Mike - There is no RIGHT to be a Boy Scout. It is a PRIVATE organization. Not sure why that is so hard for some folks to understand.

To be fair to Mike, I don't think he's saying it's illegal to not accept gays, just that they should.

This is a similar situation, just a different demographic:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57407083/ceo-revives-augusta-no-women-membership-debate/

I was a scout. I love the organization for that reason. We had a very open and accepting troop, but the national organization is pretty close minded.

As a private organization, they have the right to discriminate. It doesn't mean I like it, or that I approve of their stance, but they have the right.

It would be really nice if they joined this century however. My girls wont be in girl scouts because it is such an antiquated and discriminatory organization.

I wonder if peoplewould be defending the Boy Scouts rule so feverishly if they wanted to have the Boy Scouts for whites only, or perhaps for only a certain income bracket.

People are OK for private organizations to exclude people until its themselves who could be excluded.

Mike, Just because a private organization does not fold to public opinion does not mean it is irrelevant. On the contrary it is demonstrating another part of what makes our country great - the right to stand by your own beliefs and standards and not be forced to do something because it is "politically correct". Same is true for our religious groups who hold their ground on their faith and beliefs and don't change their practices or statements of belief 'because everyone is doing it'. As was mentioned in the article, the scout program is not structured for scout discussions about sexual orientation and is at parents' discretion when these discussions are appropriate within their families.

No homosexuals in the boy or girl scouts,period the day they allow this I take my girls and my son out, period.

I just don't get it. Why would you want your children to be a member of an organization that practices hatred? Don't let your kids join, and be sure to explain to other parents why your children aren't members. There must be other groups or after school programs for kids.

Supporting a group that discriminates is not acceptable. It is just as bad as having your children join a white pride group.

Jerry-1927474

Jerry are you naive enough to think that there are not already young gay boys and girls, fathers and mothers, in and helping the Girls and Boy Scouts?

They are already there.

Tx mother, "...demonstrating another part of what makes our country great - the right to stand by your own beliefs ..."

Unless, of course, you happen to be gay, then your beliefs can be trampled upon by anyone.

Elpea

You are onto something there... not that I agree with your views though... If you don't LIKE the views of an organization then WHY do you want your child to be part of that organization? Find one that matches your views instead of trying to change theirs. What happens between consenting ADULTS is their business. don't push your views on others, me, and they, I, won't push mine on you.

Whether you or I agree, disagree or just a agree to disagree. The BSA are a private organization that is their right. Don't like it, step away from your computer and start your own organization.

For those that don't know there is another scouting organization called Adventure Scouts.

They are Co-ed and not discriminatory. I am quite sure that the people stirring the pot with the Boy Scouts knows about the organization. Why not just go there? I mean really

There is no current policy discriminating against GLBT members in the Girl Scouts. They run by a live and let live policy.

Jerry being around a homosexual does not make one homosexual. They aren't going to perform sexual acts in front of your children anymore than a heterosexual will.

EngEsq and Jerry, one of you says no to Girl Scouts because they discriminate and Jerry says he will take his girls out iof they allow gay members. I do not think they have a national policy against gays in that organization, whuich is totally separate from Boy Scouts of America.

Something that does not get a lot of media attention is that the Boy Scouts also prohibit Atheists.

Dave-2550157

Something that does not get a lot of media attention is that the Boy Scouts also prohibit Atheists.

By definition an Atheist can not take the Scout Oath due to the line "To do my duty to God and my country". Sort of difficult to swear/affirm a duty to something one does not believe in. Especially since part of being a Scout requires one to be truthful and honest... starting with to self.

Jerry-better pull your kids out -I work with a Boy Scout Leader who is gay and has been involved in the organization for the past 30 years- they are EVERYWHERE-schools & churches, the Boy Scouts & the Girl Scouts, Politics -why your next door neighbor might even be one!! Better find a good place to protect & defend your brood-unless of course one of them is gay-then what ya gonna do? Jerry-wake up and smell the coffee-they're taking over the planet!!!!OMG! It's the attack of the 70 ft GAY BOY SCOUT!!!!

Peace-3229398

Yes! Our local Boy Scouts have several gay dads as leaders, its at the top where the fear lies, at the grass roots level most do not care.

goldpoint, no, they don't have a national policy that I'm aware of. Some troops are very open, others are horrible. The ones near us are really bad, and for that reason my family doesn't participate.

The real reason the BSA became so against gays is that Mormons took it over. As we saw with the Mormon Church and California's Prop 8 battle, the church is extraordinarily homophobic.

America, on the whole does not agree with these views.

The Girl Scouts of America, as opposed to the BSA, is a far more forward thinking organization. It allows all types of people and does not discriminate based on sexual orientation or belief in God.

The BSA is left in the 20th century. Honestly, does it matter to anyone anymore? What's your foresting badge going to get you?

Mike, Just because a private organization does not fold to public opinion does not mean it is irrelevant. On the contrary it is demonstrating another part of what makes our country great - the right to stand by your own beliefs and standards and not be forced to do something because it is "politically correct".

If they want to discriminate, fine. But, they should not be permitted to use public property. The US military used to provide logistical support for an annual (or bi-annual) jamboree. Such support should end.

If they want to discriminate, fine. But, they should not be permitted to use public property. The US military used to provide logistical support for an annual (or bi-annual) jamboree. Such support should end.

PUBLIC lands are for use by the PUBLIC. Not that I believe in the KKK or NAACP but they are just as entitled to the use of public lands. The military gets as much benefit from providing that logistical support as the BSA gets receiving it. The US Army (reserves more than likely) would have to do the practice either way. Better to practice in a real world situation in a non emergency than waste the effort/dollars in make believe.

The United States is great because, throughout its history, it has striven to EXTEND rights to its citizens, - NOT to restrict rights.

NAMBLA thanks you.

Bart, you are mistaken to even imply that there is any present, peer-reviewed scientific evidence that being gay is genetic. With that missing, it can't be treated like an eye color or skin tone.

Then you ask me if I made a choice to be heterosexual. The best response for you is the same one that you should consider using, assuming you're gay. And that is, it's a very private matter and not something that I should be sharing with the world, much less demanding that I have access to every venue there is out there based on my orientation.

I will respect you as a person and I don't need to know your sexual orientation for any reason at all. If you start bringing it up to me on your own for some reason, expect whatever recourse that I deem appropriate, if anything, up to and including rebuke. Same goes for me. This is why having the LGBT community bringing this up in the context of the scouts has now given me a reason to even discuss this with you and the group. That community has twisted the argument that they are entitled to rights that they purport not to have. In reality, they are arguing for more rights than the straight people have because, as you now know, there is no scientific evidence that says that they are operating from a genetic predisposition. Therefore, like their recreational drug of choice, they need to be damn careful not to get caught doing something that is unacceptable to those that operate within the law - like the scouts. Or they face rejection.

They don't practice hatred, they practice trying to hold themselves and their members to some set of standards

Bigoted standards.

To feel that something is wrong, is not hatred.

True enough.

To try to set a moral standard is not hatred.

It's not uncommon for 'moral standards' to be immoral themselves.

You may feel that the promotion of traditional family with a mother, father and children is not a worthy goal.

Perfectly worthy. I wasn't aware that homosexuals want to dismantle straight families.

You may feel that the ripping apart of the traditional family ...,

You mean like divorce? Because straight people do that all on their own.....

...and promotion of all manner of unnatural family relationships is good for society

No, not all manner, just same-sex relationships of two consenting adults.

le you may believe what you want, you have no right to force your beliefs on others.

Please explain, how is it forcing anything on you? Tell me. I must know. You nimrods keep saying this yet seem to have never actually formed an idea of what the hell you are actually talking about when you say that.

The Boy Scouts were successful and a benefit to society because of the values they upheld since their inception

You mean like no blacks allowed?

I would argue that they are more relevant now than ever because of the values they wish to uphold.

Ah yeah, because bigotry is just so relevant to society.



And that is, it's a very private matter and not something that I should be sharing with the world, much less demanding that I have access to every venue there is out there based on my orientation.

lol - so you keep your heterosexuality secret? I'm straight, and talk about my gf all the time - have a picture of her on my desk. Am I rubbing my heterosexuality in the faces of my coworkers?

On top of that you dodge a common sense question... try applying it. When did you CHOOSE TO BE STRAIGHT? The answer? YOU DIDNT - and NEITHER DID A GAY PERSON.

The notion of the Boy Scouts not being gay-friendly is as ludicrous as the LDS church not being child-rape friendly.

There is no conceivable way that any given eagle scout is a mentally-sound heterosexual, just as there is no conceivable way that any given LDS priesthood-holder isn't a gigantic pedo.

there is no scientific evidence that says that they are operating from a genetic predisposition

Sigh... even if one's sexual orientation was a choice (which it isn't - use common sense)

Your religion is a choice... does that void your religious freedom?

Stupid argument.

Interesting that mention of this nation's history be brought up. Allow me to point out a few instances in our nation's history when the religious right had their way with public policy.

Back during and before the Civil War fundamentalists and evangelicals used scripture from the Bible to justify slavery. It's in there, and according to the book of Leviticus it is okay to own and beat slaves. They justified owning black people in particular by saying that the color of their skin was the "mark of Cain". Talk to Christians today. Do they think slavery or racism is morally acceptable?

During and before women's sufferage fundamentalists and evangelicals used scripture from the Bible to justify making women second class citizens and denying them equal rights to men, including the right to vote. Even today certain sects still use scripture to try and justify making all women subserviant to men. Including undermining equal pay for equal work. After all there are a dozen or more passages in the Old and New Testaments that lay out unambiguously how women are inferior to men and should be subserviant to them and should never be allowed to teach, even though Jesus himself made it clear that in his eyes and the eyes of Heaven all are equal. Notice how today women have the ability to vote, and in certain sects are even allowed to be clergy members holding such ranks as Priest and Bishop.

During prohibition fundamentalists and evangelicals used scripture from the Bible to justify changing secular law to make alcohol illegal, citing verses that state the sin of drunkenness. They tried, successfully, to make lawmakers think that alcohol was at the root of criminality and that by prohibiting it crime would disappear in the country overnight. Might I note that Jesus not only drank alcohol, but his first miracle was to turn water into wine. Do I even need to tell you how horribly prohibition backfired? Should I also point out the overwhelming number of Christians who drink alcohol?

Notice how all three of these instances in our nation's history turned out. Contemplate the historical outcomes of the previous examples and whether or not these Christian groups were really pragmatically, or even morally, right in their positions. Think about the impact these positions had on the lives of countless people.

Now, whether you agree with my sentiments or not, consider my next words very carefully: gay rights is next.

Yes, Shuklack, you choose whether to tell the world about your sexual orientation or not. That's the root issue from a social perspective. Again, no hard science exists for you to base your conjecture of predisposition on. None. If that happens and is confimred through the scientific method, I will definitely alter my view.

And as your "nimrod", what you are forcing on others is your insistence to be included in everything because you just have to let the world know that you are gay. Like becoming a member of the scouts wherein they purposely want their membership to be free of such whims. And you are trying to force your views that homosexuality is a genetic matter. Prove that, please, in a methodical and scientific way. All attempts to tie that one down have failed.

How does arguing for gay rights (whatever the hell that means) unify us as Americans? Is it possible that all of these sorts of matters are really part of the general demise of our country, like adding to personal debt (a right), hiring a lawyer to browbeat someone who had an accident with you so you can be more wealthy (a right), or farting in a packed airplane because you didn't want to use the head (a right)?

Keep forcing people to accept things that they don't want to accept and stand by for something you don't want, big time backlash. Other people have rights too and if you want to trample on their rights then you are no better than the one's YOU hate.

As a liberal father, my opinion is that since boy scouts are private they can do whatever they like and the gay community can protest all they want, being gay does not mean you are right, there sre 2 sides and the winner is the private organization of the boy scouts

Again, no hard science exists for you to base your conjecture of predisposition on.

The evidence (and common sense) that does exist regarding a person's homosexuality does though indicate that it is as much of a choice as heterosexuality. So that much can be eliminated.

what you are forcing on others is your insistence to be included in everything because you just have to let the world know that you are gay.

I'm straight. I know, it might be inconceivable to you how a hetero person can not be a bigot against homosexuals - but there are a lot more of us than you might think.

. And you are trying to force your views that homosexuality is a genetic matter.

Evidence actually points to it being more likely biochemical matter having to due with development in the womb than strictly genetic. A person's orientation is fully realized at the onset of puberty - nobody chooses to what they are attracted, you didn't choose, I didn't choose... sexuality is realized, not chosen.

Homosexuality exists in nature, among a variety of animals - humans are no different. Show me evidence of the 'straight orientation' gene? Don't have any? Then you can't dismiss predisposition of homosexuality based purely off the lack of an identified gene. There is likely a variety of factors which result in a person's sexual orientation, not least of which being a person's biochemistry - something which we don't have control over.

Is it possible that all of these sorts of matters are really part of the general demise of our country

It's okay to disagree with the rights afforded to someone, but rights are inalienable - and should not be subject to a person's personal grievances, religious dogma, or bigotry.



what you are forcing on others is your insistence to be included in everything because you just have to let the world know that you are gay.

Racists made the same argument against desegregation. Think on that.

"Gay rights ARE next". I considered your words very carefully indeed and they are constructed incorrectly - LOLL.

As for your sophistry on religion, the issues you raise are contextual. Most Christians aren't against alcohol, as an example, and what got prohibition started had more to do with who was in power to affect prohibition laws rather than any true theology leading the way. Are you going to say that removing alcohol is/was a bad idea generally or that it just can't really be done? Check with the statistics from MADD and see if they don't bear out that drunk drivers (again, an example) aren't a very significant factor in causing traffic deaths. Cause and effect work with this one very well.

I actually agree with you that gay rights will prevail. I also believe that to be another bad thing, even if only because it introduces more damn laws to force more restrictions on more people.

Why are we even having this discussion? And what is really wrong with gays minding their own business and leaving the scouts alone? Really - what's wrong with that? Do you need to force them to be "tolerant" in the sense that they MUST accept gays as members? What is wrong with private interests staying private, both gay organizations and the scouts?

Marty S.

There is scientific evidence. However this makes people say: Oh but you haven't found the gene so its not genetic.

Well we also have not found the straight gene, the gene for hair color and eye color, but, we still believe we are born straight, don't choose our hair or eye color.

Sexuality is not a choice, get over it why would you be so threatened if it were not a choice?

Nature would not leave something so fundamental to a mere whimsical choice. How do you then suppose humans and animals become straight then? You lose if you say from watching their parents from experience.

We have animals whose young never see the male, or even see their parents but still manage through the wonder of their genetics to have a sexuality and in the majority that involves attraction at the base level to the opposite sex and in some instances to the same sex.

.

ErinNJ - You should not be allowed on PUBLIC PROPERTY because you are trying to FORCE others to bend to your opinion. As with any organization, you join because YOU WANT TO JOIN,NOBODY IS FORCING YOU TO JOIN. Leave the kids alone, they enjoy the Scouts and they learn skills that continue throughout their entire lives. THE SCOUTS IS NOT THE PLACE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT SEXUAL ORIENTATION!!! Why don't the complainers in the Gay Community begin their own groups and stop trying to destroy other groups. People that are part of Scouting pay taxes, just like everyone else, and they have a right to use PUBLIC SPACES their taxes support just like anyone else. Seems like the Gay's want everything "given to them" and not actually work to create their own youth groups. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE SCOUTS,THEN DON'T JOIN!!! SCOUTING GIVES FAR MORE BACK TO CITIZENS THAN IT RECEIVES. You have other Groups that discriminate and are more then welcome to use Public Places. The one that stands out is the NAACP, one of the most discriminating and racist organizations in America

and what got prohibition started had more to do with who was in power to affect prohibition laws rather than any true theology leading the way

Sounds familiar.

I also believe that to be another bad thing, even if only because it introduces more damn laws to force more restrictions on more people.

What restrictions would those be? Please - do tell. Did desegregation put burdensome restrictions upon us as a nation? Oh noes, now I'm restricted from restricting blacks the right to attend my school! lol... bigots are so funny.

Do you need to force them to be "tolerant" in the sense that they MUST accept gays as members? What is wrong with private interests staying private, both gay organizations and the scouts?

Private organizations can be as discriminatory and bigoted as they please.... just don't expect them to not be criticized for it. They have that right, as a private institution - but what right they don't have is immunity from well deserved criticism.

