Boy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by leekohler

Fine- so then why can't gay kids join?

"Because we said so." Other than that, I have no idea.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by niuniu

What is the youngest age someone can have a determined sexuality then?

No idea

[leekohler]

Originally Posted by eric/

No idea

You certainly seemed pretty sure you knew earlier in this thread..

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by eric/

No idea

We knew that already.

[localoid]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

.., While I don't disagree with the notion that religious organizations may support the Boy Scouts, financially or otherwise, I still stand by my statement that scouting, when I was a member at least, is not a religious organization. Just like sexuality, religion and worship were never discussed in any meetings I ever attended.

You can't remember anything religious? Really?

At each meeting you recited a pledge that contained the phrase about your "duty to God" and you were a member of an organization that specifically excludes atheists and agnostics because of the organization's requirement of belief in a God or comparable higher power by all members.

If some organization was receiving $2-million from taxpayer money to fund a gigantic party in the woods for only atheists and agnostics kids the nation's right-wingers would be having a hissy-fit and Rush Limbaugh's head would probably explode.

[Gelfin]

Originally Posted by AP_piano295

Thank you, why is the attitude that (gay men = likely pedophillic) so generally accepted?!

The people I'm worried about are the ones who aren't willing to face up to their sexuality (ie* priests).

In fact, when I was a scout back in the 80s, the official national policy became that no adult volunteer could meet with any boy behind closed doors without another adult present. The very existence of this policy suggests strongly that, first, they do not believe excluding gay volunteers solves the problem, and second, that they are capable of addressing the problem whether or not gay volunteers are present.

Any reference to pedophilia in defense of discrimination is thus an irrelevant rationalization.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by localoid

You can't remember anything religious? Really?

At each meeting you recited a pledge that contained the phrase about your "duty to God" and you were a member of an organization that specifically excludes atheists and agnostics because of the organization's requirement of belief in a God or comparable higher power by all members.

Actually, that's not what happened. We would recite (in unison) our oath:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

This, to me, is no more a religious statement than the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believe that this reference to God makes Scouting a religious exercise; you're free to disagree, if you must. But no, we never discussed whether we would admit someone based on any "requirement of belief in a God or comparable higher power."

It makes no sense to me that so many people will discount an entire organization based on a pledge like this, which encourages boys and young men to be the best person they can be, simply because there's a phrase about "duty to God" - as if that completely nullifies anything good that would otherwise come out of it.

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

Actually, that's not what happened. We would recite (in unison) our oath:



This, to me, is no more a religious statement than the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believe that this reference to God makes Scouting a religious exercise; you're free to disagree, if you must. But no, we never discussed whether we would admit someone based on any "requirement of belief in a God or comparable higher power."

It makes no sense to me that so many people will discount an entire organization based on a pledge like this, which encourages boys and young men to be the best person they can be, simply because there's a phrase about "duty to God" - as if that completely nullifies anything good that would otherwise come out of it.

Duty to God and pledging to be morally straight? Clearly these morals are going to be Christian morals, as evidenced by the refusal to admit homosexuals. It's institutional religion. Most people don't notice it, but it's how society gets shaped.

And it's wrong.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

It makes no sense to me that so many people will discount an entire organization based on a pledge like this, which encourages boys and young men to be the best person they can be, simply because there's a phrase about "duty to God" - as if that completely nullifies anything good that would otherwise come out of it.

I can't speak for everyone, but this is the reason I'm discounting the organizaion:

From the article in the OP:

After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.

An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.

and

One ongoing protest campaign involves Jennifer Tyrrell, the Ohio mother of a 7-year-old Cub Scout who was ousted as a Scout den mother because she is lesbian.

[Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

I can't speak for everyone, but this is the reason I'm discounting the organizaion:

I don't defend the Boy Scouts on this. I was a scout myself long ago, and this was never an issue. Even as a Christian, I can't understand how someone's sexuality is an issue in scouting, especially when sexuality was never up for discussion in the first place.

I don't deny it's their right to have this policy, but I don't agree with it.

My statement about the inclusion of "duty to God" as a single phrase within the oath stands - if someone believes that those three words alone make an organization inherently a "religious organization," or that it teaches kids hate, then I think they're looking for something that simply isn't there.

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

My statement about the inclusion of "duty to God" as a single phrase within the oath stands - if someone believes that those three words alone make an organization inherently a "religious organization," or that it teaches kids hate, then I think they're looking for something that simply isn't there.

You're teaching kids, that aren't allowed to be gay there, to pledge allegiance to some bogus magical creator in the sky.

It's bizarre and indoctrinating.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by leekohler

You certainly seemed pretty sure you knew earlier in this thread..

