Boy Scouts to lift gay ban? (1 Viewer)

Optimus Prime

Subscribing Member
VIP Subscribing Member
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 18, 1998
Messages
7,854
Reaction score
8,290
Offline
about time
==============================================================

The Boy Scouts of America, under growing pressure from troops across the country to end its 100-year-old ban on gay leaders and members, said today it is "discussing" ending its national discrimination policy, leaving such decisions to the discretion of individual troops.

"Currently, the BSA is discussing potentially removing the national membership restriction regarding sexual orientation," BSA spokesman Deron Smith said in a prepared statement. "This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization's mission, principles, or religious beliefs."..........................


Boy Scouts to Discuss Lifting National Ban on Gay Troops - ABC News
 

Galbreath34

Very Banned
Gold VIP Contributor
Joined
May 8, 2008
Messages
32,273
Reaction score
30,806
Offline
It's a forward step, but really, how hard is it to just go the full route and say we're just not gonna care about your color or preference or anything besides things actually related to being a scout?

Honestly anyone willing to buy the years of uniforms, the books, go to the meetings do the tasks/tricks for the badges, and be into the whole thing for more than 4-5 years obviously has more in common with the rest of the Eagle Scouts that most gay people have in common with each other.
 

thefredman63

Very Banned
Joined
Aug 6, 2011
Messages
385
Reaction score
58
Offline
Honestly, its a private org, and therefore is able to do what they want. They see homosexuality as wrong, who are we to judge? honestly
 

primadox

Hurricane Bear Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
16,933
Reaction score
5,148
Age
56
Location
Houston TX, via Parsippany, NJ and New Orleans
Offline
If this happens, I hope they go by what the suggested plan says, and leave it up to the chartering organization and the troops themselves to decide what is best for each troop, instead of forcing the acceptance of something like this on every single troop. This would allow respect and tolerance for the views of those on both sides of the issue. Those troops whose charter organizations are religiously affiliated wouldn't have to worry about violating that organization's beliefs, and those troops who choose to open up their membership would be free to do so as well, and would provide a place for those boys to go. The tolerance and acceptance of beliefs needs to go both ways, IMO.
 

Charlie Brizzown

Good grief
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
4,112
Reaction score
5,769
Location
San Diego, CA
Offline
"Our corporation doesn't have an official policy against hiring minorities. We let each branch office decide for themselves whether or not they want to hire minorities."
 

steltz02

The Real Deal
VIP Contributor
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
3,137
Reaction score
1,108
Age
36
Offline
If this happens, I hope they go by what the suggested plan says, and leave it up to the chartering organization and the troops themselves to decide what is best for each troop, instead of forcing the acceptance of something like this on every single troop. This would allow respect and tolerance for the views of those on both sides of the issue. Those troops whose charter organizations are religiously affiliated wouldn't have to worry about violating that organization's beliefs, and those troops who choose to open up their membership would be free to do so as well, and would provide a place for those boys to go. The tolerance and acceptance of beliefs needs to go both ways, IMO.
A human being is a human being regardless of your beliefs. What about tolerance and respect for those gay children who want to be boyscouts?

Your idea is like saying the north should have let the south keep their slavery, because that's what the south believed in. Let's not even consider the well being of those actually affected and discriminated against.
 

guidomerkinsrules

W H A T E V I R
VIP Contributor
Joined
Apr 30, 2007
Messages
59,849
Reaction score
96,786
Location
by the cemeteries
Online
If this happens, I hope they go by what the suggested plan says, and leave it up to the chartering organization and the troops themselves to decide what is best for each troop, instead of forcing the acceptance of something like this on every single troop. This would allow respect and tolerance for the views of those on both sides of the issue.
bigotry isn't a "side of an issue" nor is it something you're born with - it's something you're infected with - you get it by being in small groups led by an older bigot
luckily there is a cure - a conversion therapy if you will
it's called having a heart
 

billinms

Tiptoeing Through the Tulips
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
24,600
Age
48
Location
Ocean Springs
Offline
I support BSA's right as a private organization to not have gay troop leaders, but I also support them in changing that policy. Not allowing gay men to be involved in scouting is a far cry from owning slaves.
 