The word discriminate is not a bad word, it just means you are "setting apart" a difference. As a private organization they are constitutionally protected to keep their charter and mission as rigid as they find acceptable. If they want to set apart ugly people, they have the right, if they want to set apart atheists (which they do) they have the right, if they want to set apart left handers they can. No, I am not saying all those forms of discrimination are the same, I am pointing out that they can do what they want. Start your own club, and lower the standards all you want. It's your right. Based on the way American's are moving in many parts of the coasts, you can probably find a lot of people to join your new club.

Don't expect some groups to change, because the world is "progressing" and evolving to a point where discriminated (again groups set apart) groups behaviors are now the norm and popular opinion. Some people hold certain truths to be self evident, like finding groups based on God, the Bible and the moral structures of the 1700s. These aren't the religous right necessarily, these are people who are strict constitutionalists and dont think the way of life then was full of less enlightened individuals.

Not everyone has the right to be involved with everythign at all times. Gender, religious and sexual orientation based discrimination is not always bad. If your beleifs don't co-incide with a group anyway, why do you want to be a part of it? To win? Those aren't rights.... you are mistaking privelage and membership for God given rights. All things are lawful, but not PROFITABLE.

It is ignorant to call LDS leaders bigots, pedophiles, or any of the like. Do you know them personally? Have they been arrested in your neigborhoods for violating the law? Likely, no. They are some of the sweetest, most familly centric, hardworking people I know. They saw an opportunity to sponsor many scout troops, as it does fit nicely with their religous creed to be missionaries- in this sense of the word meaning enfolding. Shame on you for making extremeist arguments about organizations you are not a part of, or no very little about. I am not LDS but have many friends that are. They have made better examples in their lives than the majority of people speaking so ignorantly and angrily on these boards.

No homosexuals in the boy or girl scouts,period the day they allow this I take my girls and my son out, period.

Sad that you are afraid of people who are gay. . Yet your kids probably dont recognize the difference. They are more evolved than the parents. It will be their world and their world wont care if people are gay or not. Thats the beauty of it...their experience trumps your obsolete belief system.

As a former Eagle Scout I resent a lot of the comments here. My particular troop was indeed inclusive despite many of the members being devoted baptists. We even held our meetings at a local Christian church because they practiced good Christian principles and allowed us to use their space for free since we are responsible, always clean up after ourselves, and gave back to the church by improving and performing controlled burns on the grounds. And get this: I'm an atheist and no one cared.

Boy scouts taught me many useful skills (believe it or not merit badges aren't popular among the members are are usually avoided except when they are required to advance) and many positive character traits such as HARD WORK, GIVING, HELPING THE LESS FORTUNATE (IN WAYS BESIDES TEXTING 77883 TO DONATE 2 BUCKS TO MALARIA) and an APPRECIATION OF NATURE. These things are a part of me and I am a far better person for my experiences in the scouts. The best part: I was never taught, and don't, "hate" anyone be they gay, straight, black, white, purple, man, woman or child. As a matter of fact I was taught the opposite.. Hate and discrimination is not something the organization teaches and the number of bigots within it is very small and decreasing just like every other organization and society as a whole.

The BSA certainly isn't a "prep course for the KKK" as someone suggested, or only somewhere for pedophiles to get their kicks (these two accusations don't even make sense next to each other) or any number of absurd things i've seen here. You've no idea what Scouting is truly about and even though I already feel sorry for how dumb you are, I still would like to tell those of you saying these things to @!$%# off.

Boy scouts, though they have a right to discriminate, for the most part DO NOT. Having said everything above, however, I do wish they'd make it their official policy NOT to. It does sadden me to see one of the few truly virtuous organizations being dragged down by a few bigots who have weaseled their way to the top of it.

This is how I feel about it - as a parent I can understand the reluctance to allow gay men to be troop leaders. How can you be sure that the man isn't a pediphile? That probably sounds horrible, but what if a straight man wanted to be a girl scout troop leader, would anyone be okay with that??? I know I wouldn't, no way! I have daughters, one was briefly a girl scout and the other never was, it just never happened. But if it had, I probably wouldn't want a lesbian to be her troop leader for the same reason I wouldn't want a male troop leader. It's a matter of trust and just wanting my children to be safe. Now, does my reluctance to allow a MAN to be a girl scout troop leader mean I'm discriminating against MEN, or that I hate MEN??? Of course not. Neither does my reluctance to allow a lesbian to be troop leader mean I hate or want to discriminate against lesbians. It might just mean I'm overly paranoid, but that's about it. I believe gays have every right that anyone else has in America; they are entitled to be in consensual ADULT relationships (no NAMBLA, sorry), to live without being harrassed or threatened, and I'm even okay with their being allowed to marry. But the kids are off-limits, sorry! And the fact that I'm a straight white female doesn't mean I get to do everything I want to, either. I understand there's a golf club that doesn't allow women members? Well fine, sucks for THEM, I'll just spend my money on some OTHER golf course! That's probably what gays should do, form their own scout organizations and PROVE to skeptics like me that I'm just being paranoid. And remember the young man in the article DOES NOT want to force the Boy Scouts to change, but CONVINCE them to change, which really is the best way to do this.

This is how I feel about it - as a parent I can understand the reluctance to allow gay men to be troop leaders. How can you be sure that the man isn't a pediphile? That probably sounds horrible, but what if a straight man wanted to be a girl scout troop leader, would anyone be okay with that??? I know I wouldn't, no way! I have daughters, one was briefly a girl scout and the other never was, it just never happened. But if it had, I probably wouldn't want a lesbian to be her troop leader for the same reason I wouldn't want a male troop leader. It's a matter of trust and just wanting my children to be safe. Now, does my reluctance to allow a MAN to be a girl scout troop leader mean I'm discriminating against MEN, or that I hate MEN??? Of course not. Neither does my reluctance to allow a lesbian to be troop leader mean I hate or want to discriminate against lesbians.

Let me get this right? Just because a male troop leader is gay, then he is automatically a pedophile? People are bad, no matter who they are and if you think this way then just board up your house and make your kids stay behind them walls of protection. LIfe is full of dangers and it doesnt matter who, what, when, why or how, @!$%# happens. Branding someone a very low life pedophile simply because he is gay makes me want to puke.

owow, I said he MIGHT be a pedophile, and yeah bad things happen, so why should I risk MY children out of some sense of political correctness? After all, it happened in the Catholic Church, and tell me, do you also want to puke when someone automatically brands all Catholic priests as pedophiles??? Some of them certainly are, and I AM Catholic, so believe me when I say I keep a VERY close eye on my kids - why risk it. But you clearly read what you wanted to into what I wrote, because I NEVER said "automatically," I said MIGHT be and no, it's not worth the risk.

Fight back the gay agenda America , and start by never voting Democrat again !!! The Liberals love to devide traditional Americans along race and sexual lines !!! Fight back by letting all who listen that Republicans would never try and destroy the Boy Scouts of America !!!

"No homosexuals in the boy or girl scouts,period the day they allow this I take my girls and my son out, period."

Well we would lose a lot of the troops right off the bat, as many of the Scoutmasters are the real problem. Like the Catholic Church, the Boy Scouts of America attracts pedophiles and "naturists" - and lets them be Scoutmasters.

My Scoutmaster literally came into several kids' tents one night when we had been soaked in a thunderstorm and was rubbing us down with a towel. Even after we said no thanks. Sure, he didn't go anywhere near our junk (several of us did have knives at the ready to defend ourselves just in case - and I wish I was joking but I'm not) but it's very possible that he was still getting aroused by it. If he wasn't then he had the worst sense of judgement in the world.

But it gets worse - he would drop his shorts to the ground standing in front of a crowd of Scouts and adult leaders buck naked at the drop of a hat. A few times we were packing up from a week long camping trip and he put away his tent before he had changed into his road clothes. Since he was Scoutmaster, his tent was right near the big clearing where we had the fire pits, wood chopping corral, wash sink, etc - so when he would just randomly spontaneously drop trou, there were dozens of kids who saw him nude, who really had no desire whatsoever to see an old wrinkly professor's privates. One of the times on "leaving day", one of my female classmates who was the sister of a Troop member was standing near the fire pit - she got to see it too. I wonder how many nightmares it gave her.

Another time, we were up in a major canoeing wilderness and we came upon a rock island in the middle of a lake. Several of us suggested doing some cliff jumping (it was only about 15 or 20 feet) and he readily agreed - then mentioned the mandatory safety dive to check for sunken logs - and said he'd do it. No more had he gotten the words out of his mouth than his shorts were down around his ankles - once again showing us his wrinkly old-man parts!

Then there was the time when he went on the Five Mile Hike (for an old Skill Award) with an entire Patrol of new Scouts, who had all come over together from their Cub Scout Pack as a Den. They took a hike down some railroad tracks in a well forested suburban area - and one of the kids stumbled across a Playboy sitting in some shrubs at the edge of the ballast rocks. He grabbed it from the kid. The other kids asked what it was. Instead of being a smart adult and just blow it off, perhaps even by saying "adult material, sorry", he chose the poor path. He opened it up with them crowded around it, and tabbed through it - even pausing on the centerfold and letting them get a good look. Although most 11 and 1/2 year olds today have seen far more graphic sexuality by that age, this wasn't the case back then. Some kids had stumbled onto their old mans' magazine or video collection by then, but many had not. The entire new Patrol left en masse to go find a Troop that didn't have a pedophile wannabe Scoutmaster.

That incident was also reported to Council, and yet they did nothing. They let him stay in charge of the Troop, when he should have been quietly (or loudly) forced to resign.

For periodically cracking jokes about his nudist streak, I was told bluntly by the Scoutmaster to not even bother trying for Eagle.

I know for a fact that I had enough votes to earn Order of the Arrow on several different years, but never was invited to the Lodge.

Blackballed for cracking a few jokes about his inability to keep his privates covered in front of the children.

He was breaking the law regularly, and I was the one who was punished?

I really should have gone to the Council and demanded an Eagle due to the pedo wannabe Scoutmaster who was constantly showing us his privates. Frankly they should award me one now, even after all these years - for allowing him to stay even after several serious complaints about him.

If the Scouts wants to be homophobic or deny atheists admission, they frankly do have that right - but only if they never get a single penny of public money. They need to be sponsored by a church or some other organization, and NEVER the local public elementary school.

I don't post much, and never about this kind of thing.

The issues aren't always the scoutmasters. Homosexual acts occur within the scouts, themselves.

I was a cub scout and a boy scout like my dad was. It made him happy that I joined.

I was a First Class Scout and that summer attended my first and only jamboree. Once all of the parents left and the Scoutmasters sent us off to our camping spots it when I became aware aware of homosexual acts. My tentmate and I got our gear out and stepped outside of the tent into the campfire area where the tents are circled. We heard a commotion from a tent across the circle. Suddenly, some boy raised the tent flaps. We saw 6 scouts sitting on two cots, 3 on each side with their pants open, and one in between giving them oral sex. The boy, let's call him Tom, was being bullied into performing the act on each of them. The boys were using horrible names and threats and Tom looked very afraid while the others laughed and continued to berate him. One of the scouts said, "We're going to tell everyone about how you sucked our d***s." My tentmate and I were shocked that we should see such things. I hardly knew anything about sex. The Scoutmasters had no part in this. Homosexual acts occur between the scouts themselves. Also bad, I knew each of the bullies from school. Camp ended and when my parents came to pick me up they noticed a lack of enthusiasm about camp.

The bullies made good on their promise. When school started, stories of how Tom gave them oral sex (this is not the actual term used but was much more graphic). Tom was ridiculed every day for years. The bullies were proud of it. To them oral rape by force did not make them queer, homo, or fag, unless THEY had performed oral sex on another guy. Once the story got out, one of the boys receiving was sent to military school, others received no disciplinary action, but the bullies kept up trying to force other guys to do the same act. Tom tried to kill himself but was saved and the family moved away. He was a good kid but was so introverted I don't know how the rest of his life was.

Scoutmasters are not always the problem. I saw someting disturbing that I can't forget after 40 years. These things become a psychological problem that propetuates itself. First, there is exposure; second, coping to understand; third, fascination; fourth, obsession; fifth, acting it out. I felt I had gotten to the third stage, but many kids in school developed the fifth stage and the school had an underground of homosexual activity. Scoutmasters weren't involved, parents didn't care, and bullying continued.

There was a projectionist at the drive-in that would offer it. I worked in the concession stand and saw many of them making visits during movies. One jerk came in after he visited the projection room and was bragging about it. I told him that I would not recommend he say anything because the projectionist was noted to be violent if rumor got out. I mentioned that I heard he kept a wrench in his back pocket. Two days later, there was a fire alarm at school. As we rushed out we saw a motorcycle on fire. It belonged to the braggart. The projectionist had poured gasoline on the motorcycle and set it ablaze. The braggart refused to confess what he knew. The other boys did talk and everyone knew. But, the underground went deeper underground and occasionally one would hear of bullying and activities.

As an underground, parents, school officials, and especially Scoutmasters, could not directly identify the boys or do anything about the activities. I quit the Scouts that year it happened and I have never attended a class reunion because many of those bullies are still there, had taken over their parent's businesses, and the lingering distrust has never left me.

Whether or not the BSA should accept gays or stick to the traditions, I don't know. It doesn't matter because it's the 'straight' bullying boys that are already there and many think as long as they do not give oral or receive anal sex that they are not 'gay'. Policy changes will probably only identify the 'out' kid and bring bullying and abuse on them by the others.

The BSA is a good organization; mentoring, trying to instill ethical behaviour, giving merits for achievements, honoring our elders, helping the unfortunate, being involved in the community, God, and family. The Scoutmasters were great guys. Where the psychological seeds of these activities I have mentioned above came from I do not know. I hope that these discussions help everyone understand points of view but don't just point at the BSA as a bigotted organization. Realize that the organization wants to be fair but set standards as they always have. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts don't turn people gay, because in this case it's the kids fault, too, that we have memories of things we were too young to understand.

"Where the psychological seeds of these activities I have mentioned above came from I do not know."

What you have described is not homosexual - they're the acts of sociopathic psycho jerks. We had a few of those in our Troop too - but they never ever even thought of daring to do anything along the lines of what you described. Apparently your Troop hit the critical mass for Juvenile Delinquents and their sense of restraint (whatever small amount those people have) went out the window.

That's a shame that this happened in your Troop - but that's not what the debate is over. Nobody is advocating for the Scouts to accept psychopaths who are destined to be rapists and convicts in their later life... as we know, some Troops do tolerate all sorts of behavior that would get you immediately kicked out of others.

The same Scoutmaster who was constantly showing us his privates would go on the warpath if he heard the F-bomb. If you accidentally shined a flashlight in somebody's eyes, it was like you had intentionally poured molten lead down their throat. But he showed us his penis on a regular basis, and that was supposed to be just fine and dandy.

The double standards need to go, regardless of which direction the BSA goes on this issue.

Besides the Scoutmaster and a few overbearing adult leaders (who hadn't gone very far in life and knew we were going to) who tried to boss around the Scouts as if we cared what their opinion was (on anything), I have very fond memories of Scouts. But had the BSA been running things correctly, those blue collar hothead adult leaders would never have been allowed to come with on trips, and the Scoutmaster who kept showing us his junk would have been banned for life - the experience would have been much better. And those rapists who forced the kid to perform oral on them should have gone to juvenile hall and been banned for life from the BSA, along with any adult leader who was aware it had happened and hadn't intervened.

But I can't support an organization that excludes anybody over something as trivial as being gay or atheist in this day and age. As I said they do have that right, but only if they never get any money from the public - EVER.

"The BSA is a good organization; mentoring, trying to instill ethical behaviour, giving merits for achievements, honoring our elders, helping the unfortunate, being involved in the community, God, and family."

Honestly, they could be a good organization but it's been many decades since this has been true. So how can they claim to help the unfortunate at the same time as excluding people for being born differently than they were. The organization is to teach you to be a self reliant person, with lots of skills and lots of adventures - Jesus has nothing to do with it, despite what their Mormon membership (who has been shaping the direction of the organization for decades) base so wrongly feels and tries to force upon the rest of the organization.

