For those that don't know, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) does not allow homosexuals or atheists to participate in any capacity. It seems we need a thread to discuss the policies of the BSA, so here it is. :)
My take: The BSA can do whatever the hell it likes, as long as it doesn't receive government aid (money, special access to public facilities, etc.). It is my understanding that they often do receive such aid, a fact to which I object.
Discuss.
P.S. Popcorn is not an appropriate topic in this thread.
Personally I see the reason for keeping homosexuals out of the boy scouts as being the same as keeping girls out. They want to create a atmosphere free of sexual tension.
The Atheist thing makes less sense to me however. You’d think the bible thumpers would be happy to let little atheist boys in with the hopes that being surrounded by Christians in a Christian organization might convert them. It didn’t work on me, but you never know.
Personally I see the reason for keeping homosexuals out of the boy scouts as being the same as keeping girls out. They want to create a atmosphere free of sexual tension.
For the sake of argument, that would not apply to say, public schools...how?
I don't think "our [public] school doesn't take homosexuals, so as to cut down on sexual tension" would fly. ;)
Personally I see the reason for keeping homosexuals out of the boy scouts as being the same as keeping girls out. They want to create a atmosphere free of sexual tension.For the sake of argument, that would not apply to say, public schools...how?
I don't think "our [public] school doesn't take homosexuals, so as to cut down on sexual tension" would fly. ;)
Public schools are't a private organization ;)
And last time I checked public schools had no problem letting boys and girls mix, so clearly sexual tension is not high on their priority list.
Public schools are't a private organization ;)
And neither are the Scouts, by any reasonable definition, at least not as long as they accept public money. As I've already stated, if they quit doing that, my problem with them disappears.
You can't have it both ways -- unless, apparently, you're the BSA.
And last time I checked public schools had no problem letting boys and girls mix, so clearly sexual tension is not high on their priority list.
True, but seemingly irrelevant to the acceptablity of a ban on homosexuals.
But never mind...assume a public school that excludes girls -- I doubt the "sexual tension" argument would fly.
So you can have a den mother but if Uncle Mike has a partner he's out....THAT'S WHALE CRAP!!! If the person in question behaves in an appropriate manner not letting him join the organization is discrimination. If He is acting in a way that is inappropriate that's different.
Mr. Fishy is pretty sure gay men are attracted to other men, straight men are attracted to women. Homosexual is not the same as a pedophile. Pedophiles touch children. Homosexuals touch other adults.
Heck, if I remember correctly (from, oh... 10 or so years ago), pedophilia is even minisculy higher among heterosexuals than it is among homosexuals.
Off Topic: One whiskey and I have trouble typing any word more complicated than I? Grr.
|
Personally I see the reason for keeping homosexuals out of the boy scouts as being the same as keeping girls out. They want to create a atmosphere free of sexual tension.For the sake of argument, that would not apply to say, public schools...how?
I don't think "our [public] school doesn't take homosexuals, so as to cut down on sexual tension" would fly. ;)
They'd have to eliminate teachers all together. My humanities teacher was a walking bundle of creating sexual tension for teenage hetero boys. I t didn't help any when I was called on to read Lysistrada's husband's part to her Lysistrada...
And last time I checked public schools had no problem letting boys and girls mix, so clearly sexual tension is not high on their priority list.True, but seemingly irrelevant to the acceptablity of a ban on homosexuals. But never mind...assume a public school that excludes girls. Again, I doubt that excuse would fly.
It would make sense to me. If you allow homosexuals in the school then what would be the point of not allowing girls?
It would make sense to me. If you allow homosexuals in the school then what would be the point of not allowing girls?
Which is kinda my point. Excluding girls and excluding homosexuals in order to avoid "sexual tension" are logically equivalent, and yet somehow we're expected to accept accepts one, but not the other?
Either that, or I guess I'm just not understanding you.
It would make sense to me. If you allow homosexuals in the school then what would be the point of not allowing girls?Which is kinda my point. Excluding girls and excluding homosexuals in order to avoid "sexual tension" are logically equivalent, and yet somehow we're expected to accept accepts one, but not the other?