Lurkaholic

Banned
Joined
May 27, 2003
Messages
6,931
Reaction score
6,212
Location
NOLA
Offline
I support BSA's right as a private organization to not have gay troop leaders, but I also support them in changing that policy.
This isn't just about gay troop leaders, this is about gay children being kicked out of scouting due to their sexual orientation. Perhaps you missed this thread: http://saintsreport.com/forums/f3/b...gle-scout-because-he-gay-258680/#.UQfdcmfhcTA



Not allowing gay men to be involved in scouting is a far cry from owning slaves.
I'll trust that some other member of this site with some modicum of intelligence will stop by and point out how REPULSIVE this statement is. Maybe he'll point out some examples of other things in this world that are just fine because they're "a far cry from owning slaves" while he's at it. I hope he starts with women and children.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

primadox

Hurricane Bear Moderator
Staff member
Super Moderator
Joined
Sep 1, 1997
Messages
16,933
Reaction score
5,148
Age
56
Location
Houston TX, via Parsippany, NJ and New Orleans
Offline
A human being is a human being regardless of your beliefs. What about tolerance and respect for those gay children who want to be boyscouts?

Your idea is like saying the north should have let the south keep their slavery, because that's what the south believed in. Let's not even consider the well being of those actually affected and discriminated against.

Actually, it's not. Slavery was not a religious issue; homosexuality is, for many faith based groups. What about tolerance and respect for the religious beliefs of those troops affiliated with religious organizations? By allowing the individual troops to decide, this allows gay children the freedom to join, and the freedom of religious based troops to follow the beliefs of their charter organization. Why does tolerance and respect have to go one way only? Why is forcing a troop to violate their spiritual beliefs any less tolerant than preventing a gay boy from joining a troop?

I think allowing the troops to decide for themselves is win-win for both sides of the coin, and would allow those troops who might be extremely opposed the opportunity to mingle at council events with troops who do allow gay members, and would increase the acceptance of these boys throughout BSA over time. But by forcing the policy on everyone from the start, you create even more animosity between the two sides. How is it less "tolerant" to put the "bigot" label on troops that choose to follow the former policy? Tolerance doesn't mean we must agree with a point of view, and many forget that. It means we respect that point of view even though we don't agree with it. By showing tolerance to BOTH sides of the issue, it allows each side to see, learn and respect what the other side is about. Respect for religious beliefs; respect for sexual orientation. Both are important, IMO.
 

billinms

Tiptoeing Through the Tulips
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2004
Messages
19,649
Reaction score
24,600
Age
48
Location
Ocean Springs
Offline
This isn't just about gay troop leaders, this is about gay children being kicked out of scouting due to their sexual orientation. Perhaps you missed this thread: http://saintsreport.com/forums/f3/b...gle-scout-because-he-gay-258680/#.UQfdcmfhcTA





I'll trust that some other member of this site with some modicum of intelligence will stop by and point out how REPULSIVE this statement is. Maybe he'll point out some examples of other things in this world that are just fine because they're "a far cry from owning slaves" while he's at it. I hope he starts with women and children.
I'm sorry you're repulsed. I never said it was just fine, I said I support changing the policy, I don't agree with the policy. I think they should be able to set their own membership policies, even if I disagree with them. Times are changing, and groups like BSA are having to change with the times as they lose membership because of old world thinking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

crosswatt

Gone Fishing.
Staff member
Administrator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jul 10, 2001
Messages
32,282
Reaction score
46,065
Location
Chesapeake, VA
Offline

Actually, it's not. Slavery was not a religious issue; homosexuality is, for many faith based groups. What about tolerance and respect for the religious beliefs of those troops affiliated with religious organizations? By allowing the individual troops to decide, this allows gay children the freedom to join, and the freedom of religious based troops to follow the beliefs of their charter organization. Why does tolerance and respect have to go one way only? Why is forcing a troop to violate their spiritual beliefs any less tolerant than preventing a gay boy from joining a troop?