The problem isn't gay kids, it's a very loose management that allows for major problems to happen and continue happening in the various Troops, and that allows alcoholic jerks to be named as Assistant Scoutmaster even though they're complete dickheads who shouldn't be around their own kids let alone somebody else's.

trust_verify had this to say:

PUBLIC lands are for use by the PUBLIC. Not that I believe in the KKK or NAACP but they are just as entitled to the use of public lands. The military gets as much benefit from providing that logistical support as the BSA gets receiving it. The US Army (reserves more than likely) would have to do the practice either way. Better to practice in a real world situation in a non emergency than waste the effort/dollars in make believe.

Actually, no. Some public lands are prohibited to the "public" because they are protected environments. The word "public land" just means that it is held in common by the public, not that it is for use by any member of the public. While all groups who are allowed access to public facilities and land that is set aside for public use, all groups also have to be treated the same way.

When the military allows (if it allows) an outside group to use its facilities, it generally charges a fee for those facilities. It does not provide any direct logistical support unless it provides that same logistical support for all such groups. All groups have to be treated the same way.

The issue is that the Boy Scouts for many years had "sweetheart" deals with the local, state, and federal government because it theoretically was open to everyone. Since they have decided to become quite adament about the fact that they are, indeed, private--this means that they are to be treated like any private group.

They should no longer get to use lands that are open to the public for no fee if others are charged a fee, they should not get to use public facilities for free if others are charged a fee, and they should not have access to military property for meetings if no other group is allowed access, they certainly should have to pay a fee for use of military property if other groups are allowed on and assessed a fee and the military should offer no logistical support for free.

There are two sides to the BSA being a "private, voluntary organization." One is that they can discriminate against absolutely anyone they like. That's absolutely legal. But, the flip side is that they do not get money or free access to things that are paid for out of government funds--funds that are provided by taxpayers, all taxpayers. (Atheists and gay people have to pay taxes too.)

Look--it is people like you who insisted that no federal money be used for abortions--and it isn't. There is a law against it, and there it is. But, the other side of the coin is that no taxpayer money or publicly owned land or facilities may be used for the purposes of a private organization unless all private organizations get exactly the same access at exactly the same cost.

Nonprofits which do not discriminate do not insist that they are "private" organizations quite so aggressively--the Girl Scouts do not discriminate, not even against atheists--as long as they are willing to abide by the Girl Scout Promise--On my honor, I will try: / To serve God and my country, / To help people at all times, / And to live by the Girl Scout Law--then they are allowed to participate. Many other youth organizations have chosen not to discriminate so that they can continue to get "sweetheart" deals from the local government.

The whole "private" thing both allows the BSA to discriminate and prohibits them from getting such special treatment. That's the law, and Boy Scouts are supposed to be law-abiding, you know.

Actually, no. Some public lands are prohibited to the "public" because they are protected environments. The word "public land" just means that it is held in common by the public, not that it is for use by any member of the public. While all groups who are allowed access to public facilities and land that is set aside for public use, all groups also have to be treated the same way.

Get BENT. You know damn well by the context of my statement that I did not say ALL public lands. I clearly stated that public lands available to the rest of the public. It's jack asses like you that troll these boards just looking to stir a fight rather than debate the facts. Getting suspended for a day will be worth calling you out on your BS.

When the military allows (if it allows) an outside group to use its facilities, it generally charges a fee for those facilities. It does not provide any direct logistical support unless it provides that same logistical support for all such groups. All groups have to be treated the same way.

And did my post say anything contrary to that? There are not a lot of other organizations, that I am aware of, that hold large encampments that the Army could provide logistical support to, other the disaster relief. As I stated the Army / Guard probably gets as much benefit out of the practice as the BSA if not more. The taxpayers would scream if the Army were doing water purification only to dump it right back in the lake.

the flip side is that they do not get money or free access to things that are paid for out of government funds

Last time I checked the BSA is using its own funds. Corporate and private donations and fund raisers. It may have changed at some point but as far as I know at the

local level that is still true. show me where the Government is giving any funding to the BSA.

Look--it is people like you who insisted that no federal money be used for abortions--and it isn't

Put your broad brush down. NO WHERE did I ever state that I supported or insisted the fed NOT provide money for abortions. Here's a twist for you though.. I am Pro Choice, anti abortion. In otherwords I feel it is up to the two individuals to decide what is best for everyone involved. Much like the entire debate here you stay out of MY bedroom and I will stay out of yours. I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control but do see a need for it to remain legal and that may require some federal monies as abortions like all health care are not cheap or free.

Many other youth organizations have chosen not to discriminate so that they can continue to get "sweetheart" deals from the local government.

Not sure just what "sweet heart" deals you are speaking about. If you are referring to tax breaks provided to 501c3 organizations go talk to the IRS. Last I checked BSA was required to comply with ALL federal and local ordinances including EPA and building permits. Perhaps you can provide some non tax/501 "deals" to discuss?

That's the law, and Boy Scouts are supposed to be law-abiding, you know.

so far all I see is typical hit and run troll trawling with no evidence or even attempts at examples. Show us where the BSA is breaking the law directly and not by innuendo. Actual law breaking perhaps even covered under RICO?

Look--it is people like you who insisted that no federal money be used for abortions--and it isn't. There is a law against it, and there it is. But, the other side of the coin is that no taxpayer money or publicly owned land or facilities may be used for the purposes of a private organization unless all private organizations get exactly the same access at exactly the same cost.

Wrong, our tax money IS being used for abortions.. Want me to elaborate ?

Wrong, our tax money IS being used for abortions.. Want me to elaborate ?

and how is that relevant?

Iseeconfusedpeople

Wrong, our tax money IS being used for abortions.. Want me to elaborate ?

and how is that relevant?

You would have to ask beanathome the relevance. They brought up the topic in #2.59 - Sat Jun 2, 2012 9:35 PM EDT I believe.

Iseeconfusedpeople

Wrong, our tax money IS being used for abortions.. Want me to elaborate ?

and how is that relevant?

The reference to it in post 2.59 and if you google Obamacare and tax money used for abortions there are plenty of articles that talk about.

I would like to see the "scientific" proof that being gay is anything other then a choice...I do not believe it exists...the choice to be gay stems from social situations and upbringing (abuse typically)...although gays make that choice they should never be hated but in the same vein there should not be any backlash from groups that believe that chosen behavior is immoral... anyway the Georgia golf club that hosts the Masters does not permit women members - how is that any different?

happy, it's not. ...and it would be just as acceptable for women to ask for that policy to be changed.

Same here. My husband and I have argued about this with our son.

I respect your choice to support their stance, but do not try to force your religeous belief on me.

Why not? You're trying to force your social beliefs on the Boy Scouts.

Swalkenshaw, I respect your personal choice to oppose their stance, but do not try to force your societal belief on the scouts.

Why shouldn't we put pressure on the scouts to change their social stance? They don't have to, and the pressure we apply is not any kind of threat.

My kids won't be scouts, and I won't participate in fund raising with the scouts unless they change policies. They can do as they wish, but eventually it will behoove them to change their stance to increase membership and for financial reasons as people like me become the majority.

Mevster, I don't think I said anything about forcing my beliefs on the scouts. I just will not support them because I do not believe in discrimination.

Regardless of what people say or do, there are gay people in the Boy Scouts and always will be,

Looking forward to when they are known as The Scouts as in other countries and let girls in to and not as teh Boy Scouts do today, letting them join as "Venturers".

I too agree with their stance. For the same reason you won't support BSA, I won't support GSA. That's the beauty of America. We have the freedom to do that.

I don't support the scouts, they're a lot of organizations I don't support. I will never waste a dime on popcorn, cookies or anything else they sale. Now 4-H on the other hand, I donate to the local troups pretty regularly.

I say AMEN to that daryl. Tax them till they cant afford to spew there hate anymore and the same goes for the church!

As a liberal father, my opinion is that since boy scouts are private they can do whatever they like and the gay community can protest all they want, being gay does not mean you are right, there sre 2 sides and the winner is the private organization of the boy scouts

daryl - I just love how people like you, who are obviously "decent human beings" and "moral citizens" change your tune so quickly when you run up against something with which you disagree. What freaks are you refering to? The Scouts? Non-gays? Conservatives? And how is your money being used to support religious hate? The BSA are a private group (like thousands of others) that can do pretty much as it pleases. It does not get federal and state funding, because, hang on now, they ARE A PRIVATE GROUP. How do you fairly tax BSA properties? There is no federal property tax (yet) - unless you consider the inheritance tax which only applies to - wait for it - the WEALTHY. So, basically you are just ranting on about something that you know nothing about spewing statements that make no sense. And that's how this country got into the mess it's in.

PRAISE GOD for your stance. Our children don't have time, (or money) to pour into the continuing discrimination to deny/protect Gays from their rights. The over 50 bigots are slowly dying off, and the younger generation, KNOW, Gays are BORN Gay!

These hateful individuals will continue to spew their discrimination, condemnation, and crucifixion to others, till they realize their OWN Gay children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are on the verge of suicide. Righteous and proud.

What one sows, so shall they reap.

Private Groups are allowed by law to set their own standards. Ms. Tyrrell can organize her own group and set those standards. As far as using PUBLIC SPACES, tax payers are allowed to use the PUBLIC SPACES that their tax dollars support. If one chooses to allow their kids to join any group, they know up front what the standards are for joining. If you don't agree with those standards don't join. I don't believe that a majority of Mothers would agree to knowingly having a Lesbian in charge of their children on Outdoor trips for days and sometimes weeks at a time. But don't knock ANY GROUP because they don't meet your standards. If you don agree, stay away and go somewhere else. Ms. Tyrell could take the time and work to create a group that will meet her standards instead of trying to change something and causing problems for a group that has been doing a GREAT JOB for over 100 years. I wouldn't change anything just because Ms. Tyrrell is told "No".

Privately owned and funded organizations can be bigots if they want and discrimate if they want. Hell, there are plenty of those already.

That is their right.

But what right they absolutely do not have is immunity from criticism and public pressure.

Oh Boy! Here we go again, the gays are feeling left out! Go start your own private gay troop then. And Steven it hasn't been proven one way or the other that all gays are born gay. Any way ,stop trying to be included in everything for your own stance and go start something you can call your own!

If people want to support the BSA as they are, they should have that right, just as the people who do not like their policies do not have to support them. If people take exception to the policies, they should start their own organization...one open to all!

I'm sure they will get by just fine without "gay" support. If they "gays" want to have a "gay" boy scout group, Im sure if its that important, they can make their own, that way straight people wont have to deal with "gay" pressure. The whole "whoa is me I'm gay" thing is getting a little old. gives a whole new meaning to "F" troop.

Gays are not born gays, what nonsense is that, get over your excuse of not living a normal life.

Certainly being gay is not normal, get that straight and if your going to compare normal to animals behavior then maybe you have not evolved enough, so you go live with the animals.

this goes to prove that gay parents produces more gay children, and showing them its alright to have sex with the same gender.

Its okay to love someone, but NOT MAKE LOVE TO THEM!

I agree why dont they start their own group if they want to be INCLUDED!! I mean seriously you have enough gay people out there, to start one.

The Boy Scouts shouldn't have to be forced to include gay boys, they should want to include them. They are being cruel to discriminate against boys just because of their innate sexual orientation.

So a private organization making decisions on who can and can't be included? How dare they.

I am not sure if it is or isn't a good idea, but I support their right to discriminate.

Do they allow boy scouts that smoke?

Whatever else is said, the BSA is a private organization with the freedom to operate according to their beliefs and free to include/exclude whomever they wish. Some may not like it but the larger issue of forcing such compliance on private organizations is unconstitutional.

The liberal/left/progressives will now consult their book of Political Correctmess and reference the chapter listing acceptable slurs.

Ignorance is NOt bliss- despite the popular saying. Ignorance is purely prejudice in this instance. for years, religious people said there was no homosexuality among animals and therefore it could not be part of humnan make up. Since then- hundreds of bisexual and homosexual species have been identified. If you believe in God, then God made homosexuality. If you believe in evolution, homosexuality is natural. either way- Homosexuality is normal. Mister Whoops- gay + gay does not = Gay, only acceptance.

I don't have the science to back up one side or the other, but I think it's actually very reasonable to believe that sexual preference is programmed in at birth. Just in a casual observation of my children and their friends, there were always a couple that you just kind of knew from pre-school days were different. Later in high school or college it was no surprise to anyone when they "came out". It's difficult to imagine that anyone would actually choose the ridicule and hate spewed toward them for being gay.

JoeB-460595

If one chooses to allow their kids to join any group, they know up front what the standards are for joining. If you don't agree with those standards don't join.

Excellent post JoeB! This is America. We have the right of choice--do not take that away. The government has already taken most of the rights of the American citizens away.

I'm really tired of the gay stance. If you don't want others to force their beliefs on you, then don't do it to others.

The whole gay thing is getting old. Despite what the gay community wants to believe, people still have a sense of what's right and wrong and not many people will tell the gay community to their face what a big load of bullies they are!

To all gay men and women: You are not a minority. So get over it!

As a former Eagle Scout I resent a lot of the comments here. My particular troop was indeed inclusive despite many of the members being devoted baptists. We even held our meetings at a local Christian church because they practiced good Christian principles and allowed us to use their space for free since we are responsible, always clean up after ourselves, and gave back to the church by improving and performing controlled burns on the grounds. And get this: I'm an atheist and no one cared.

Boy scouts taught me many useful skills (believe it or not merit badges aren't popular among the members are are usually avoided except when they are required to advance) and many positive character traits such as HARD WORK, GIVING, HELPING THE LESS FORTUNATE (IN WAYS BESIDES TEXTING 77883 TO DONATE 2 BUCKS TO MALARIA) and an APPRECIATION OF NATURE. These things are a part of me and I am a far better person for my experiences in the scouts. The best part: I was never taught, and don't, "hate" anyone be they gay, straight, black, white, purple, man, woman or child. As a matter of fact I was taught the opposite.. Hate and discrimination is not something the organization teaches and the number of bigots within it is very small and decreasing just like every other organization and society as a whole.

The BSA certainly isn't a "prep course for the KKK" as someone suggested, or only somewhere for pedophiles to get their kicks (these two accusations don't even make sense next to each other) or any number of absurd things i've seen here. You've no idea what Scouting is truly about and even though I already feel sorry for how dumb you are, I still would like to tell those of you saying these things to @!$%# off.

Boy scouts, though they have a right to discriminate, for the most part DO NOT. Having said everything above, however, I do wish they'd make it their official policy NOT to. It does sadden me to see one of the few truly virtuous organizations being dragged down by a few bigots who have weaseled their way to the top of it.

Bob in LA - first I will point out I have ZERO problem with Gay people, I actually have a few close friends that are gay.

But as I like to tell them they are NOT Normal by definition (see below) but that doesn't make them bad.

But for christ's sake lets not change the meaning of words to make ourselves free good about ourselves.

nor·mal/ˈnôrməl/

Adjective:

Conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected.

Noun:

The usual, average, or typical state or condition.

Capitalismkillsbirthrates - actually, there is. There are a number of religious medals awarded by the Boy Scouts. Note that they're at least nondiscriminatory on which religions have awardable medals. I never saw any of them awarded before or after I made Eagle, but they were definitely still being given out.

Tom -Plymouth:

Whatever you call them, gays are not homosexual by choice. If you feel comfortable discriminating against someone who is black, female, short, tall, red-headed, autistic, etc., then go ahead and discriminate against gays. None of these are by choice. (by the way, smoking is a CHOICE, why is it so difficult to understand the difference?)

My kids won't be scouts, and I won't participate in fund raising with the scouts unless they change policies. They can do as they wish, but eventually it will behoove them to change their stance to increase membership and for financial reasons as people like me become the majority.

I feel the same way about the Girl Scouts. My kids will not be in them because they tend to partner with Planned Parenthood. Do I feel bad? No! Do I think my girls can get the same knowledge somewhere else? Of course they can.

This Comment is going to get pounced all over but this is my personnel experience and I wish to voice it. I have several friends that are Gay. Out of the several Gay people that I am friends with 3 were sexually abused at a very young age. All three of these individuals also date very young men. These guys range from 28-45 and the constantly date 18-19 year old men. My fear is that allowing Homosexuals to serve in the scouts opens up liability if there is ever a molestation.

JK - being Gay is a choice. You are born male or female and that's it. Gay people cannot reproduce more gay people. Doesn't happen. Defies Nature.

being gay isnt a choice, its a birthdefect from mothers drinking/smoking crack while the baby is in the womb.

Honestly it doesn't even matter how people are gay. It matters even less than if they are gay.

