A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent — but not gay.
After a two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday reaffirmed its decision to exclude homosexuals from participating in the 112-year-old organization's events.
The group cited parental support, as being the main driver in keeping the policy.
Deron Smith, a national spokesman for the Boy Scouts, told The Associated Press that an 11-member committee thought the decision "is absolutely the best policy" for the organization.
However the decision has drawn criticism from the gay community. Darlene Nipper, deputy executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told AP that the Scouts, "have turned their backs on a chance to demonstrate fairness, exercise sound judgment, and serve as a role model for valuing others."
What do you think? Should the Boy Scouts accept openly gay members into the organization? Should the organization be allowed to limit membership?
Vote in our poll and then sound off in the comments section below.
Too clever by by half
I did not mention pedophiles. I wrote “predators”. Pedophiles are not the only potential perpetrators of sexual abuse to impressionable boys. Sexual is not the only type of abuse. There also is physical (hazing) and mental (neglect and inappropriate indoctrination) to name a few. Please note that both adults and youths, also hetero and homo sexuals can perpetrate abusive behavior toward a Scout. The BSA is dedicated to keeping the youths in the organization safe. They require parents and Adult Leaders to train, recognize, and report abuse. The example I offered of Penn State and the Catholic Church is an example of failure of entrusted institutions to protect the youths and report abuse, not to equate homosexuals with pedophiles. http://www.scouting.org/filestore/ypt/pdf/100-015.pdf http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx BSA has adopted policies to eliminate the potential for abuse but it still happens causing great suffering of the victims. Therefore it should come as no surprise that the BSA errs on the side of safety when it considered its recent decision. To JoSCh; …”radicalized Republicans failing to understand what words mean Stanley.” In order to understand what words mean you have to read them correctly. I wrote predators.
agree there is criminal failure of entrusted institutions (and government agencies) to protect our children and the least... tho you did seem to relate...assume you correctly do not relate homosexuals with pedophiles...apologies for my misunderstanding... so now to the issue...just what is your position re homosexuals in the BSA...do you believe homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than straights...
"If an acknowledged gay leader has contact, there is a potential for unsuitable interaction, ranging from counseling regarding the subject outside of the boy’s family environment to terrible abuse by a predator." This says that a gay person is MORE LIKELY to be a "predator" and also says that the fact that some people are gay is unsuitable interaction that requires counselling. And while I do acknowledge that I misread your exact wording, it's abundantly clear what you meant. Just admit that you think gay people aren't worthy of the rights of other people, embrace your bigotry and move on. I assume I'll be waiting forever to see an example of a gay pedo as the men in the Catholic church and at Penn State weren't. Come to think of it, you attend church, right? Coach any youth sports?
The great JoSCh admitted he made a mistake. This is momentus. I do admit that my initial reaction would be of much trepidation to sending my boys off to a weekend trip or weeklong summer camp with a Gay man. It's just the way I'm wired. I'm sure many parents feel the same way. But I can certainly overcome it, given time. "I assume I'll be waiting forever to see an example of a gay pedo " I have no knowlege of such things and never claimed to have.
"I [josch] assume I'll be waiting forever to see an example of a gay pedo"...I [johnh] have no knowlege of such things and never claimed to have. perhaps john h makes the mistake many/most of us do...stating our prejudices as facts when indeed we 'have no knowledge of such things.'...then; we crawfish when asked for specifics... but an interesting point arose from this discussion...seems all media accounts of 'yute' abuse is perpetuated by straights...and by the most trusted straights: priest and coaches...cant recall media account of homosexual abuse of our youth... OTOH who knows what goes unreported...another thought/opine: seems an openly gay person is less likely to abuse than a closeted straight predator. now my turn to crawfish...i 'have no knowledge of such things.'
A fair question presented in the spirit of objectivity, very refreshing. This is an issue that is intensely personal to me. I do not myself have a problem with Gays including Gay Scouters. However, I have to support BSA’s decision for the reasons I gave. I believe it’s for the greater good for now. The BSA has made a tough choice, and my previous statements followed by an admission that it is difficult to overcome something that you have learned since childhood. It’s hard to teach an old, bigoted, and flawed dog new tricks. As far as whether or not homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles, I’ll leave that one to the PHD’s.
You say that you'd feel trepidation, that it's the "way you're wired" and then say you may get over it given time which while a bit contradictory is also progress, which is great. How much longer do you think before your unfounded prejudice subsides?
I have to apologize for accusing you of being one of the increasingly radical Republicans, it would appear you're radical tendencies are less than I recall or you've toned it down, either way that is just great. FWIW I support the BSAs right to exclude whomever they want, although I think they should lose their tax protection. Of course, I think pretty much all groups should lose their tax protection...
I can certainly identify what is right and wrong, if that makes me the arbiter of right in your mind then so be it. You think I paid to figure out that all men are equal? Nah, that's free info. In fact some of us think it's self evident.
It’s not like there’s a switch that can be turned on and off. I constantly struggle to reconcile the realization that there is a higher power that put me here to find dignity and respect in all creations. It takes persistent effort and time with some setbacks. The timetable is not mine to control.
It does seem that when the media reports an abuse it is assumed the perp is a deviant and is gay. This is an unmerited characterization. Another thing for the PHd’s to clarify. Is there such a thing as an omnisexual?
Well, they are deviant. And gays are deviant. But not all deviants are gay. Like how all squares are rectangles...
not sure 'is assumed' and media does not say perp was a homosexual... omnisexual above my pay grade...my point/concern is homosexuals are no more deviant (w/ respect to child abuse) than straights...but to continue with where i think you go: are there three sexes: male, female, homosexuals... butt perhaps discussion is not related to the thread: 'Does Ban on Gays Hurt Boy Scout Organization' and nuff said...
By the way, I can't remember but I am sure someone here can help with remembering what the argument was 100 years ago when the BSA would not accept boys of color into the organization?
Capital idea. I think that on an ideological plane the decision hurt. The courage wasn’t there to go against the wishes of the parents. However, as far as membership and enrollment numbers, it may have kept parents from pulling their children out of the program. Just my opinion from observing the reaction of members from other institutions that took an inclusive stance.
I can't think of anything LESS American. And few things as sad. Alas Babylon.
/just kidding, sort of. The numbers actually do prove that out // still waiting on a pedo that isn't at least one of the unholy trinity, I have literally hundreds that ARE.
thanks for crystallizing the issue... 'pray there aint no hell'...we (normals?) have much to answer for...eg, 100 yrs ago making children of color feel inferior...and now making those of different emotional tendencies feel they have to hide in a closet... indeed Jesus wept/weeps...
just kidding and humor sometimes get to the truth... re: indeed Jesus wept/weeps...[stanley] PS. is weeping...as are we all who care and are not controlled by our prejudices.
I've seen nobody on this thread trying to close any church doors. Quite the contrary. Also, unsurprisingly you're another intolerant person who doesn't know what intolerance means.
No 67% It is the organization's right to limit their membership.