I think allowing the troops to decide for themselves is win-win for both sides of the coin, and would allow those troops who might be extremely opposed the opportunity to mingle at council events with troops who do allow gay members, and would increase the acceptance of these boys throughout BSA over time. But by forcing the policy on everyone from the start, you create even more animosity between the two sides. How is it less "tolerant" to put the "bigot" label on troops that choose to follow the former policy? Tolerance doesn't mean we must agree with a point of view, and many forget that. It means we respect that point of view even though we don't agree with it. By showing tolerance to BOTH sides of the issue, it allows each side to see, learn and respect what the other side is about. Respect for religious beliefs; respect for sexual orientation. Both are important, IMO.
That will never fly as local organizations cannot stand against the sure to be filed legal suits without the expressed stance of the parent organization. If the national council removed the band, it changes it across the board. If one is completely opposed to homosexual participantion, it will be their responsibility to no longer take part in Scouting, as there is no legitimate stance left to disallow their inclusion.
 

tenordas

Vesti le procè flamber
VIP Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 1997
Messages
10,861
Reaction score
5,133
Location
Houston via New Jersey, New Orleans, Baton Rouge,
Offline
primadox said:
Tolerance doesn't mean we must agree with a point of view, and many forget that. It means we respect that point of view even though we don't agree with it. By showing tolerance to BOTH sides of the issue, it allows each side to see, learn and respect what the other side is about. Respect for religious beliefs; respect for sexual orientation. Both are important, IMO.
Because according to some you're only "tolerant" if you agree with their point of view. Otherwise, you are intolerant and must be silenced/overcome. The truly ridiculous part is these are the very people who scream the accusation of "hypocrit" louder than anyone. Then again that's the oldest political trick in the book: accuse your opponent of being guilty of what you're doing.

True tolerance is a fine line that few actually are willing to walk.

And there is a BIG difference between not approving of someone's EDIT: actions (is that a better way to put it?) and actively persecuting them for it. IF the BSA was out in the streets beating up gay boys and picketing them, that would be a whole different matter. But that isn't the case at all.
 

J-Donk

Hall-of-Famer
VIP Subscribing Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2005
Messages
3,389
Reaction score
3,688
Offline

Actually, it's not. Slavery was not a religious issue; homosexuality is, for many faith based groups. What about tolerance and respect for the religious beliefs of those troops affiliated with religious organizations? By allowing the individual troops to decide, this allows gay children the freedom to join, and the freedom of religious based troops to follow the beliefs of their charter organization. Why does tolerance and respect have to go one way only? Why is forcing a troop to violate their spiritual beliefs any less tolerant than preventing a gay boy from joining a troop?

I think allowing the troops to decide for themselves is win-win for both sides of the coin, and would allow those troops who might be extremely opposed the opportunity to mingle at council events with troops who do allow gay members, and would increase the acceptance of these boys throughout BSA over time. But by forcing the policy on everyone from the start, you create even more animosity between the two sides. How is it less "tolerant" to put the "bigot" label on troops that choose to follow the former policy? Tolerance doesn't mean we must agree with a point of view, and many forget that. It means we respect that point of view even though we don't agree with it. By showing tolerance to BOTH sides of the issue, it allows each side to see, learn and respect what the other side is about. Respect for religious beliefs; respect for sexual orientation. Both are important, IMO.
I don't tolerate bigotry. I think that's going to be a new theme in our society going forward. I don't have to respect your belief if it's full of hate.

From what I know of the issue this isn't something the scouts wanted to do. There was a gay scouts lobby that got most of their funding cut. Sponsors have been dropping the scouts faster then Rush Limbaugh.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)



Headlines

Top Bottom