It's a private organization and it is allowed to do what it wants as the Supreme Court has already ruled. There are many clubs in this country that don't allow certain genders in. Augusta Golf Club for one. Don't see any women crying because they can't get in. Women's colleges like Smith and Wellesley, historically black colleges like Spelman, the Girl Scouts of America, the Junior League, fraternities and sororities and the list goes on. Get over it people...

Well, surprise surprise, the gay rights group wants to bully someone else. Thats what they always do, bully. They want to force everyone else to accept them even if they have religious or scientific beliefs that say not to. They want to force everyone else to agree with them, not ask, force. We shouldnt HAVE to accept gays into every single group in the country because that takes totally away the rights of anyone that doesnt agree or accept it. I dont believe in bullying gays or mistreating them, but they sure like to bully me and its getting old. Why dont they simply make a gay scouts of america. Call it whatever you want then this wont be an issue to begin with. But no, you want to force the boy scouts to submit to your selfish discriminating will. Not one single organization has the right to not agree with you without your bullying. I'm going to find out how to donate to boy scouts and donate simply because they didnt change. I dont care if all I can donate is one dollar.

I used to support gay rights, until I woke up and realized gay rights means overriding, and overruling everyone elses rights. Now I am anti gay rights. Im not anti gay, I wont tolerate anyone abusing someone for being gay, or mistreating them for it, but gay rights and gays are not the same thing. I now know many anti gay rights people that are gay or bi, because they agree with me. The gay rights movement has become a bully everyone else movement. What they are going to do is cause tons of resentment. There will always be people who dont think gay is ok, but that doesnt mean we who disagree hate anyone gay or want them to suffer or hurt. One of my best friends is bi, and another is a lesbian, both hate the gay rights movement and things like this. This is simply bullying and everyone knows it. If it was reversed would it be ok? Make the gay rights movement support things that are anti gay?? No that would be wrong and so is this.

Being GAY is a birth defect like downs syndrome.. i hope we find a cure to these problems soon.. what what in the butt.

How do gay rights overrule ANYONE ELSE'S rights, Turin?

Justin-293850 the simple fact that 3 of your friends were sexually abused a very young age is indeed terrible. I do not understand why you equate this with the fact that they constantly date 18-19 year old men. Are you trying to imply that because they were sexually abused that they are looking for young children to do the same thing to? Face it, even if one of them is 55 years old, as you stated they date 18-19 year old men which is of legal age.

Simple Toasty, if I were an organization like for example BSA and I didnt condone or promote gay rights then they will bully, harass or whatever until my rights dont exist. Bullying is a really recognized issue today much more than it was in the past, but somehow if it is the gay rights doing it its acceptable?? How is that. If I dont agree or my organization doesnt isnt that our "right" not to. Yes unless it is against gay rights. Then we dont have that right anymore or this topic wouldnt have even existed. It should have been oh the BSA doesnt support gay rights and thats that lets make our own group and then this wont matter. No it has to be harass them and bully them until they are FORCED to adhere to our ways and only our ways.

Yes Turin explain.Can you be fired for being straight in this country? No you cant, But you can be fired for being gay!Oh my rights as a straight person are being tread on PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!

I am also going to say this Toasty. I've read some of your replies before and dont know if you can even accept what I am going to say but I will try. Read some of the things people are saying. Some are stupid homophobe statements that are simply hateful, but many are ones that are responding to the feeling bullied situation. Then consider this statement. The one bullying NEVER considers themselves the bully. They always have an excuse. However many non homophobes that dont agree with homosexuality are feeling bullied and its already started causing resentment. I hear it all the time. First of all simply calling someone a homophobe because they dont agree with being gay is wrong. Its name calling just like any other. And an excuse to use it is still an excuse. Second, trying to force people to watch gay acts in movies, listen to it in songs. I am not gay and will not watch a movie if it has it in it. At the same time, I dont run from gay couples if i see them. It is their life and choice. I have even tried very hard to give relationship advice to someone I know that is gay. I dont hate her or even dislike her. Honestly I like her very much, she is a nice person. But that doesnt mean that by my religious beliefs or what I consider sound scientific beliefs I agree with her lifestyle. I dont have to. Now when it is my lifestyle I want the same consideration, but I never get it. If I vote for something like no gay marriage I'm evil or cruel, but if they vote for it (against my beliefs) why arent they equally cruel? Its unbalanced. I dont believe in gay marriage, but I do believe in partners rights. I honestly cant see why that isnt good enough that I try to meet halfway, but thats what I mean by gay rights bullying. They want to basically eliminate all those that disagree with them. Im quite sure many would outright genocide (or race, religion or whatever group) anyone that didnt if they had the power.

JK - "Whatever you call them"

Is Gay not an acceptable term anymore? Or did you think I called them something else?

" If you feel comfortable discriminating against someone who is black, female, short, tall, red-headed, autistic, etc., "

I fell comfortable allowing private organizations to discriminate as they wish.

"(by the way, smoking is a CHOICE, why is it so difficult to understand the difference?)"

I just asked a question wondering if they happen to discriminate against other groups.

But I see you are perfectly OK with discriminating against certain groups you don't find worthy. Which makes you a hypocrite.

Juststarting you are being a good example. You ignore all the other things I said and only replied to the one you wanted. I dont agree with firing someone for being gay anymore than I would for being straight. That being said I dont think that someone being gay hiding it to get a job in a church, or organization that makes its stance clear as anti gay has a right to a job there anymore than anyone that is anti gay should be working within a gays only or gays rights organization or group. Its not for discrimination its simply a conflict of interests. I dont know where your getting your information anyway, we have clearly stated laws protecting someone from being fired for being gay and your odds of suing the company successfully is increased if you are gay because you can use that as why they fired you and probably win alot more easily. Happily most of the gays I know have more integrity than that garbage.

turin - that is because they believe tolerance to be a one way street, their way. I am not talking about Gays here, I am talking about hypocrites like JK and toasty.

The issue really isn't about whether the boy scouts "let in" boys that might be gay. The scouts provide a place for ALL adolescent & teenage boys to attend. Boys as young as 8-9 years old for cub scouts and then primarily 12 - 16 years old in boy scouts. I was a scout growing up, in a large troop in an pretty urban area. There were always boys moving in and out of all colors, nationalities, beliefs, and so forth along with a huge group of parents, leaders, and volunteers. Other than the normal teenage boy rowdiness, I don't ever remember anyone being singled out or bullied or leaders allowing it. I'm sure at least one or two of those boys I was in scouting with years ago ended up being gay, but since we were all so young and in a structured environment...none of us was publically focused on anyone's sexuality at 13 or 14 years old. Nor should we have been. That is not the focus of scouting. By the time a scout might realize he was gay...he'd likely be 15 or 16 anyway in high school. Most young men active in scouting can have their eagle scout earned by that age anyway. And activity for scouting pretty much ends by the time a teenager is a junior in high school. So there really wouldn't be any kind of prohibition against any boy from attending scouting...you just couldn't have a 13 or 14 year old boy telling everyone that he was an active homosexual at a summer campout with 20 other boys sleeping in tents together. THAT is a problem...just as it would be to have 20 hetrosexual teenage boys sleeping in tents with teenage girls. Scouting is not the proper place for that to be.

Those are discussions and issues that the scouting organization holds should be made in the home, around family, & friends. That is why they choose to not allow openly gay or lesbians to be leaders as well. They are a private charitable organization, and can choose who they will allow to be a leader as the courts have held is their right. Imagine the lawsuits if they hadn't adopted this stance and there were 10 or 12 highly publicized incidents involving improper activities from some openly gay leaders...not that those kinds of things don't already tragically happen, but in those cases the pedophiles try and hide thier sickness.

Think about the circus the media would create if a couple of openly gay scout leaders made a mistake? It could literally ruin it for nearly 3 million scouts throughout the U.S. Families would own the scouting organization if there were just a few incidents that did occur, an right wing radio would crucify and cripple scouting.

Lastly...just a dose of reality for you. Here is the reason why the scouts will never change this rule and allow openly gay or lesbians to be leaders, despite the efforts of this eagle scout from the story. Six of the top ten chartered organizations that support scouting in the U.S. are: 1. The LDS church or Mormons (by far the most troops & number of scouts), 2. The United Methodist Church, 3. The Catholic Church, 5. The Presbyterian Church, 6. Lutheranism, & 8. Baptists. These six Christian religious groups represent 1.45 million (more than half) of all scouts in the U.S. alone. Unless and until Christianity takes a 180 degree turn anytime in the near future regarding homosexuality, Boy Scouts of America is not going to alienate 6 of their top organizations with regards to support and fund raising. Not going to happen.

If the scouting organization changed its policy today and allowed openly gay leaders? My guess is that all churches would quietly and immediately withdraw all of their support, and start their own seperate youth scouting organizations independent of the B.S.A.

I might be wrong about this, but I don't think so. B.S.A. is not going to allow openly gay & lesbians to be leaders anytime soon...they know where they raise their money to operate and it isn't from LGBT organizations.

So the alternative for those more progressive citizens who don't like this stance from B.S.A.? Stop your complaining & start your own non-profit scouting-like organization.

Sorry Turin it took so long to reply but I'm WORKING and had to wait for a break.So where do I start you've given me so much to comment on.It's nice to know that you voted against gay marriage I'm sure you were around to vote against interracial marriage too.How about we vote on all marriages yours included?Lets see you say your not a bigot or a bully but you say "I would not watch a movie with that in it" Well if that's the case lets take ANY form of affection out of everything.Do you really think that gay people want to see you kissing your husband!Just because you base your whole world on a 2000 year old fairy tale does not mean that the rest of the world shares your view.People like you want to hide behind that book of yours and dictate what other people can and cant do.Sounds like bullying to me.And you said I don't believe in gay marriage but I do for partners rights.Sounds like you were around to vote for blacks having separate but equal accommodations but they better ride in the back of the bus.Your generation is SLOWLY dying off and the youth of today are far more intelligent when it comes to equal rights for ALL Americans!

It is discrimination, but they are private. BUT, I've seen the BSA use public areas for their events,etc. That's Your Tax Dollars. That must STOP. I'm not giving my taxes to support the BSA for their discrimination. I was a BS years ago, and later on found we had 2 gays in the troop. Didn't bother anyone.

Oh yea one more thing Turin remember way back when I'm sure you learned it in school about when your religion wanted to bully the whole population of Earth in to believing in things your way? Um what did they call that oh yea the Crusades! No tolerance or love there just a whole lot of killing people for not believing as they did. Don't even get me going on Hitler.

?????

First let me respond to Steven L., I am over 50 and I am not a bigot-so don't start stereotyping groups unless you know every person over the age of 50! I know plenty of people in my age group who accept all races and we have gay friends, we even have friends in bi-racial marriages!

Now as to BSA, I don't believe it was the scout that was "gay" it was the troop leader. Did they think "she" was going to sleep with all those young men?? Come on, what was she going to do to "warp their minds?" They need to accept the facts, homosexual people DO NOT try to turn everyone around them homosexual! And children of homosexuals are not automatically going to be homosexual! It is not a learned trait, it is something you are born with. You cannot choose your sexual orientation any more than you can choose the color of your skin, hair or eyes!

I choose to raise my children to accept all people for who they are, to look for the good in people. Never look at the cover and assume the book will be bad or boring-you could lose a lot if you don't open and explore the friendship within.

I love how all the comments that are liberal minded and against the exclusion are being collapsed "by the community" because all the Christian Inbreeds are hammering the report button. I suppose there's no such thing as civil discourse in the Halls of the Hallowed, more "beat them in the face with the Bible till they shut up".

As for my stance? Well, they take Public Funding, I believe that revokes their right to be a private organization. But hey, what do I know, I'm using common sense, and there ain't no room for that stuff here on the interbutt...

Still waiting on an actual answer.

...but why do you feel the need to exclude homosexuals in the first place? Does their lifestyle actually affect you at all, or is this really more of an ingroup/outgroup thing?

caseyjane

...but why do you feel the need to exclude homosexuals in the first place? Does their lifestyle actually affect you at all, or is this really more of an ingroup/outgroup thing?

You are responder 64 in THIS sub thread... it would be really helpful if you would indicate WHICH comment you are replying to.... That said

This THREAD/Article was/is about the BSA, a private entity, with a set of beliefs, standards, and values that see homosexual activity as offensive. Those values were derived from moral values of the Church. As I stated in a previous comment you are essentially asking a vegan to eat meat. That would be in direct opposition to what they value. Would you ask the cattlman association to give up beef? Do you think the cattleman would swear off beef, for life, to join the vegan society?

This is no different than a nun swearing to celibacy to join a convent. No one is REQUIRED to join a convent. If they CHOOSE to do so they have to conform to the values and policies of the convent. If one wants to join the Lions they have to conform to the values of that entity. Why would one want to join an organization that is in direct opposition to what their own values are?

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-01-13/living/living_girl-scout-boycott_1_gsusa-cookie-boycott-troop-leader?_s=PM:LIVING

They've been quite a bit more progressive than the BSA

I wish this were a national policy. The local troop where we are is basically a church with merit badges. They are a hateful bunch. It's a shame, because I think my kids would really like it.

The Girl Scouts believe in a fully diverse organization, including all girls, from all types of families.

Speculator, GSA has no national policy on this issue. Their statement is that they do not discriminate and sexual orientation is not an issue and it is not to be discussed during scouting events. Some local groups have welcomed openly gay mothers and openly gay girls, but some have asked members to leave if they announce their sexual identity. Mothers have been asked to leave in some areas if they mention a gay partner, even in passing.

Look into other youth service groups. Most of the others have national policies against discrimination. 4-H is a good one, Campfire Girls and Boys, and others, too have non-discrimination policies.

goldpointe, I was going to make the same point. There are other youth organizations who moved past this issue long ago. I do have a correction, though. It is actually Camp Fire USA (two words, not one, and the girls and boys part was changed a number of years ago). Camp Fire was a great organization for our girls and our family. My husband and I were both involved with their activities and I liked it that it was open to all. The discussions we had were as a family, not in the club meetings. The sexual orientation of others was just not an issue.

I also thought it was more beneficial for our daughters to be in a co-ed group. Because they were in a club with boys or participated at day camp and residence camp with boys and girls, boys weren't so mysterious. They were real people and real friends.

Every family needs to do what works best for them. But I do think it is sad that an organization as prominant as the Boy Scouts has made such an issue of something that continues to give them such bad press. It makes them look out of touch with the rest of society. Eventually their old fashioned stance will cause them to become irrelevant and obsolete.

I really do not understand the problem. If the BSA do not wish to incorporate the gay life style in their program(a private program) dont support them. That simple

One of my closest friends and her girlfriend helped raise all 3 of my children but never felt it was their responsibility to define their relationship with each other to my children. My youngest is now 19 and understands their relationship and has no problems. These ladies knew the stance of BSA but chose to get involved anyway and now they seem to be shocked. Reminds me of the gay softball team that had their gay tournament trophy taken away because too many straight men on the team

Eng " I wish this were a national policy."

Yes that of course is what we need more government to force people to believe and act as you do.

You have to love how others will give up your freedoms so they can force you believe as they do.

F'N Lovely!

Lord knows, Tom, no one is forcing you to do anything. When the comment was made about a "national policy" it was meant that some organizations should have a nationwide policy, not different policies in different areas of the country. National does not equal government. Try thinking a little harder, but don't hurt yourself doing it.

Girl Scouts don't have a national policy against anyone based on their sexuality.

bobber, thanks for worrying about my personal well being, but with the way Eng stated it, they want some policy to be national with what they agree with.

America is so backwards about sex. These kids just want to be scouts. Scouting has so many good parts to it, it is a shame they can't understand about sex. I had a friend who was a high school exchange student to Denmark, she would go to the movies with her Danish friends while watching a graphic sex scene she would avert her eyes, same as the other American students with them, until the scene passed, but it would not bother her Danish friends, when a scene of graphic violence would occur her Danish friends would avert their eyes, but it wouldn't bother her. So violence is okay in America, but sex is not. Why is there so much killing in our cities, so much bloodshed, so many random acts of violence? Because people like it, the good guy shoots up the bad guy!! Lots of dead people, lots of guns, lots of NRA bs, America, tis of thee. But don't go after the guns or the gangs, or ammo, go after the gay scout leader because she wants her kids to be in the scouting program.