Do you not see how the two are completely unrelated?

----------

Originally Posted by Queso

Perhaps he believes gay teens are just "going through a phase" and that the age of consent for gay sex should be 21 to "protect the vulnerable".

No, it's just that kids:

A. Don't know what gay or straight means, or what sex really is
B. Don't know anything about the world at all
C. Don't have a developed pre-frontal cortex

----------

Originally Posted by leekohler

I knew I liked guys when I was 4. That never changed.

What are some other things you "knew" at 4? That dogs go woof and cats go meow?

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by eric/

Do you not see how the two are completely unrelated?

Yes age of a teenager and his sexuality, is completely unrelated to the age of a teenager and his sexuality.

Completely unrelated.

[eric/]

Originally Posted by niuniu

Yes age of a teenager and his sexuality, is completely unrelated to the age of a teenager and his sexuality.

Completely unrelated.

Yes because that's totally what's being discussed here. :roll eyes:

I stated you don't know anything at 12.

Then I was asked "when do you know what you're doing?"

To which I replied I don't know.

It has nothing to do with the first statement, that you don't know anything at 12.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by eric/

No, it's just that kids:

A. Don't know what gay or straight means, or what sex really is
B. Don't know anything about the world at all
C. Don't have a developed pre-frontal cortex[COLOR="#808080"]

Where is your medical degree from again?

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you spent a lot of time around 12 year olds? Or kids of any age for that matter? You'd be surprised what kids know at that age.

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by eric/

Yes because that's totally what's being discussed here. :roll eyes:

I stated you don't know anything at 12.

Then I was asked "when do you know what you're doing?"

To which I replied I don't know.

It has nothing to do with the first statement, that you don't know anything at 12.

Yeah I get it. You mouthed off ignorantly about a 12 year old not being able to know if he's gay at 12, then you get slapped into submission because you don't know anything about sexuality and age or anything related to it.

So now you spend the rest of the thread worming around with 2+2=4 posts

[eric/]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Where is your medical degree from again?

It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about. Have you spent a lot of time around 12 year olds? Or kids of any age for that matter? You'd be surprised what kids know at that age.

Well I wouldn't need a medical degree to know anything about kids. So idk what that has to do with anything.

But yes, I've spend quite a bit of time around kids. Have 3 brothers that I'm much older than. I suppose a 12 year old can sorta think that he might be gay, but definitely not know it. That's not really something you can develop until your teenage years I'd say, at least. Hell, some people don't develop or realize it until their 40s.

[184550]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

Not any more than receiving Federal student aid, welfare, or Social Security benefits makes you a government agent.

I spent some time in the Cub Scouts many years ago. While I'm sure this policy was in place then, there was no mention of homosexuality, positive, negative, or otherwise. It just wasn't a topic for discussion. We were usually too busy doing things like crafts, learning archery, etc.

I completely agree. I was involved in Boy Scouts as Tiger Cub up until 2006 when I got my Eagle. There was no mention of homosexuality in any context. There were two boys, who've since come out the closet, in our troop who were gay. Nobody appeared to notice let alone care about their sexual orientation at the time.

Also, I take exception to the characterization of scouting as a "religious" organization. There was nothing religious about it, aside from the word "reverent" in the motto.

Speaking from how our Troop was organized, we meet in a church and about 90% of us went to that same church ( and school, swim club, lived in the same neighborhood etc...) The church also donated a large portion of our troops budget, provided us a large storage space for our supplies, etc...

While I certainly wouldn't term it a religious organization either, non denominational religion certainly has/d a strong presence in Scouting.

I think that this ban is necessary until there is comprehensive national 'policy' that deals with the equal treatment for LBTQ persons.

Though I think it's rather ironic that Lord Baden-Powell founded the Scouting organization and yet might have been a homosexual himself.

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

I don't defend the Boy Scouts on this. I was a scout myself long ago, and this was never an issue. Even as a Christian, I can't understand how someone's sexuality is an issue in scouting, especially when sexuality was never up for discussion in the first place.

I don't deny it's their right to have this policy, but I don't agree with it.

My statement about the inclusion of "duty to God" as a single phrase within the oath stands - if someone believes that those three words alone make an organization inherently a "religious organization," or that it teaches kids hate, then I think they're looking for something that simply isn't there.

Again, completely agree.

[localoid]

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

Actually, that's not what happened. We would recite (in unison) our oath:

You can keep lying to yourself on this and playing your pretend it isn't true game but you're not fooling anyone. Yes, that _is_ what happened. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not the Boy Scouts of America's position is that atheists and agnostics cannot participate as Scouts (youth members) or Scouters (adult leaders) in its traditional Scouting programs.