Either that, or I guess I'm just not understanding you.
The fact that baring homosexuals to avoid sexual tension is equivalent to barring girls for the same reason has been my point all along. If you’re going to bar one you have to bar both otherwise there is really no point other than discrimination.
The fact that baring homosexuals to avoid sexual tension is equivalent to barring girls for the same reason has been my point all along. If you’re going to bar one you have to bar both otherwise there is really no point other than discrimination.It would make sense to me. If you allow homosexuals in the school then what would be the point of not allowing girls?Which is kinda my point. Excluding girls and excluding homosexuals in order to avoid "sexual tension" are logically equivalent, and yet somehow we're expected to accept accepts one, but not the other?
Either that, or I guess I'm just not understanding you.
It is almost as if you are trying to say that if a scout master chaperones a score of (naturally hormone driven) teenaged boys (who happen to always have sex on the mind) out camping that he will have a really dificult can of worms to deal with if a half dozen of them are homosexuals.
@ Bugleyman
What specifically are you referring to with respect to "public money"?
|
|
I was a member of various Scouting organizations from the age of five to the age of twenty-two, and held positions as a camp counselor and Venture crew president. I can honestly say, in all of those years, neither issue really came up. I'm an atheist, and two of my best friends in Scouting were gay--everyone knew, and we all still made the rank of Eagle Scout.
Right now, my impression is that the policies of exclusion towards gays and atheists are analogous to jaywalking laws--they just aren't observed, at least in all of the areas I've been in. Sure, it would be great to just write them out of the books, but they aren't doing nearly as much harm as they could be doing. A bigger issue, in my opinion, is integrating American Scouting into the global Scouting community.
Well I'd like to see BSA shift their stance as well; barring off athiests and homosexuals is wrong, and not in keeping with the founding principles of Scouting.
This has come about due to the movement being coopted by particular religious entities, and they are now pushing their own focus.
Now while I'm all for religions saying 'we dont want athiests in our churches nor homosexuals in our congregations' if thats the way they truly feel about it, I would remind them that the Scouting movement is not their church amd nor the Scouts their congregation.
When it comes to taxpayer funding the Scouts, well a lot of organisations recieve Gov't funding, including big businesses through bail outs and a whole raft of undesirables. Calling out on a group that is giving cool opportunities to often disadvantaged kids is WAAAAAAY down on my pecking order.
I earnestly hope that one day BSA wake up and take a good hard look at what they are doing, and realise that they are out of step with Scouting movements the world over (who welcome everyone). I suspect that this is pretty unlikely while certain groups are holding the purse strings.
As adults we can debate these points, but please lets not be smacktards and cr** on the kids when we do it.
A bigger issue, in my opinion, is integrating American Scouting into the global Scouting community.
+1, absolutely spot on.
Back to the roots.
@ Bugleyman
What specifically are you referring to with respect to "public money"?
Scouts get some government funding, and often get facilities at peanut rentals from govt owned facilities.
It's only a minority of their funding, but its funding nonetheless.
So you can have a den mother but if Uncle Mike has a partner he's out....THAT'S WHALE CRAP!!! If the person in question behaves in an appropriate manner not letting him join the organization is discrimination. If He is acting in a way that is inappropriate that's different.
Mr. Fishy is pretty sure gay men are attracted to other men, straight men are attracted to women. Homosexual is not the same as a pedophile. Pedophiles touch children. Homosexuals touch other adults.
I agree completely with you and think that the BSA, and many other organizations for that matter, should seriously reconsider their positions on homosexuals, athiests, or whatever.
However, is it fair to sanction or hold animosity towards the members of an organization for the positions that their upper leadership takes? For example, the U.S. military currently has a contentious relationship with its homosexual members that has been dragged through high level inquiries, studies, and the courty system. Having served in that military, I personally have no problem with openly gay soliders/sailors/airmen serving their country and disagree with the military's current stance.