The Girl Scots are not as conservative. They are open to the alternative lifestyle community. I've personally seen GSA publications where (some troups) teach girls tolerance regarding the alternative lifestyle, they also teach about sexuality, masturbation as a means of remaining celibate, abortion or adoption when a unplanned pregnancy occurs. It's touted as empowering women with choices.

You have to love how others will give up your freedoms so they can force you believe as they do.

sort of like that jacka$$ preacher in NC that wants to "fence off all the gays and lesbians"?

of course the bit about this lesbian mother having a son kind of blows holes in that idiots idea that "they will just die off" now, doesn't it?

The boy scouts here are very well respected, active and provide American society with young men of all nationalities and skin colors who will do well in life.

I can find not one parent of any stripe who would allow their teen to travel to Piedmont or any other scout adventure if one or more of the adults were a homosexual. Just too risky.

This past Monday at the Memorial Day cemetery ceremony, scouts provided the uniformed presence. I do hope that they do not have to soon provide our uniformed presence in Iran or other neo-con scheduled conquests for democracy in the middle east.

Barlow @ 5.14, so not giving in to the demands of homosexuals makes us backwards and ignorant about sex. If you look at history you'll find all kinds of "forward" thinking empires and you'll notice that as the morals of the society were tossed out the empire falls. Homosexual behavior is not "forward" it is deviant.

you'll notice that as the morals of the society were tossed out the empire falls.

Sure, those societies "tossed out" their morals -- and embraced Christianity. After THAT, those empires fell.

From the article:

"It’s really, I think, a very positive step in the right direction,” said Wahls, 20, of Iowa City, Iowa, who became known nationally after speaking before his home state's legislature in 2011 about having gay parents. "We’re not trying to force the Boy Scouts of America to change its policy, we want the Boy Scouts to change of its own volition.”

The boy Scouts are not in Violation of anything. They have the right to do what they want. Here is yet another double standard america tries to set. They are trying to force their views down the throats of people who have their set of standards.

In was in another article that was talking about gay marriage, a commenter who was for gay marriage said, " you dont like gay marriage ? then dont attend one, and youll be fine. " Well I have the same thing to say, You dont care for the Scouts not wanting gays in it ? Then dont be part of the organization if your gay.. See its that simple.

Stop trying to force feed people to believe in something they dont want to be part of. I hope when they are done in florida they come out from the meeting and say, we appreciate the petitions and understand your opinions, but we feel that our standards are strong and we wish to stand by what we feel our standard is. But no the Gay agenda will keep getting pushed and forced down our throats. All they are doing is making people more mad, because your trying to force people to believe in something that dont want to. Move on and let this one go.

this is also to keep the PEDOFILES out of the scouting program praying on your children... Scouts want to be sure the boys are safe and that SEX isn't a part of the program for any boy. Why is that so hard for people? Scouting shouldn't be about that.

kath63-154o355 Most of the pedophiles (males) are heterosexuals, or pretending to be, so how would an anti-gay policy protect boys?

At the same time, I have to say, if you do not like the policies of the BSA, then don't join them!

Always an Opinion says:

"The Girl Scots are not as conservative. They are open to the alternative lifestyle community. I've personally seen GSA publications where (some troups) teach girls tolerance regarding the alternative lifestyle, they also teach about sexuality, masturbation as a means of remaining celibate, abortion or adoption when a unplanned pregnancy occurs. It's touted as empowering women with choices."

I am a trainer for Girl Scouts, and a district level volunteer for Boy Scouts, and I appreciate you qualifying in your post that its some Girl Scout troops and not national programming for GSUSA! Thank you!

People so often think BSA and GSUSA are the same in how they are organized and its not the case! Both programs are good programs - they just approach things very differently. Boy Scouts has a very rigid curriculum for rank advancements that is set by the national office that tend to define a youth's experiences in the program; whereas Girl Scouts doesn't use ranks, just program levels (as girls in various grades have different developmental needs) that have recognitions a girl can earn should she so choose, but do not define her experience in the program as successful or not in the eyes of others.

Another big difference in the two programs is how they approach social issues/community involvement. BSA uses ranks and advancement within the unit and for Eagle rank you go outside of your unit and coordinate a project that benefits the greater community. along the say service projects are encouraged. GSUSA has participating in and organizing projects that benefit/educate a girl's community built into virtually all recognition in all program levels.

Because of this, and that Girl Scouts does not have outside organizations chartering (ie owns, similar to a franchise system) units - GSUSA's program framework allows the girls to set the program (with adults support/mentoring) according to their interests as long as the rules and regulations (mainly they are safety guidelines) of GSUSA are upheld. Girl Scout Troops are not owned by any other organization than Girl Scouts. The charter system BSA uses gives ownership of units to chartering organizations instead of ownership being purely that of BSA. Its a very interesting dynamic, and one often overlooked by the media.

This has BSA's national office, and councils, having to balance the input on programming and policy decisions for the organization with those of the chartering organizations wishes - which on a national level do impact BSA's policies, as it allows for churches or other chartering organizations to (in essence) approach this particular issue (but others as well) with an attitude of 'if you decide <insert policy here>, we will no longer charter any units.' That could be devastating to BSA's membership #s, as they measure not only the # of registered youth and adults, but the number of units chartered. Every year they want both #s to grow as part of showing success in their metrics.

The BSA is heavily Mormon influenced organization today. The BSA is a "franchise" organization and Mormons have made the BSA a part of their religious training program and own many troops. The loss of this huge number of troops would be a devastating blow to the BSA.

The LDS opposition to gays is well known. They pushed through Prop 8 in California and the BSA is not going to suffer the blow of their leaving, which would happen if the BSA became a "gay friendly" organization.

What none of you seem to understand is that the Boy Scouts of America has always been a christian organization. They teach scouting and Christian values. How can an organization that teaches christian values allow gays and lesbians in leadership positions when that goes against their christian values. This is the stand that the BSA has always taken and this is why it was upheld by the Supreme Court the first time. Why would a gay or lesbian person want their children to be taught by christian organization in the first place? Seems that would be antiproductive doesnt it?

blondeness032

kath63-154o355 Most of the pedophiles (males) are heterosexuals, or pretending to be, so how would an anti-gay policy protect boys?

At the same time, I have to say, if you do not like the policies of the BSA, then don't join them!

There are also gays who are pedophiles. If you want to compare numbers, then dont look at how many total gay pedos there are vs how many hetero pedos. The comparison would not be fair because gay community is like 2 % of the population. So if you were to compare how much of a % of pedos is in the gay community, vs % of pedos in hetero community , then that would be a good comparison. Both parties are guilty of acts of pedophilia

Wow, Jerry-1927474- I also noted your comment above: "No homosexuals in the boy or girl scouts,period the day they allow this I take my girls and my son out, period"

Sounds like you'll be raising well-rounded, open-minded and accepting citizens... oh, wait. Scratch that.

Maybe you should enlist your kids in the militia instead? Sounds more up your alley, judging by your comments on this article.

So what you are saying is that what you believe is OK but what I believe is not. That is just one of the reasons why I do not want my children around them.

In other words Jerry,you're teaching your children to hate anyone whose sexual orientation is different than theirs. Can't say I think much of you as a parent.

Jerry, maybe I can help you out. Being gay is NOT something you believe in, its something you either are or aren't. Much like being straight, the body is programmed to feel that way. Hating someone because they are gay is no different that hating someone because they are black.

Now you might say, that I must accept pedophiles or people into animals (as so many with your point of view like to point out). However, comparing those has a major flaw. Animals have no say in what they are attracted to, and at that point your essential raping the animal. Same goes for people into kids, the kids lack the mental growth to properly think and decide on there own. I cannot and will not tolerate any form of rape. However, two gay CONSENTING adults, I can tolerate.

What I was trying to say,Stanfrombrooklyn, thanks for putting it so well!

Back in the 70s and 80s there was a big issue with scout masters fondling little boys. Now days we have issues not only with male teachers ... but female teachers molesting young ladies and boys! The BSA has gone out of there way to protect the young men from sexual preditors and people are whining about it. Is anyone considering the young man who is being placed in front of the nation because mommy & mommy are trying to make a point. If I was a young eagle scout and my parents were trying to make a point because they are gay and pushing their gay agenda .... please transfer me to another school!

I do not care how butch you are you can never be a father and a father can never be replaced

Well said, Stan.

By the way those of you who are responding to Jerry are just as dumb as he is for responding to him.

The BSA has gone out of there way to protect the young men from sexual preditors and people are whining about it. Is anyone considering the young man who is being placed in front of the nation because mommy & mommy are trying to make a point.

Fred from Texas1 good for the BSA for going out of their way to protect young men from sexual preditors. That is the way that it should be. Nowhere does it state that people are "whining about that" as you put it. What does that have to do with homosexuals? Surely you are not equating the two, for if you are you are not only showing your ignorance, but that you are a huge a**hole as well. As another sign of what an ignorant piece of flesh you are, the young man you are referring to is not "being placed in front of the nation yadda, yadda, yadda . . . " but has placed himself there. You see, it is called standing up for the rights of others that you know are being unjustly discriminated against. Kind of like when white people drove to Selma, Alabama to march with black protestors. Of course, we can only assume that you have always been on the other side of that civil right movement as well. Your prejudice and bigotry show through your words loud and clear.

Jerry, the great thing about that is that you sould be CHOOSING to not be in scouts. Why is it that the whole "what you believe is OK but what I believe is not" argument always seems to be a one-way street? I am totally fine with you hating gay people. I mean, it sucks, but I'm not going to get in your way. I just don't see why your hatred should keep them out of scouts.

I have absolutely no problem with gay people. None whats-so-ever. Who a person wants to love or @!$%# is absolutely none of my business. Period.

However, sorry, but the Scouts is not the place to be discusiing your sexuality, whatever it may be. And I am a Scout, believe it or not. I am the Outdoor Chairman for one of the largest Troops here in Palm beach County. We have 38 full time participating Scouts, two of which are mine.

We have a ZERO TOLERANCE Policy for any sexual discussion between Leaders and Scouts. Period. An adult leader is not to discuss his/her sexual preferences or practices with a Scout, under any circumstances. Nor is any adult ever allowed to be alone with a Scout, unless it is their own child.

As I said, I personally have no problem with Gay people. Their no different than I am. They just like different plumbing. :) But the Scouts is not the place to be pushing your personal lifestyle. Not mine as a straight man and not these Ladies as Lesbians.

The bottom line is, BSA is a private organization and they have their Policies. You have the choice to either support them or to not support them. I choose to support them, even though I do not necessarily believe in all of their Policies or Rules. Nobody or no organization is perfect. Overall, the BSA still get's most things right and their hearts do tend to be in the right place.....

I have to say that I agree the BSA does need to be more tolerant of others or they loose their relevancy to the world around them. Since they already have a policy of two-deep leadership (this means that no adult leader should ever be alone with a scout not their own child) they have the protection designed into their program already to prevent abuse. The BSA troop I was involved with had Co-Scout Masters who were lesbian partners because no one else wanted the responsibility. It was never an issue and our troop eventually got Male leadership several years later and we went on to train up 4 or 5 Eagle scouts, the first ones in almost 20 years for that troop. However being in a large city where the outdoors isn't as "exciting" it is no longer an existing troop. That was a shame because it had been around for many, many years.

Best of luck to you as you respectfully request this change!

Fred from Texas must have missed the YEARS long, still going lawsuit of parents trying to get a look at the Private for BSA only blacklist of pedophiles. MEN who have been a PART of BSA and been found acting out on their sexual appetites on underage boys, but whom the BSA felt didn't need to reported to the cops. Remember the BTK killer,Rader, was a cub scout leader. A lot of men who identify as hetero (they don't want to be penetrated by a penis, they want to penetrate) don't care on the sex of their victim, and girls are more likely to tell then boys, especially with the male notion of the victim "wanted" it. BSA protects the national adult males fist, then local males, the adult females who make a lot of noise. Children and quiet "well behaved" women come definitely at the end. So say I, a former BSA adult female leader who often was literally ill at hearing my male co-leaders discussing drinking and adulterous sex and drug use (as a fun thing) where the boys could hear. When you report them, all you get back is "we'll talk to <insert name>." Well, at least they fit in with the church leaders having affairs and of-age boys as sexual traveling companions

Boys Scouts do not need to change I am sick of you people saying others should change if you do not like it don't go their They did not tell you to change so stop your crying and leave others a lone we wont bother you you don't bother us it is that simple

If someone is colored, they are born that way. if they are gay, they made the choice to be.

if they are gay, they made the choice to be

WRONG. Sexual orientation is inborn, just like race is inborn.

Unless you can tell us when you chose to be straight?

the scouts talk about helping Americans..... serving with honor...... doing the right thing..... every meeting i've been to talks about inclussion, no bullying... how to be polite, how to become men of honor... well BSA...local charters.. here is your oppertunity to stand up with honor...and say... we accept a loving mother willing to give her time that 99.9% of other parents wouldn't do! Now is the time to say, we will fight againt injustice... and this is injustice. Now as a private organization, they have the right to make their own rules just the same as the KKK does. But every meeting i've been to talks about honor.... where is the honor in releasing a loving mother willing to put in the time the most of you do NOT do.

As stated by someone earlier I believe that the BSA as a private organisation has a right to make its own rules and stick to them. As an individual straight, gay or bi you have the right and responsibility to accept their rules and join them, or reject their rules and find another organisation who you agree with. As a parent I do not think my children should be exposed to anyone with a sexual agenda whether as a Scout leader or a fellow scout. This is definitely not the environment for them to learn about sexuality. I am tolerant of people of different sexual orientation and I believe that gays and lesbians need to be tolerant of straight persons. Tolerance and respect should be a two way street.

The BSA, as a private organization, simply has the fundamental right to not allow homosexuals into their organization in a leadership role. The Supreme Court upheld their right to do so. They will, of course, suffer the consequences of that choice but that's their cross to bear. There are many, in fact, who will look on them more favorably for maintaining a more traditional set of values.

On a related note, same-sex couples SHOULD be allowed to be married. The government SHOULD be required to issue them marriage permits on request and have a Justice of the Peace perform the ceremony when asked.

The other side of that coin is that religious groups SHOULD be allowed to NOT perform those ceremonies if they believe they are wrong. Hell, I know of many churches who won't perform a marriage if the couple comes from two different faiths, or if they have lived together before getting married. These churches are upholding their values and should be allowed to continue to do so. They simply do not have the right to legislate them, just LIVE them themselves, which proves difficult enough for the majority of them.

In truth, the number of religious people who "hate" homosexuals is extremely, VASTLY small. There are very few examples of groups or people like that Westboro guy (sp?). Most of them really, sincerely, try to live by the doctrine of loving the "sinner" while hating the "sin". Because they DON'T feel hatred they naturally stop listening the moment they're accused of hatred; it ends the debate and kills the conversation because it's not accurate and as inflammatory as a bigot accusing a homosexual of trying to "convert" straights to their lifestyle (which DOES very rarely happen, we've all seen in, the whole "try it you might like it" lines and belief that everyone is gay to one degree or another, but so rare an occurrence that it basically is an attack). Those outlying cases are there but are not the majority and people are too fond of arguing to really make any progress on this topic.

The fact remains, many people believe that homosexuality is a CHOICE. Hell, there are even some homosexuals who believe that it is a choice for some, not for others. Having someone state that it isn't won't end the belief. I think there is a lot of education that has to happen in the area of biology and sexual orientation as well as more studies. Unfortunately, these studies are often contradictory, non conclusive, and/or attacked by groups on both sides of the issues rather than accepted as, on the whole, contributing to the body of knowledge we have on the subject.

Is it genetics? Many twin studies suggest that it isn't, at least not without also a social component. Is it simply behavior, a choice? Many studies have shown the high number of homosexuals who exhibit gender non-conformity in their childhood, partaking in hobbies and/or activities which are not considered typical of their sex. Could it simply be environment coupled with fixation due to liking "gay" hobbies, as they're probably told? But, going back to genetics, there have been breakthroughs where scientists, as recently as 2010, were able to CHANGE, at will, the sexual preferences of mice simply by adding or subtracting the fucose mutarotase gene. These interesting studies need to continue for people to eventually understand how and why this occurs otherwise it simply won't be seen as a choice by a large segment of the population; a segment that might change its mind or shift their stance slightly should more non-conflicting evidence come to light.