Originally Posted by Tomorrow

This, to me, is no more a religious statement than the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't believe that this reference to God makes Scouting a religious exercise; you're free to disagree, if you must. But no, we never discussed whether we would admit someone based on any "requirement of belief in a God or comparable higher power."

It makes no sense to me that so many people will discount an entire organization based on a pledge like this, which encourages boys and young men to be the best person they can be, simply because there's a phrase about "duty to God" - as if that completely nullifies anything good that would otherwise come out of it.

It's not just a matter of the BSA having the "duty to God" line in their pledge. _IF_ you'd read the link I gave earlier you'd know that. But apparently you didn't read a word of it.

So let's cut to the chase. The BSA itself maintains the position that it is a religious organization.

In case no. 92C-140, Riley County District Court, Bradford W. Seabourn (plaintiff) vs. Coronado Area Council, Boy Scouts of America (defendant), 16 Dec., 1992, the BSA itself filed a "Separate Answer" with the following as its "Sixth Affirmative Defense:"

"Boy Scouts of America is a religious organization, association or society, or nonprofit institution or organization operated, supervised or controlled by or in conduction with religious organizations, associations or societies within the meaning of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, expressly permitted by the Act to limit the occupancy of its real property, which it owns or operates for other than a commercial purpose, to persons who believe in God or to give preference to persons who believe in God."

(Emphasis added)

BSA's assertion that it is a religious organization was echoed in the Pool & Geller case and in several other cases.

I personally don't care if a private club wants to discriminate. It's wrong but I don't care because that's their business. But when that organization sticks its dirty little hands out to take taxpayer monies to support that organization then I do have a problem with that.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

I think that this ban is necessary until there is comprehensive national 'policy' that deals with the equal treatment for LBTQ persons.
.

Necessary? That's ridiculous. Why should it be necessary to ban someone based on their sexual orientation? Maybe it should be "necessary" to ban Priests from being involved with the Boy Scouts - after all, they are all pedophiles, aren't they?

I wonder if the 7 year old whose mother was cast out as a Den Mother would agree with you.

I think it's a joke - and I wouldn't let my son within a country mile of this archaic, bigoted organization.

[184550]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Necessary? That's ridiculous. Why should it be necessary to ban someone based on their sexual orientation? Maybe it should be "necessary" to ban Priests from being involved with the Boy Scouts - after all, they are all pedophiles, aren't they?

I wonder if the 7 year old whose mother was cast out as a Den Mother would agree with you.

I think it's a joke - and I wouldn't let my son within a country mile of this archaic, bigoted organization.

Personally, I see the ban as a means to protect the organization, the youth and the adult leaders from lawsuits both real and frivolous.

It's sort of a catch 22, the BSA can't require that youth or adult leaders reveal their sexual orientation.

Some, like myself, could care less who's involved with Scouting as long as they're involved. However, some obviously aren't comfortable with that notion.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

Personally, I see the ban as a means to protect the organization, the youth and the adult leaders from lawsuits both real and frivolous.

Well, then they may as well ban homosexual teachers. Wouldn't want any lawsuits. Real and/or frivolous.

[184550]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

Well, then they may as well ban homosexuals from being teachers. Wouldn't want any lawsuits. Real and/or frivolous.

Personally, I think that there is much more oversight in the education system than in Scouting.

[Moyank24]

Originally Posted by NathanMuir

Personally, I think that there is much more oversight in the education system than in Scouting.

As well there should be, but, my point still stands. Maybe they should ban homosexual coaches, music tutors, etc, etc, etc....

Honestly, your statement was offensive - both as a lesbian and as a mother. I understand what you are saying, but still - this is 2012 and it's ridiculous that anything like that should be a concern. As if every homosexual person is a pedophile.

As long as people like you keep justifying this institutional bigotry, nothing will change.

[184550]

Originally Posted by Moyank24

As well there should be, but, my point still stands. Maybe they should ban homosexual coaches, music tutors, etc, etc, etc....

Sorry, but this sounds like a slippery slope argument to me. Every scenario you've mentioned thus far has much more control and oversight than BSA had when I came up.

Honestly, your statement was offensive - both as a lesbian and as a mother. I understand what you are saying, but still - this is 2012 and it's ridiculous that anything like that should be a concern. As if every homosexual person is a pedophile.

As long as people like you keep justifying this institutional bigotry, nothing will change.

Sorry you feel that way but IMO you're a bit like Lee in these situations; tone deaf to reason. Disagree, as do I, with the ban all you want but to see anything more is just the tin foil hat talking IMO. Not everyone is out to get you. Or a bigot for the matter.