Despite those feelings, I am not going to hold that policy against junior enlisted, NCOs, or even junior officers. For the most part, these servicemen and women joined the military for a variety of reasons spanning patriotism, the chance for a better life, the assurance of paid college education, or whatever. They realistically do not have any ability to affect policy set forward by the Department of Defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff or other high level entities.
I equate the same thing to the boys and young men that are members of the Boy Scouts. I'm certain that there are some of these members that are openly opposed to homosexuality and endorse the BSA's political/social positions, but I would suspect the vast majority simply like the organization's focus on camping, hiking, community service, comraderie, and many other beneficial aspects.
I also realize that these are contentious issues and many people cannot emotionally separate the membership of the Boy Scouts from the policies of the organization as a whole. In that case, I would encourage you to not simply boycott the membership, but to instead engage in letter-writing, public awareness, and other forms of positive social activism that make democracies so powerful. If you feel strongly enough to discuss the BSA's policies on a gaming message board, then please take that a step forward and raise your voice to influence the leadership of the organization to change those policies.
I just don’t understand why the same people who are pushing for gays to be included in the boy scouts aren’t also pushing for them to let girls in.
I just don’t understand why the same people who are pushing for gays to be included in the boy scouts aren’t also pushing for them to let girls in.
...funnily enough, in some countries its 'Scouts' and IS for boys and girls now. There still exists Girl Guides/Girl Scouts as a single sex organisation, but there are unisex Scouts now.
I just don’t understand why the same people who are pushing for gays to be included in the boy scouts aren’t also pushing for them to let girls in....funnily enough, in some countries its 'Scouts' and IS for boys and girls now. There still exists Girl Guides/Girl Scouts as a single sex organisation, but there are unisex Scouts now.
Cool. And in the case of such Unisex scouts I believe not letting in homosexuals would be discrimination.
I’m just saying there is a valid reason to not let them in single sex scouts. I’m not saying that this valid reason is the actual reason the Boy Scouts (officially) don’t allow gays. I’m just saying a valid reason exists.
I’m just saying there is a valid reason to not let them in single sex scouts. I’m not saying that this valid reason is the actual reason the Boy Scouts (officially) don’t allow gays. I’m just saying a valid reason exists.
Well its BSA that doesn't allow Gays, which is not the same as the Scout movement; I'm only aware of the issue being in the US.
Elsewhere the guidance to Leaders is crystal clear; sexuality is NOT a topic they should be engaging in with their troop, as the leaders are not subject matter experts and aren't qualified to deal with it. Sexuality is not seen as an issue for the movement to resolve, dictate about, or provide guidance in as it is a subject well outside the founding principles.
|
|
I just don’t understand why the same people who are pushing for gays to be included in the boy scouts aren’t also pushing for them to let girls in....funnily enough, in some countries its 'Scouts' and IS for boys and girls now. There still exists Girl Guides/Girl Scouts as a single sex organisation, but there are unisex Scouts now.
That's what I was getting at in my earlier post. We need to stop dragging our feet on letting in just gays, or just atheists, and instead concentrate on letting everyone in.
The BSA has routinely, often for decades, gotten tons of sweetheart deals from various government entities. These include things like penny and dollar a year rents and fees to get special use of public facilities like campgrounds.
Ok, fine. I have no objection to the practice of government helping out some kind of constructive youth program. I'd rather the money be spent there than on arresting pot growers, shooting foreigners, asserting property rights over someone else's uterus, or the like.
But if you want the benefits of functioning like some kind of adjunct to the government, then you take on all the responsibilities too. That means they can't exclude the gays, the atheists, the transvestites, the aliens from Zeta Reticuli, or transforming robots.
If they want to be a purely private group, that's also fine. You have more freedom to discriminate, but you also don't get any special treatment that wouldn't also be given to Uncle Jervis's House of Hookers and Blow.