Eh, too long. I guess it doesn't matter as no one will read this anyway, the comments being so long. :-)

@crazycorgi

"You see, it is called standing up for the rights of others that you know are being unjustly discriminated against"

Since when is it a right to join a private christian organization that doesnt even believe the same way as you do? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain your reasoning. Just because the title says Boys Scouts of America doesnt make it a government ran agency and doesnt give anyone the right to be a part of it. Get real people!

"such a me society" I do not think that means what you think it means.

"But now since I am straight & have beliefs I can't have them because it might offend someone." No one wants to take away your beliefs, they want your beliefs not to take away from others.

You are learning son, they are allowed to stomp on you but if you say anything against them you will go to jail.

Jerry how many times have you been jailed for saying something about gays, blacks, Catholics, Mormons, Jews.... Just a few that I know get discriminated against. I bet we can say never.

Very well said! Thank You

Believe whatever you want, dude! Nobody is stopping you. ...as long as you're not stopping somebody else. Keeping gay kids out of scouts is the equivalent of mking the Jehova's Witness stay for the Christmas party.

daryl and caseyjane you people are morons it has nothing to do with religion you gay people allways try and blame someone else for your life style you live your life and stay the hell out of others

Religion and bigotry are a choice, sexual orientation you are born with.

It's sad that BSA is becoming known mostly for their bigotry, when there's so much good about the org.

Most child molesters are heterosexual males. If the goal is to protect young boys from sexual predators, that's who they should bar.

a) not gay, just supportive.

b) nobody is blaming anyone for their own lifestyles. Nobody is to blame. They just want to be allowed to live their lives like anyone else.

ps: you don't know me. Don't call me a moron.

Amazing how liberals always want to PUSH their beliefs on everyone else

Couldn't you just as easily say the same for conservatives, or any political faction?

@ProBusiness

All conservatives want is our individual beliefs to be protected. If you want gays and lesbians to mentor teenage boys then start your OWN organization. If this is greatly supported by society your new group will be a success. If it is NOT supported then your new group will NOT be a success. But don't think you can FORCE the BSA to support YOUR belief that gays and lesbians should mentor OUR kids. You are welcome to YOUR views - just don't try to push YOUR views on us............

Sexual orientation is a non issue for leadership. I was in the BSA for around 8 years. I'm assuming my scoutmaster was straight, but I really don't know. It never came up. He didn't ever talk to us about having sex with his wife and didn't make any reference to the virtues of straight sex. We learned about knots, wilderness survival, canoeing, and other scouting subjects.

Why do you think this would be any different if the scoutmaster was gay?

Why does it bother you so much that a gay man or lesbian woman might mentor your kids? Do you talk about your sex life with other peoples' children? If this were not an issue to you, and those who think like you, most kids would not even know their scout leaders sexual prefernces, much less care. Children learn to revile what they are taught to hate.

Whatever happened to all men are created equal? What ever happened to treat others as you would have them treat you? And, just for kicks and jollies, how about "love thy neighbor"?

Last time I checked BSA is not a church affiliated organization and people of all faiths are welcome. So, if you are basing your decisions on a religious belief, it is you who is out of line. Again I ask; Why should a grown man/woman's sex life even enter into the discussion of mentoring children?

Tell me what conservatives have pushed on liberals? Conservatives simply say want to be allowed to believe what we believe. We have NEVER told you that you couldn't buy contraception - we simply say WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR IT!! We have NEVER told you that you couldn't have a legally recognized gay or lesbian relationship - we simply say DON'T CALL IT MARRIAGE!! We have NEVER said you couldn't give your child condoms - we simply say WE DON'T WANT CONDOMS HANDED OUT IN SCHOOLS!! We have NEVER told you that you could not tell your kids that gay and lesbian relationships are acceptable - we simply say DON'T TEACH MY KIDS IN SCHOOLS THAT THEY ARE ACCEPTABLE when they go against our religious beliefs. We don't push our beliefs on others. We only ask that you do not push your beliefs on conservatives.

I love how people say that gays and lesbians are always trying to FORCE this or that. I'm a conservative homosexual who agrees with you that private or religious organizations should NOT be forced by government to alter their guidelines, rules, etc for membership.

MOST of us (gays) don't ever want to see it come to that either.

There are plenty of gay led organizations that help kids just as much as the BSA that are successful, but not as large as the BSA because of remarks like this one.

And I see where this remark is going with the "mentor your teenage son at BSA". As a youth minister in the Catholic Church, I ran into remarks like that all the time. I worked TWICE as hard to make sure that stigma would not apply to me and I STILL had suspicious people like you opening up a very dangerous dialogue trying to discredit me to keep me from mentoring teenagers...but I stuck with it.

This article is about an organization who's behind the times. Gays and Lesbians are not trying to FORCE them to accept them. However, we can point out how they are losing their membership as well as the sadness that such a great organization could be on it's way out because it's "behind the times" excluding people who have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL over their sexual preference. Of course...THAT argument is still highly debated.

Conservatives believe a gay or lesbian relationship is unnatural. Many of you disagree and that is your right. But if a group wants to stress beliefs THEY believe are in the best interest of their children that is their choice. If you want to start a group called the Gay and Lesbian Children's Camp that is YOUR RIGHT!! I may disagree with the teachings of this group but I would NEVER tell you that you are not allowed to have a group that pushes these beliefs.

This is what AMAZES me about liberals: They have their beliefs and I may disagree but I don't question your RIGHT to have the group for one minute. That is YOUR CHOICE!! But if CONSERVATIVES want a group that pushes THEIR beliefs it is IMMEDIATELY told they cannot. For liberals who constantly scream they are "pro-choice" and that a person "has a right" why does that ONLY apply to liberals? Don't I have "pro-choice" too? Don't I have the right to believe what I want to believe and have my kids in groups that push THAT value? Why do I not have that choice too?

Tell me what conservatives have pushed on liberals?

REALLY?! Here is a (short) list:

1) Bans on gay marriages,

2) Vaginal probe ultrasounds for no good medical reason before abortions,

3) Highly discriminatory voter ID requirements that disenfranchise people of color despite no evidence of substantial voter fraud,

4) Tax loopholes for corporations that we the taxpayers have to deal with (both parties are to blame here, but republicans do it more, which is why businesses give much more to republican candidates),

5) Warmongering and increasing military spending through the roof (again, both parties are at fault, but conservatives shoulder more of this than dems). Again, I pay for this with my taxes!

5) Waiting periods, time restrictions, and mandatory "counseling" for abortions,

6) Reduction of social safety nets we have been paying into and rely upon,

7) Holding debt ceiling hostage for concessions in spending. I'm all for responsible debt reduction, but the debt ceiling is money WE ALREADY SPENT, and was directly responsible for our downgrade by the S&P,

8) Using the filibuster over 100 times in this presidency, whereas it was used less than 40 time over THE FIFTY years prior, thereby virtually requiring a super-majority in lockstep to pass anything in congress...

Shall I go on?

Tell me what conservatives have pushed on liberals?

ProBusiness, we have examples EVERY DAY of conservative beliefs being pushed onto ALL of us through teapub-backed legislation. Want a couple of examples?

Conservatives don't want abortion to be a legal option for women, so they pass legislation taking away all public funding from Planned Parenthood - even though abortion accounts for less than 3% of PP services and gets NO TAX MONEY in the first place.

Conservatives panic at the thought that sexual orientation should not be the basis for discrimination so they fuel the hysteria and pass anti-marriage equality laws and amendments. Except marriage under civil law brings with it around 1100 spearate rights, privileges, and benefits - so this is an absolute denial of equal rights under the law. "Marriage" is a contract defined by the state - keep your bigotry for what your church defines as holy matrimony.

It's pretty simple - the bible is NOT a basis for making laws for everyone, and narrow minded interpretations of the bible are TRULY not meant to be made into law. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Don't want to marry someone of the same gender? OK, you don't have to. But pushing a religious agenda into LAW is just wrong.

THANK YOU ENG ESQ-Conservatives are in total denial if they think they are not trying to force their beliefs down my throat-they would have everyone goose stepping to their agenda if they could.......

Hey ProBusiness.... Mr. #$@#@# or Mrs./Ms. #$%#$# that are teaching your children could be gay or lesbian.... Teachers being one of the biggest role models next to the parent. I have gay friends that are around my children, they don't talk sex nor does my heterosexual friends. If you and your friends do, dude that is kind of creepy.

EngEsq:

1) You might be interested to check the history books: The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by President CLINTON.

2) Yes, becuase it's a tumor, not a child. (Rolls eyes).

3) You need an ID to drive a car, buy alcohol/tobacco/firearms, donate blood, write a check, board an airplane, open a bank account... what's the big deal with showing one to vote?

4) Yes, both parties are to blame here.

5) Both parties are to blame here, too.

6) Yes, because those same "safety nets" were extended for "a temporary period".

7) Yes, because the Democrats have totally failed to provide a budget for 3 YEARS, except for Obama's, which has had 0 votes in the Senate for the past 3 years running.

8) True, but the use of the fillibuster isn't a social policy.

Tell me what conservatives have pushed on liberals?

Well, for starters they tried to push probes up our vaginas. That one was a close call. Here's a few more...

Allowing the government to mandate women have unnecessary ultrasounds prior to exercising their 9th Amendment rights.

Increasing identification standards for voting, when voter fraud rate is shown at .0002%.

Trying to force women to be pregnant against their will, thereby taking away their 9th Amendment rights, without any scientific evidence to support their position.

Allowing the government to mandate that certain national origins must carry papers at all time, in order to prove their innocence.

Allowing the government to enter houses of worship and engage in domestic espionage.

Allowing the government to ban worker's from gathering together to collectively bargain.

In MI, allowing the government to throw out of office dually elected, local officials and replace them with non-elected dictators.

Allowing the government to ban adults with legal capacity for informed consent from entering into contracts, without having a valid, legal reason.

Mark,

I really love that your scientific evidence/reasoning pertaining to abortion is an "eye roll". That'll hold up in court.

Mark, DOMA was drafted by mostly Republicans and even some religious Dems. Who writes these bills matters, not if the President strikes them down or not.

2) if the mother does not want to have then yes, it is a parasite.

3) because they want to use something else. Many states already require that you have a SSN or identification card to show who you are. Republican's are pushing for yet another, and unneeded, form of identification in states that already have this requirement. There are also American's that do not drive and have no driver's license. I did not get mine till I was 20.

4) this we agree on. Though I side more with Eng that Republicans are more likely to approve of loopholes them some Democrats, but it is not an exclusive mental illness to Republican politicians.

5a) Again both sides at fault

5b) you failed to discuss

6) not all of them were, just some. The current batch of Republican's in the House want to end all entitlements period even if you paid into them your entire life. Any guess where your money is going to go?

7) Not really. No it is true they did not produce a budget but that had more to do with the ill timing of HCRA and the two years of fighting it took to pass it. The whole hostage taking thing was immature and dangerous way to get what they wanted. Even after it was agreed what would happen if no compromise was reached the first thing Republican's did was to stop cuts to the Defense budget instead of taking the punishment. The problem is that our Congress must compromise in order to work efficiently. When no compromise can be reached things grind to a halt and every bill becomes a political world war. This Congress has achieved less then a guy taking a crap for an hour.

8) does not excuse the blatant abuse of this tactic. Republican's in the Senate have an unbalanced share of power over what can be done. If they do not like something all they have to do is steal the blur dog's to their side of the vote and it goes away. The Republican's in the Senate are not nearly as vindictive as those in the House but they do not fall too far apart in the ideology that nothing "Democrat" should get through without serious bravado and noise making. Most of the stuff the Senate has passed happened only because of outside influence. Most everything that both parties in Congress have agreed on has been bad for our country: SOPA, PIPA, The Patriot Act extension, the NDAA, etc.

This Congress is going to go down as the worst in history, so far, because of both parties, not just Dems and not just Repubs. Every bill is a bloody battle ground of obscenity and bills like the Debt Ceiling increase are massive war campaigns littered with bodies. November is going to an interesting month that will decide what we, as a country, want our country to be about. Either way I think there are going to be many disenchanted Americans come the 4th.

Geowil,

1) So, you agree it isn't solely a conservative POV. Thanks!

2) Ever notice that the folks for abortion have already been born? Calling a child a "parasite" demeans humanity. What I'm saying probably won't resonate with you, but I do hope you'll pause a second and at least consider that.

3) Um, where? Every voter ID check bill I've seen has accepted a driver's license or passport.
(You might also be interested to know that I have to show my ID when I vote -- and have had to since I started in 1992. I believe that Connecticut is referred to as a Democratic stronghold.)

4/5) Yep.

5b) ! Sorry, missed that one. Waiting periods, time restrictions, and "counseling" (read: an overly lengthy licensing process) are also all required for firearm purchases in many liberal areas. Just try to get a permit in Massachusettes, even if you're a resident. Never mind the fiascos of Chicago & DC gun control.
No, of course two wrongs don't make a right.

6) Most people never pay for the entitlements they recieve, as nearly 60% of the population don't actually pay any taxes at all. On average, what someone pays into Social Security is paid back in 5-7 years. The average American lives to be 78 (a bit higher for women). Where's the other 6 years of payments coming from?

7) I disagree; it's Congress' duty to put together a budget. That's done by the House & Senate coming up with budgets and working out a compromise. The DEMS sees an advantage in blaming the GOP for being "the party of no". The GOP sees an advantage of making a point of showing the DEMs as being unable to do anything. Both are right (to a point), but brinksmanship only works if the other guy flinches.
All that said, it's a disgrace that the Senate didn't even put up a budget to TRY to come to a compromise for 3 years in a row.

8) I didn't say it excused it, I'm just pointing out that it isn't a social policy. Just like the Democrats not confirming a record number of W's judges isn't a social policy either. Both are deplorable tactics.

Yes, I agree with you: there is no compromise in our current political climate. The wheel is turning faster than ever before, and I think that it's going to keep doing that until something breaks. It used to be that at least some common cause could be found, but I think that after the Clinton Impeachment debacle and the 2000 Election that neither side trusts the other as far as they could throw them.

1) You might be interested to check the history books: The Defense of Marriage Act was signed by President CLINTON.

Certainly true, but irrelevant. Just because Clinton signed it, it doesn't mean the policy is right. He also signed off on DADT, which has been repealed.

Geowil-

Parasite? Never heard it put in such a disgusting, hateful way.

Congratulations on setting the bar to a new low.

TArnold1234

Keep the preverts out of the scouts, it's like letting the foxes in the peep house. Organize your own groups, quit trying to force your preverted life style on the majority.

Yes, you are right, you must keep them out because homosexuality is a choice, and those pervert homos want in the BSA so that they can recruit your children and turn them gay! It's a**holes like you, with views like yours, that really makes me wonder how internalized your homophobia is. Must really suck to live a miserable life in the closet always wondering who might find out about you.

As for perverts in the BSA, well I hate to tell you the facts, but I am gay, and I was a Boy Scout for 10 years. You'd be surprised how many of us gay boys are forced to join the Boy Scouts by our parents when we are children. I also hate to bust your bubble, but I am sorry to report that none of my scout leaders were "pervert homos" who recruited me. See since my earliest childhood memories I always knew that I liked other boys. There was no choice about it.

As someone who grew up in the scouts I can only say that being a scout I never once had any thoughts about the organization as a whole, or their policies. It is unfortunate that they have turned into an arm of the religious-zealot right. Never once was I preached at about religion. Basically we just learned outdoor skills, did a lot of fishing and camping.

As a gay man, I do believe that to try and turn the thinking of a private organization that has been around for as long as the BSA would be useless. Perhaps the gay community as a whole should form their own scouting organization. Maybe that would put an end to the antiquated organization known as the Boy Scouts of America.

Sarah,

Increasing identification standards for voting, when voter fraud rate is shown at .0002%.

Why is there so much resistance to getting a state issued ID? You need an ID to use a credit card for a purchase in excess of $50 (Although retailer enforcement is somewhat loose). It would not disenfranchise anyone from voting. It does make it a little more difficult to herd homeless people from precinct to precinct to vote more than once.

I would also like to see your documentation of a 0.0002% voter fraud rate because that would be approximately 34,000 instances in the US using the 2004 registration numbers and with no uniform method to determine who should vote in a particular precinct with no ID how can the rate be determined.

Trying to force women to be pregnant against their will, thereby taking away their 9th Amendment rights, without any scientific evidence to support their position.

