. So the BSA does not want homosexuals that could be known to the Scouts as homosexual in the organization as adult leaders.

Here is the text of the decision in Boy Scouts of America v Dale..

Excerpt:

A position statement promulgated by the Boy Scouts in 1991 (after Dale’s membership was revoked but before this litigation was filed) also supports its current view:

“We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” Id., at 457.

This position statement was redrafted numerous times but its core message remained consistent. For example, a 1993 position statement, the most recent in the record, reads, in part:

“The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.” Id., at 461.

[Michelle]

So sad. And I bet that much of their membership does still feel that way. Our local paper (for what it's worth) had an article about this today and polled readers. These are the current results from those who read the article (2/3 agree with the BSA)

Boy Scouts of America reaffirms its policy of excluding gays. Do you agree?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, gays should be banned from Scouting
1082 ( 66.1% )
No, Scouting should be open to all
531 ( 32.4% )
No opinion
25 ( 1.5% )

www.chron.com/news/article/Boy-Scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gays-3713507.php

[ChillyMcFreeze]

Jul 17, 2012 20:52:46 GMT -5 Michelle said:

So sad. And I bet that much of their membership does still feel that way. Our local paper (for what it's worth) had an article about this today and polled readers. These are the current results from those who read the article (2/3 agree with the BSA)

Boy Scouts of America reaffirms its policy of excluding gays. Do you agree?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, gays should be banned from Scouting
1082 ( 66.1% )
No, Scouting should be open to all
531 ( 32.4% )
No opinion
25 ( 1.5% )

www.chron.com/news/article/Boy-Scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gays-3713507.php

Well it is a known fact that online newspaper readers commenters/voters are the most bigoted members of any community.

[marynjoe]

How can they say that gays aren't moral and clean? To deny membership to agnostics and athiests? And they think they are doing a good thing? I really don't get it. I agree with the sentiment that kids and volunteers should stop joining until the policies are changed. If the BSA won't change their policies (which is their legal right), maybe there should be a new organization for kids that is similar but accepts all.

[Jermys]

Jul 17, 2012 11:28:26 GMT -5 penguingrrl said:

Horrible. My husband used to be proud that he's an Eagle Scout and now he won't admit it in public because of this policy. He's afraid people will think he's a bigot because of the association. It's a shame because he really enjoyed his years in the scouts and learned a lot, but if baby 3 is a boy we won't allow him to join. All the good things about scouting wiped out entirely because of hate.

Ditto. Freddie won't be a Boy Scout as long as they discriminate against gay people and atheists. H was an ES too.

[Knight]

Fucking assholes.

James wasn't going to be allowed to join anyway because his mother is an atheist but this just seals the deal for me. I'll teach how to tie knots and build campfires.

[Deleted]

I'm torn on this. I had such a good experience in Girl Scouts and my BIl was an eagle scout.

I didn't enroll my kids last year, but most of the parents in my troop are also in the *underground* liberals group.

What about the argument that change has to be made from within and if only likeminded people join BS it will never become accepting of gays.

[penguingrrl]

I'll add that at the local level in my area this is not enforced. In fact, more than half of the guys I knew who made Eagle Scout were gay. Some were already out before their ceremony and others came out in college. So I know that in our area being gay is acceptable to the local troops. But I still won't let a son participate because some amount of the dues does go to national.

[Kristinmo]

Jul 17, 2012 18:58:37 GMT -5 cattledogkisses said:

Urgh, I hate this.

DH is an Eagle Scout, and loved being a Scout when he was growing up, so I know if we have a son someday he'll want him to do scouting. Is it wrong I'm hoping for girls? At least GSUSA is awesome.

All of this except I already have a boy. DH loved boy scouts.

[2vermont]

Jul 17, 2012 19:00:24 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

Jul 17, 2012 18:46:09 GMT -5 2vermont said:

Does anyone even know what their policy states? Does it explain why they choose not to have gay leaders?

Because homosexuality is incompatible with being "morally straight" and "clean."

This is from a press release put out following the Supreme Court's ruling in the Dale case:

1. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms "morally straight" and "clean." The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teaches that homosexual conduct is not morally straight," (see SCOTUS BSA Brief), and that it does "not want to promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior."
Obviously, the Scout Oath and Law do not expressly mention sexuality or sexual orientation. And the terms "morally straight" and "clean" are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being "morally straight" and "clean." And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being "morally straight" and "clean." The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category. It is their organization and they have the right to define their oath any way they wish (that was one of the issues at stake in the Dale case).
...
3. The BSA feels that if an AVOWED homosexual was put in a leadership role in the organization he would be telling the boys, by example, that homosexual behavior was acceptable behavior. So the BSA does not want homosexuals that could be known to the Scouts as homosexual in the organization as adult leaders.

Here is the text of the decision in Boy Scouts of America v Dale..

Excerpt:

A position statement promulgated by the Boy Scouts in 1991 (after Dale’s membership was revoked but before this litigation was filed) also supports its current view:

“We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.” Id., at 457.

This position statement was redrafted numerous times but its core message remained consistent. For example, a 1993 position statement, the most recent in the record, reads, in part:

“The Boy Scouts of America has always reflected the expectations that Scouting families have had for the organization. We do not believe that homosexuals provide a role model consistent with these expectations. Accordingly, we do not allow for the registration of avowed homosexuals as members or as leaders of the BSA.” Id., at 461.

Thanks bridey.

I would love to know what else isn't considered "morally straight" or "clean" by BSA standards (and I have to admit that I'm chuckling over the use of the word "straight").

I mean, for example, do they allow heterosexual leaders who are living with their significant other? Do they allow heterosexual leaders who have committed/are committing adultery? Etc, etc.

This seems weird because it's almost as if the BSA acts as if it were a relgiious organization.

[basilosaurus]

BSA and the Mormons www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5169-1,00.html So, yeah, it's a religious org in practice. From wiki "The LDS Church is the largest single sponsor of Scouting units with over 30,000 units nationwide, which comprise about 13% of BSA's youth members.[6][94] The LDS Church has stated that it would withdraw from the Scouting program if it was ever compelled to accept openly homosexual Scout leaders"

I don't get the desire to change it from within. There are alternatives, and there can be more when enough people don't use the "oh, but my local..." argument.

It's not comparable to the military, which is our one and only military and a government institution that should not discriminate.

[Deleted]

Jul 18, 2012 14:29:39 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

BSA and the Mormons www.lds.org/pa/display/0,17884,5169-1,00.html So, yeah, it's a religious org in practice. From wiki "The LDS Church is the largest single sponsor of Scouting units with over 30,000 units nationwide, which comprise about 13% of BSA's youth members.[6][94] The LDS Church has stated that it would withdraw from the Scouting program if it was ever compelled to accept openly homosexual Scout leaders"

I don't get the desire to change it from within. There are alternatives, and there can be more when enough people don't use the "oh, but my local..." argument.

It's not comparable to the military, which is our one and only military and a government institution that should not discriminate.

what alternatives are there? I have yet to find a group for boys that teaches the camping/survival skills and leadership skills that scouting does.

There has to be some sort of compromise where it is at the discretion of the sponsor whether to allow gay leaders. If the troop sponsor is the local Mormon coven than they don't have to allow gays, but then what gay person would want to join a Mormon troop

[ouiser]

Yeah, my son will not be joining a club that openly promotes bigotry. Tolerance and acceptance are far more important lessons to teach than tying knots and building campfires.