Of course the BSA wants it both ways. They want the luxury of discrimination and the state subsidies. Fortunately I understand that since the BSA has become more blatant about this, various levels of government are starting to wise up and stop cutting them checks.
|
|
It is almost as if you are trying to say that if a scout master chaperones a score of (naturally hormone driven) teenaged boys (who happen to always have sex on the mind) out camping that he will have a really dificult can of worms to deal with if a half dozen of them are homosexuals.
This. I understand the desire for equal opportunities for boys and girls, but I wouldn't be comfortable with sending my kids on an overnight trip with minimal adult supervision and members of the opposite sex. Granted that with homosexuality at least you don't have to worry about one of them getting pregnant, but I see it along the same lines.
This. I understand the desire for equal opportunities for boys and girls, but I wouldn't be comfortable with sending my kids on an overnight trip with minimal adult supervision and members of the opposite sex.
Well either reign in your boys, or send your girls to Girl Guides/Scouts. :)
Hopefully pregnancy shouldn't be such an issue, because parents with kids that gae should probably have canvassed prevention by then. Thats not advocating said activity, just reducing the negative fallout if push comes to shove.
|
|
Of course the BSA wants it both ways. They want the luxury of discrimination and the state subsidies. Fortunately I understand that since the BSA has become more blatant about this, various levels of government are starting to wise up and stop cutting them checks.
Fallacy of composition. Just because some of the high-level bureaucrats make sweet deals for themselves, it does not mean that every member of the Scouts is complicit. As Brooks said above:
However, is it fair to sanction or hold animosity towards the members of an organization for the positions that their upper leadership takes? For example, the U.S. military currently has a contentious relationship with its homosexual members that has been dragged through high level inquiries, studies, and the courty system. Having served in that military, I personally have no problem with openly gay soliders/sailors/airmen serving their country and disagree with the military's current stance.
Despite those feelings, I am not going to hold that policy against junior enlisted, NCOs, or even junior officers. For the most part, these servicemen and women joined the military for a variety of reasons spanning patriotism, the chance for a better life, the assurance of paid college education, or whatever. They realistically do not have any ability to affect policy set forward by the Department of Defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff or other high level entities.
If you say that the BSA as a whole took bribes, got sweet deals, or any sort of special treatment, then you imply that I myself am part of a corrupt organization. This isn't the case. I was in the Scouts for over half my life, and never once did my unit receive special treatment. We raised our own money, occasionally paying for gear out-of-pocket. We organized our own trips, and kept track of our own. We did NOT receive any sort of trickle-down from some fat cat executive in Washington with an axe to grind.
In deciding to jump down people's throats on this particular issue, you've missed the point entirely. Thanks a whole lot.
|
|
This. I understand the desire for equal opportunities for boys and girls, but I wouldn't be comfortable with sending my kids on an overnight trip with minimal adult supervision and members of the opposite sex.
Well either reign in your boys, or send your girls to Girl Guides/Scouts. :)
Hopefully pregnancy shouldn't be such an issue, because parents with kids that gae should probably have canvassed prevention by then. Thats not advocating said activity, just reducing the negative fallout if push comes to shove.
+1
|
|
However, is it fair to sanction or hold animosity towards the members of an organization for the positions that their upper leadership takes? For example, the U.S. military currently has a contentious relationship with its homosexual members that has been dragged through high level inquiries, studies, and the courty system. Having served in that military, I personally have no problem with openly gay soliders/sailors/airmen serving their country and disagree with the military's current stance.
Despite those feelings, I am not going to hold that policy against junior enlisted, NCOs, or even junior officers. For the most part, these servicemen and women joined the military for a variety of reasons spanning patriotism, the chance for a better life, the assurance of paid college education, or whatever. They realistically do not have any ability to affect policy set forward by the Department of Defense or the Joint Chiefs of Staff or other high level entities.
This policy is a decent part of the reason why I'm no longer in the Army. When you get down to brass tacks, every single soldier you are serving with has, to paraphrase my battle Dillard, give the government a blank check payable up to their life. I would rather be in a firefight with a dozen gay soldiers who are willing to die for their country than one civilian who isn't (especially when that civilian spends their time running their mouth saying gays shouldn't be in).