Women can receive abortions, just don't ask people that do not support abortions to pay for them. And when did it become a "right" to have an abortion? Do you also have the "right" to have a healthy appendix removed? Men have the "right" to a circumcision as long as they want to pay for it, because not everyone believes in circumcision either!

Allowing the government to mandate that certain national origins must carry papers at all time, in order to prove their innocence.

"Certain National Origins" do not have to carry papers at all times to prove "innocence". Only "Non-Americans", i.e. non-resident aliens, resident aliens or people in the country on one of a variety of Visas must carry identification. The papers do not "PROVE" innocence or guilt, they just prove who you are and your right to be in the US!

Allowing the government to enter houses of worship and engage in domestic espionage.

Only with a court order, the same as they need to monitor your communications.

Allowing the government to ban worker's from gathering together to collectively bargain.

The government does not ban workers from exercising their rights to form unions and collectively bargain. It should also not allow union organizers to strong arm people into voting or joining a union they may not want. ALL union elections should be done by secret ballot so that individuals cannot be singled out for harassment for not supporting unions.

In MI, allowing the government to throw out of office dually elected, local officials and replace them with non-elected dictators.

Please provide some documentation for this. When did the federal government do this?

Allowing the government to ban adults with legal capacity for informed consent from entering into contracts, without having a valid, legal reason.

What type of contracts are you referring to? Marriage is not a contract. Contracts must have a valid offer, the offer must be "honored" and then accepted with payment made in return for the offer.

Why is there so much resistance to getting a state issued ID? You need an ID to use a credit card for a purchase in excess of $50 (Although retailer enforcement is somewhat loose). It would not disenfranchise anyone from voting.

Unlike voting, using a credit card is not a civil right. The resistance to the IDs comes from the barriers that the state throws up to getting a state issued ID. What forms of verification does it require? Where do the people have to go to get the ID? Many states have very poor forms of public transit and not everyone has a car. What hours is the office that issues the ID open? Do those hours accomodate those who work a full day far away from the office?

Here's a compromise for you. We'll all support state-issued identifcation for voting IF the state will send workers to the homes of citizens to issue them onsite. In this age of technology, that shouldn't be too difficult.

Marriage is not a contract. Contracts must have a valid offer, the offer must be "honored" and then accepted with payment made in return for the offer.

Valid Offer: "Will you marry me?"

Acceptance: "Yes"

Fulfillment: Marriage ceremony (secular or religious)

Payment: Sex (just ask any prostitute or escort if you believe that sex doesn't have monetary value)

Thanks Mark for the support:)!!

When liberals state conservatives "push" their values how come it is always the LIBERAL values that require a change?

1) Bans on gay marriage: Notice it requires a CHANGE in the law to allow this? So how are CONSERVATIVES pushing their values? Liberals will need a CHANGE in the law to make this happen. Doesn't that make it LIBERALS pushing THEIR values?

2) Ultrasounds: You DO realize that abortions were illegal until 1973? So, again, required a CHANGE in the law to support Liberal point of view. So who pushed what? Regardless of whether you believe the Supreme Court decision was right or wrong is it too much trouble to let a person know that an abortion is killing a fetus? Why the FEAR to let people know that an abortion is KILLING?? If you are so supportive of the RIGHT to an abortion which kills the fetus why are you so SCARED to let the individual know what they are actually doing? I thought this was "pro-choice" and that the individual has the choice? Shouldn't they know what that choice is?

3) Asking someone to prove they are who they are is discrimination? So asking me for identification when I cash a check I wrote from YOUR checkbook is discrimination? That is such an absurd an ignorant comment it doesn't even justify further response.

4) Tax loopholes: Define for me tax loopholes? You can't. We pay taxes on income. Some income is taxed and some isn't. Some expenses can be offset against income and some isn't. You say the word "tax loophole" like there is something wrong with it. There isn't. Because tax loopholes is not an "official" term. People file their taxes based on TAX LAW!! They have done nothing wrong. If you don't like the TAX LAW then complain to your representatives and Senators.

5) Waiting periods, time restrictions, and mandatory "counseling" for abortions: So are you telling me that waiting periods, time restrictions, and mandatory "counseling" is a travesty? Okay, if that is your philosophy then we also remove waiting periods and time restrictions for buying a gun. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either we allow waiting periods and time restrictions for ANY activity where there are serious consequences that can't be reversed or we don't. You can't decide some are good and some are bad. An abortion is a BIG deal so the individual should be educated so they can make an informed decision.

6) Safety Nets: The problem with an ignorant comment like that is who pays for it? And how much should that be? You can't make a general comment like that without explanation. First question: who pays for it? How? And how much? Should a person get $100 a week or $1000 a week? I have an idea, why don't we have a HUGE safety net where EVERYBODY gets $10,000 a week. EVERYBODY starting tomorrow. How do we pay for that? Of COURSE that's a ridiculous idea!! But it makes the point. When does it change from "ridiculous" to "reasonable" to "attainable". The problem is you speak of safety net like it is expected. It shouldn't be. Of course we want to help those who REALLY need it but how do we identify those people? And how much do they get? And how do we pay for it? Your comment is as ignorant as it gets because you state a "feel good" idea with no thought as to how it is accomplished. You actually should think a little before you write something like that. You won't look so silly next time.

7) Debt Ceiling: And?? How do we continue spending $1.5 TRILLION MORE than we have? Quick answer: we can't. We are on the verge of a financial collapse and, again, due to your lack of knowledge and inability to actually research you have NO SOLUTION. So how is that sand as you stick your head in there? Again, you have a "feel good" comment with no rational thought behind it. There is not enough income in the ENTIRE COUNTRY (let alone just "the rich") to pay for this deficit but somehow you state Conservatives are irresponsible because we simply are telling you that you CAN'T continue to spend more than you have? And that is "pushing" our values? No, that is called being "responsible". Try it some time. You might find it interesting.

8) Filibuster: It is called "politics". That is not pushing a value and quite the opposite. Republicans are using the powers of branches of government to KEEP Liberals from pushing THEIR values!! But THAT is what the founding fathers set up. They KNEW that government by definition is corrupt so set up a system where FORCING certain laws are difficult and Republicans used that to BLOCK Liberal values from being PUSHED onto the people.

So there you have it. Try doing some research and stop regurgitating ridiculous "talking points" without actually THINKING about what you are saying. If you actually THINK before typing next time it will save you from looking so unintelligent.

Cinnamon,

Please advise me how a fetus does not act like a parasite? Fetuses feed off of their host, the mother, until they are born. At any point before 22 weeks a fetus is less then 50% viable and so it is not considered to be able to live on it's own, hence why we have allowed abortions under that 22 week limit.

It the fetus cannot survive on its own outside of the mother then it is a parasite. I am just defining things as they are defined in the dictionary:

1. An organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.

This describes to a 'T' how a fetus operates. The problem is we have people that give a fetus more power then it should really have. Fetuses are not babies until either they are born or can live without being attached to the mother (generally considered to be any point after 22 weeks as it is no longer a coin toss if it will live or die). Until then it is a fetus and can be considered, by definition, a parasite.

Again all I am stating is the truth of the matter and not placing the fetus on a pedestal.Fetuses are not living, breathing humans until they are born; that is a medical definition of life, birth. Medical definitions are what our laws are based off of not religious ideologies. It is no one elses business if a mother wants to obtain an abortion before the 22 week mark. It is not anyone's position to adjudicate morality or in other words you cannot make abortion illegal based on the religious concept that conception is the moment of life.

It is a personal belief and personal beliefs do not translate to societal beliefs because no everyone shares your opinion and to make it a societal belief means that those who do not share your opinion are forced to accept that it is against the law. This is different from accepting as correct, when you force something to become illegal you are denying others who want those services the ability to use them. When you allow those services to be used you personally lose nothing.

Same for Gay rights. Allow Gays to use the term marriage for their unions does nothing to lessen the definition nor relevance of marriage in and of itself, but denying others the ability to be come married prevents them from obtaining the same privileges that married couples have. But now I have kind of gone off track. Will be willing to discuss further if you reply though.

Pro, so much BS I do not know where to start and decided to make a new post because I will likely need more then the 5 minutes given to make it.

1) Sure it requires a change in law but that does not means they were lawful in the first place. Gay Marriage has been blocked on principle by nearly all churches up until now. They required no law to do so because they were not threatened by out side preassure. Most of the country agreed with them that Gay's should not be allowed to get married. Now that they are on the minority side they feel threatened and are trying to reinstate their previous control via drafting laws that will ban it.

By making it unlawful to wed Gay's you are basically translating a previously held power via community support to a newly held power via a law created because that community support has now turned on you. In short these laws prove nothing about "pushing" a Gay agenda but quite the opposite.

2) It has nothing to do with fear. Would you accept a scope up your genitals if you wanted a vasectomy? (assuming you are a guy, if not replace that with tube tying). It is essentially the same thing. Why should you be forced into a medical procedure that has nothing to do with what you are there for? It is a measure to try and guilt-trip the mother into not getting the abortion. We have seen the Religious do this before by standing out in front of abortion clinics and planned parenthood offices passing out flyers and stuff designed to guilt them into changing their minds. They do this by taking advantage of both the woman's maternal processes (raging hormones) and highly deceptive wording and possibly imagery designed to inspire guilt.

They have already made their choice to get an abortion. You honestly think that a women who has chosen to get an abortion has not thought it through?

3) No but asking people to buy a new form of identification besides what is already accepted at polling booths is. These new identification cards should be for those who only do not have a previously accepted means of identification. If you have a DL or SSN card no further identification should be required. If you do not have access to your SSN Card and no DL then this new form of ID should be employed.

4) is just propoganda. Loophole is a real word:

loophole[ˈluːpˌhəʊl]

n

1. an ambiguity, omission, etc., as in a law, by which one can avoid a penalty or responsibility

2. (Military / Fortifications) a small gap or hole in a wall, esp one in a fortified wall

And they do exist. The paragraph you rambled off is exactly what someone who is pro-business would say, and what I mean by that is pro-profits at the expense of all else. Capital gains, sales, property, and any other kind of tax do not make up for the fact that corporations almost always pay lower income taxes then the average Joe does. Many companies even use said loopholes to get out of paying anything. There was an article recently that stated that 1 in 189 wealthy households paid no taxes in 2009. They were able to do this because of said loopholes.

5) the mandatory part is. Again do you assume that no woman who has though through whether to get an abortion or not would decide to get one? They want to force women to go through these unnecessary bureaucracies in order to get an abortion.

6) We pay for it. Entitlements are a way of ensuring that all Americans are cared for. We take care of each other as a country because we are all Americans. If you no longer want to pay to help your fellow countrymen then we may need to redefine the definitions for being patriotic and the American way.

7/8) If you see no problem with what happened with the Debt Ceiling debate you may have your eyes closed. One party said basically this, and this is as simple as I can distill it:

Either you agree to cut spend where only we want to cut it or we will cause the Government to default on its debts.

That was the Tea Party message during that whole debate. They would not accept cuts to defense, they would not accept tax increases. Democrats are not guiltless either. They refused to allow cuts to Medicare and Social Security. When the triggers were set off though after the super committee could not come to an agreement the first thing the Republicans in the House did was move to stop the cuts to defense spending. They refused to take responsibility for their side's inaction.

Republican's want us to make sacrifices here at home by lessening our programs that help tens of millions of Americans daily but will not accept making sacrifices to our war machines. I think that says volumes.

To tie that into filibustering. Republicans are abusing it. It is a political statement the way they are using it that they will block anything they do not agree with instead of attempting to change it more to their liking. Congress is not a model for how the Government should be run, the 8% approval rating actually screams that fact. 8% approval for non-compromise. while everyone else wants both sides to start compromising on their stupid pet ideologies and come up with real solutions rather then tax with no cuts to social programs or cuts with no tax increases and no cuts to defense. We have to do all three to even begin to turn things around.

Probusiness blasts abortion in point #2 of his diatribe, but then criticizes "safety nets" in point #6. How very typical .. love the fetus, hate the child.

What's this obsession with "changing" the law? The law had to be changed to allow women to vote. I guess Probusiness views that as also "forcing" the views of some on others. As for changing laws, it seems that the right-wing has been far busier changing the law with all these amendments to state constitutions. In the case of Virginia, the amendment even banned enforcement of private contracts that attempt to provide some of the benefits of marriage. Now, that's changing the law.

They're not pushing; they're requesting. The even specifically say that they don't want to force anyone to change their policies. They're hoping that BSA will change its policy because they want to. ...because it is a good idea.

A point some may have overlooked. To vote, your ID must be up to date. What ever your state requires, you have to fulfill. Now maybe you've not had the time to go (is online an option? I couldn't as the state DMV had both me and my husband tied together because we're both on a title together) The cash? Sorry , no money, no ID. Did you hear about the woman from Tennessee who literately retired from cleaning the State House. Elderly and using mass transit (she never learned to drive), she tried to use her State Issued post 9/11 work ID (as she had for more than 3 decades) and was told no, she needed a new state issued ID or she couldn't vote. Elderly, limited income, mass transit using and wanting to vote. Anyone want to guess her race?

Geowil,

Why argue with you, you are hopeless. You demean human life and you can provide all the definitions you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are an affront to human dignity on all fronts. What happened to make you this way? Wow.

@thinkingmom

Last time I checked BSA is not a church affiliated organization and people of all faiths are welcome. So, if you are basing your decisions on a religious belief, it is you who is out of line. Again I ask; Why should a grown man/woman's sex life even enter into the discussion of mentoring children?

You are so wrong. BSA has always been a christian based organization. All Denominations that believe on Jesus Christ as the Savior are welcome, but not all faiths, a buddist would not be welcome, or a satanist, etc.. etc.. Know your info before you go spouting off and show us all your ignorance.

We are not out of line, because it is The bible that we are basing this policy on. I am a BSA Committe Chair and we just recently had to curb a paranormal investigator from discussing his work in the presence of scouts becasue it goes against christianity as well....

ks1971,

You are wrong. The BSA is not and has never been a Christian organization. It does require agreement with a religious statement, but Buddists, Hindus, Muslims, and many other faiths are welcome. If you are a committee chair, you might want to do a little more research into the BSA religious requirement. BTW, my family has been involved in Scouting for 30 years and we support the current policy, but it is NOT based on the organization being Christian.

@havesomesense

The boy scout oath says it all:

Scout 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.

God Captialized means the God of Christianity. If it was for any faith, it would be a lower case and plural gods and my country....

BSA has plenty of members who are not Christian. It is not a Christian only organization. BSA supports any of its members to earn the religious award/s of their faith, using PRAY as the clearinghouse for the award info. On;y a belief in some higher being(s) is needed - not Christian only.

which means what?

LOL

No, they cannot. Once you make Eagle Scout, you always are an Eagle Scout.

Good, I can see one of the twisted leaders of the Scouts going after this young man.

An eagle scout can have his status reduced and redo an element(s) required. Example: three from Sandusky had swimming and lifeguard and one more water related badges. Came to Lorain camp and could not swim. Therefore, they could not have passed the particular badge tests. Lorain leadership reviewed their files and rescored their awards.

I remember every year after the LDS boys come to our local BSA camp they often bring a whole lot of cash. They willfully destroy so much of the camp in their assigned areas that they deposit the "penalty" they will be charged for repairs when they arrive. What is this church teaching their young men.

No matter the homosexuals will have accomplished their goal, except or disappear.

except- I like all ice cream, EXCEPT chocolate.

accept - I don't like stupid people, but I ACCEPT them as part of society.

Enma, Jerry was claiming gay people were trying to get into everyone's 'faucets' in an earlier post. I applaud your attempt but fear it is wasted.

Jerry was claiming gay people were trying to get into everyone's 'faucets' in an earlier post.

Gays will find ANY way to infiltrate the straight world, apparently.

Ken - For the very same reason that you are posting your article. "CONCERN" about this particular and important situation that has greatly increased in our society nowadays.

I'm an Eagle Scout and am a member of this group. I would like to see it changed. Change is good.

I was a scout in my youth, and I too would lik to see them change.

Same as the two above, but I also agree with etothex. This change would be good however if the BSA decided not to change then, well, that is their right and they should be left alone. Welcome to a part of Freedom and Democracy that may be unpleasant to some.

Exactly right. If they decide to change, kudos to them. If they decide to NOT change, then that's there right and I think people should move on rather than continue to harp on and on about it. The BSA is a private organization.

There should be a similar line taken towards same-sex marriage. The government and the State should be required to accept same-sex couples as married, should be required to issue the marriage permits, and should be required to have a Justice of the Peace perform the ceremony.

On the other hand, no church that disagrees with their lifestyle should ever, EVER, have to perform that marriage. There will be some out there that will so the marriage could be done without a JotP but no church should be required to do so, ever. They, too, have freedom.

Hell, churches already have the right to deny a couple's marriage request just because they lived together out of wedlock, or because they are not of the same religion. This isn't any different, really.

That sounds quite a bit like "separate but equal", which didn't take long to figure out that it was wrong too.

They don't want to put in the work.

Its nothing like separate but equal. That sort of thing doesn't apply to private organizations.

You certainly wouldn't say the same about sports segregated by gender!

What a bunch of BS. By your thought, same could be said of Catholic Priest!

Riiiiight... Because homosexuals never served in our military before the President repealed DADT... I can also guarantee there are homosexuals in BSA, either as scoutmasters or scouts themselves.

There is no such thing as homophobia. A phobia is an irrational fear. Distrusting and refuting the illogical claims of homosexuality is not a phobia. It is social responsibility.

The BSA is certainly not a puppet organization of the Mormon church. That is a wild fantasy. While Mormons may try to use the BSA to their advantage (which is despicable) in some areas such as Utah, the center of their religion, that certainly isn't the case at large.

Except there are more Mormons in California than Utah. And hence more LDS troops in CA than UT

Well Allen, my point still stands.

Allen Sterbenzvia Facebook

The solution is simple really... If you feel the LDS has too much influence in the BSA then perhaps you can find other sponsors for the troops that they do sponsor? You are aware that 68% or so of ALL troops are sponsored by some religion?

Right. Because the openly hetero scout leaders have such a great track record on the child molestation front. If you were smart you would be more worried about them.

Tell me why 2 percent of the population tells the other 98 percent, that they are wrong and must accept their dictates verbatim or suffer unconscionable tirades of persecution? When did "you must believe like I do" become the mantra of the Gay community? They ridicule the "Bible thumpers" for being "narrow minded" all the while preaching their own doctrine of "acceptance" or else face the onslaught of insults. Isn't that at the very least hypocritical?

Instead of focusing on all of the good an noble things the BSA do, this "acceptance" issue continues to drive the debate. Please pause your tirades a moment and consider the consequences of actions. The "club" you are using to beat your neighbor into submission today maybe used on you tomorrow.

Can't ....we all just get along

Homosexual child molester. Just the people that composes GLAAD's membership. According to the homosexual myth, sexual orientatoin is an uncontrollable natural urge. Leonardo dA Vinci was probably a homosexual and pedophile, so, the behavior must be OK.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to adopt or have children in the first place. GLAAD is simply a cult, no different than the Branch Davidians. Their whole focus is about sex not discrementation.

Tell me why 2 percent of the population tells the other 98 percent, that they are wrong and must accept their dictates verbatim or suffer unconscionable tirades of persecution?

In the first place, it is more likely 5-10% of the population that are gay. Second, we are not a country of majority rule -- a minority of ONE deserves all of the rights enjoyed by everyone else.

When did "you must believe like I do" become the mantra of the Gay community? They ridicule the "Bible thumpers" for being "narrow minded" all the while preaching their own doctrine of "acceptance" or else face the onslaught of insults. Isn't that at the very least hypocritical?

No one is telling you or anyone else to change your beliefs. Furthermore, gays don't care about the acceptance of ignorant bigots like you -- this is all about equal treatment under the law for taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. So the only hypocrites are those like YOU who think you deserve to have all of your rights while at the same time denying them to another group because you don't like their sexual orientation. You are no better than those who fought to deny others the right to marry simply because they were of different races.

Homosexual child molester. Just the people that composes GLAAD's membership.

Actually, approximately 90% of all child molesters/pedophiles are heterosexual, married men -- so YOU are probably more likely to be one than any gay person.

According to the homosexual myth, sexual orientatoin is an uncontrollable natural urge.

And do you have any proof to the contrary? Didn't think so.

Homosexuals Ignorant bigots should not be allowed to adopt or have children in the first place.

Fixed that for you -- and that means that you should not procreate or adopt.

it is more likely 5-10% of the population that are gay; Likely isn't anymore factual than 2%

or else face the onslaught of insults.; ignorant bigots like you (You made my point)

this is all about equal treatment under the law for taxpaying, law-abiding citizens. Really the law is on the side of the BSA, so want to try again?

Dad of Tim, where do you come up with 2% of the population? Is that your estimate of the people you know? The population is quite a bit larger, more than you would be comfortable with (7% that state they are openly homosexual and higher when reported confidentially). The reason people do not come out openly is because of people like you and your ideas. Perhaps you need to have an open conversation with yourself and review your opinions of the males in your circle. It seems as though you have some latent feelings....

(CNSNews.com) –While a recent Gallup poll showed that U.S. adults, on average, think homosexuals make up about 25 percent of the entire population, official data reveal that gays and lesbians comprise between 2 percent and 4 percent of the population.

It seems as though you have some latent feelings.

Want to try again?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It doesn't say to "persecute the happiness" of others, the BSA has rights under the Constitution how about respecting them?

However, it does say "that all men are created equal". Something about that which you don't understand? Or, do you only want to use the lines that you agree with? Double standard?

I do not think any of the founding fathers were Gay? Maybe if they were you had a special exception for gays --sorry gay wasn't in Vogue BACK IN THE 1700 !!

However, it does say "that all men are created equal". Something about that which you don't understand?

Equal yes special no, they don't get special treatment under the law, understand. The law is that private groups can admit who they want, understand.

Supreme Court says Boy Scouts can bar gay troop leaders

June 28, 2000

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.

The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law.

The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.

Well said, dadoftim!!!

It is always difficult to have a battle of wits with liberal's, they often arrive unarmed and ill prepared. They resort to emotional diatribes of slurs and name calling when confronted with facts and logic.

TTFN

official data reveal that gays and lesbians comprise between 2 percent and 4 percent of the population.

"Official data"? I've yet to see a survey methodology concerning the prevalence of homosexuality that didn't have problems. The problem is that, by necessity, these surveys rely on self-reporting. But, many gays, especially older people, won't admit to being gay, despite all sorts of promises of confidentiality.

Arguing with conservaturds (like dadoftim) is arguing with idiots: they bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Really, dadoftim, I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up your ass -- and yours is too tightly wedged in there. That must be where all your encyclopedias are, and where your "facts" come from.

why not just leave the BoyScouts for boys, the GirlScouts for Girls and let the Gays have their GayScouts! and we all would be happy!

as always....adam and eve not adam and steve.....let adam and steve go play by themselves and not let the rest of us worry when we bend over to drive a tent stake!

I really fear for the future of this country when it has people like you in it.... I'm assuming you are straight. I'm assuming you are a woman. Does that mean you are also attracted to little boys? Because that's pretty much the same thing as saying that gay men would be attracted to little boys. Being gay does NOT equal being a pedophile. I really don't understand this "reasoning" at all.

But just for fun, since you're so big on the "Christian view of morals", how do you feel about all those pedophile priests out there? I mean, you support the church, so I guess that's okay in your book? Molesting little boys is okay when it's done by a "man of God"?

God does not discriminate. If you're gay, you can go to church and participate, right? Not so with Boy Scouts.

There is ZERO connection between being gay, and being a pedophile. Or, would you support banning heterosexual women from being Tiger Cub leaders too?

Seriously, get a clue. This has NOTHING to do with God or pedophilia, which seems to be your only connection.

Why is it that when you, Jamie, hear the word "gay" you think of sex with children? I know what Freud would say...

Yeah, I don't get the whole "gays must be pedophiles" thing. I have a number of gay friends, none of whom think that sex with children is appropriate.

What say you about the hetero women that serve as den leaders? Should we kick them out in case they get any amorous feelings toward a ten year old? Seems to be happening in schools with female teachers.

God DOES discriminate. Read the bible and you will find that same gender sex is an abomination in his eyes. There are several passages stating man shall not lye down with another man. Not all boys join scouts. Why must gays push their way into areas where they are not wanted. Let them organize their own group. The Boy Scouts organization was founded under God's principles and the word God is written in the oath. Why is no one talking about respect for their morals?

@Jamie

Our founding father's did not found this country on God or the bible. Check your facts.

B. Franklin - "A lighthouse is more useful than a church."

Steve, how do you know who God discriminates against? That doesn't sound very Godly to me....does it you? You know who wrote the Bible? A bunch of angry old white men who wanted to build the rules by which society plays....and they thought gay men were icky.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
-Thomas Jefferson

Again - BSA is NOT a Christian organization! Spiritual yes, but Christian exclusively, NO!

I'd just like to use this space to note that the vast majority of members of the BSA DO NOT discriminate and ARE NOT bigots and instead WORK ACTIVELY AGAINST THESE POLICIES which are in place because of a FEW bigots. You are certainly in the wrong suggesting that they should die out.

The Boy Scouts Of America is one of the few virtuous organizations left for youth. Shaking off these last few old-fashioned and outdated policies is just one step in an ever continuing process of staying relevant.

Agree, that private organizations can admit whomever they like. And Boy Scouts has that right too. We're discussing whether they *should* change their stance voluntarily, and as an Eagle Scout, I think they should.

Sadly, scouting continues to see wholesale declines in participation. In my view, part of this comes from being viewed as outdated, and not "with it". Maybe if they'd change with the times, their enrollment wouldn't be suffering. ...just a thought.

may be dwindling because we cannot raise enough funds to provide the needed scholarships for the many boys and teens who do want to participate, because most families here are in very tight financial straights.

Single moms are in even more dollar want.

I know my son would be a scout if it weren't for this stance. I'd always assumed my child would value his scouting experience as I did as a child. However, I cannot, as a good parent, allow our son to participate in an organization that openly promotes bigotry. I'm sure there are many reasons for a decline in membership, but their policy against homosexuals is one that is crystal clear.

big·ot·ry

   [big-uh-tree]

noun, plural big·ot·ries.

1. stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

Now it's been a long, long time since I was involved with the Scouts, but I'm pretty sure there's no "Bigotry" merit badge. Simply because, as a private organization, they believe it is in their best interest to exclude, in this case, homosexuals, from their fellowship, I don't think this fully meets the definition of Bigotry. They're not teaching people to be intolerant of homosexuals, they just don't let them in.

Consider this - you play for a local sports team. Your rivals are the team from next town over. You play hard, you win close, and your team gets to have lunch in the pavilion, while the losers have to eat lunch elsewhere. Does this mean you're opening practicing bigotry? No. Did your coach tell you "Joe, you can't be friends with Dave, because he plays for the other team"? No.

When the coach has a cookout and says "No, you can't invite Dave, this is just for our team." is he being a bigot? No.

We're quick to throw words around, not so quick to be critical of what we say, and slow to change the way we think.

Perhaps we should force the BSA and GSA to change their names, unify and just be The Scouts of America. I mean, where's the harm in letting the boys and girls camp together, cook together, play together...

For that matter, we should also do away with Mens and Womens public restrooms as well. Just have Restrooms and be done with it, because it would be insensitive to make someone, like the Japanese Chef who didn't identify with any gender have to choose which restroom to use, right?

"They're not teaching people to be intolerant of homosexuals, they just don't let them in."

You don't get what you wrote. Actions speak loudly and by doing this they are demonstrating, to a membership they have much influence over, their belief that homosexuals are not deserving of the same treatment as heterosexuals. By not allowing same-sex parents to participate in their sons' scouting experience in the same way other parents are allowed, they are telling the scout that something is wrong with their parents, and by extension, them. It's bigotry, it is being promoted to children, and it's not okay.

nikkinala

"They're not teaching people to be intolerant of homosexuals, they just don't let them in."

You don't get what you wrote. Actions speak loudly and by doing this they are demonstrating, to a membership they have much influence over, their belief that homosexuals are not deserving of the same treatment as heterosexuals

Would you allow a Mormon to teach/lead your child?

A Muslim?

A Polygamist?

An Atheist?

A Creationist?

A Marxist?

Why not?

Now, I'm a woman and have no experience participating in Boy Scouts, but I don't believe any of those issues are part of the curriculum. I expect more from troop leaders than to bring their personal beliefs into the troop setting in a way that would unduly influence their scouts. The "Aims of Scouting" are character development, citizenship training, and personal influence. A responsible troop leader can incorporate all of these without the insertion of any of what you list.

My son's kindergarten teacher last year turned out to be a birther, a huge conspiracy theorist, and we differ markedly along political lines, as I found out after volunteering a great amount, which led to more personal conversations while the kids were out of the classroom. However, she was a wonderful teacher. In fact, I don't think I could have asked for a better experience for my son. The fact that her personal beliefs differed greatly from mine were never a factor in her teaching, so they were never a factor to me in regards to her relationship with my son.

Trust_Verify, I know you're not talking to me, but I feel like I should go ahead and answer anyway. Yes, if they were going to teach my child Scouting.

caseyjane

Trust_Verify, I know you're not talking to me, but I feel like I should go ahead and answer anyway. Yes, if they were going to teach my child Scouting.

Actually I wasn't. But I pose the same question as at then end to you that I did to nikkinala. I believe your answer for the REASON would be they would have morals differing than your own.

@nikkinala

OK so your childs K teacher had "political" leanings for lack of a safer description. That K teacher was NOT giving any form of view to their students... not part of the job and probably a violation of policy.

A troop leader however gives more personal value instruction. The K teacher probably teaches sharing a troop leader teaches morals based on their beliefs.

You did not answer the question I posed.

Would you EXCLUDE ANY of those mentioned on the list from being someone you would want building moral values in your child? My guess is YES. I could be wrong. List those you would not want as an example of good morals and tell us why.

Actually I wasn't. But I pose the same question as at then end to you that I did to nikkinala. I believe your answer for the REASON would be they would have morals differing than your own.

Either there is a typo somewhere in there, or you will have to rephrase. I can't quite figure out what you meant to say (no disrespect- I suspect it is just a typo)

caseyjane

Sorry I was attempting to splice you into what I had typed... yours appeared between my starting to respond nikkinala and when I posted...

I had asked nikkinala if they would exclude anyone that I listed.. you had responded yes you would.. I am asking WHY? What reasoning.. same as I had asked nikkinala. Unfortunately I ran out of edit time before I could compose a proper response....

So why would you exclude which individuals if they were going to lead a Scout troop?

I've never given much thought to groups of people I would automatically exclude from being my son's scout leader. Let's see. I suppose the list would include drug addicts, child molesters, and child abusers; off the top of my head, I can't think of any other groups. If they aren't a physical or emotional danger to my son, I don't foresee my self having a problem with them. I try my best to teach him, and I hope my son understands, that everyone has different ideas about life that they come to believe through their own life experiences. I've also done my best to teach him that while you may not agree with someone on every subject, you can usually find commonalities in other areas; and that no one should be judged on things they have no control over, they deserve to be judged on how good of a person they are.

I'm not sure that I answered your question exactly, but I tried.

Oh, then I misread. I would NOT exclude them. I thought your post asked if I would be comfortable with them leading a scout troop.

A Muslim?
A Polygamist?
An Atheist?
A Creationist?
A Marxist?

So not one of them would you have concerns about the MORAL values they would be teaching? Muslims who treat women as second class citizens, polygamist who treat women as chattel, A godless person, an God focused anti science person? A godless anti democracy person? REALLY?

Yes, really. As I said above, if they aren't a physical or emotional danger to our son, I don't foresee myself having a problem with them. I believe it's important for children to learn to interact with, get along with, and respect people of every sort. Additionally, I understand that simply being exposed to certain beliefs doesn't mean those beliefs will become our son's overarching influence. My husband and I are his first and most influential moral teachers, after all.

nikkinala

Many would have issues with their children being taught that it was ok to have MANY mothers, fathers or that women of second class beings. Others would have issues with being taught of non Christian God or no God at all or that science was right in all aspects except evolution. You are unique.

Yes, as long as they are teaching scouting. I have no problem with people having lifestyles different from my own, as long as they aren't hurting anyone or teaching those lifestyles when they are supposed to be teaching something else. I personally am very very liberal but I leave all of my political leanings at the door when I come in to work. When I'm working with kids, none of that stuff comes in to play. I teach what I'm paid to teach, and as long as scout leaders do the same, I don't see the problem.