Why should I continue to serve an institution that discriminates against people based solely on who they like to f$&$?
My current company (GE) OTOH, provides very good domestic partnership benefits, etc. even in areas that wouldn't normally recognize them. We had a transgendered tech in my last region. Their hospital tried to force them out after they found out (it was TN/GA, I wouldn't really expect anything less). GE stood behind the tech when they decided they wanted to stay...even though it probably hurt our chances at contract renewal. That is a organization I can be proud to work for.
Now, back on topic. The BSA needs to refuse all governmental funding/sweetheart deals if they want to continue to discriminate. The argument of "sexual tension" is f&!!ing ridiculous. Why is it that straight people think that all gay people have on their mind is trying to figure out ways to f&*+ straight people? I know that if I find a woman attractive, then find out she's a lesbian, I don't keep barking up that tree. It's a waste of time b/c I know there's no way she'll be attracted to me. Gay people are the same way. Why go after an impossible target? It's ridiculous.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
1) I dearly wish the folks running the BSA would ease off the issue with gays. But I understand that the current BSA leadership has a heavy Mormon component, so that's not likely to happen any time soon.
2) This thread got me to checking, and it does not seem that the BSA gets any funding from the Federal government. (That's not to say there aren't a lot of ties between federal -- particularly military -- personnel and the Boy Scouts; there is. But there's no official funding or support from Washington.)
There are some cities, counties, and states that allow any non-profit organization, such as the BSA, to use community centers, school buildings, and public spaces. Some of the communities have non-discrimination restrictions, and so they are denying the Boy Scouts use of those facilities. Others are probably turning a blind eye.
Many local chapters of the United Way offer funds to the Boy Scouts, but that, again, is on the decline. Some chapters are taking the BSA off its list of supported organizations precisely because of its discriminatory practices.
|
|
For the last time, it's not "The BSA" or "The Army" that's doing discriminating. It's groups of individuals within each organization. If you want to continue this argument, it's like saying "The United States is a racist country" based on the fact that various politicians are racist. It doesn't follow.
If you say, for example, "The Boy Scouts of America discriminate against atheists," that would mean I discriminate against myself. This is not only wrong, but also impossible. Believe me, there are plenty of atheists and homosexuals in the Boy Scouts that owe a lot to the organization, and though they disagree with some of its leaders, wouldn't trade their experiences for the world.
The real problem is that due to the actions of people on both sides of the issue, no one is attacking the root of the problem, and nothing is getting done.
|
|
The argument of "sexual tension" is f~~!ing ridiculous. Why is it that straight people think that all gay people have on their mind is trying to figure out ways to f~~! straight people? I know that if I find a woman attractive, then find out she's a lesbian, I don't keep barking up that tree. It's a waste of time b/c I know there's no way she'll be attracted to me. Gay people are the same way. Why go after an impossible target? It's ridiculous.
+1
If you say that the BSA as a whole took bribes, got sweet deals, or any sort of special treatment, then you imply that I myself am part of a corrupt organization. This isn't the case. I was in the Scouts for over half my life, and never once did my unit receive special treatment. We raised our own money, occasionally paying for gear out-of-pocket. We organized our own trips, and kept track of our own. We did NOT receive any sort of trickle-down from some fat cat executive in Washington with an axe to grind.
There seems to be a awful lot of assumptions in there, but the BSA does get special treatment compared to other private organizations...that is a matter of public record. It has gone to many state supreme courts. I have no idea if that makes it a "corrupt" organization or not...
From what I've seen (mostly on a Penn & Teller BS episode), enforcement of the atheist/homosexual thing is very spotty. That doesn't change the fact that the top of the organization strongly advocates bigotry. No offense, but perhaps as a member of the scouts, you should look at cleaning house instead of getting defensive?
For the last time, it's not "The BSA" or "The Army" that's doing discriminating. It's groups of individuals within each organization. If you want to continue this argument, it's like saying "The United States is a racist country" based on the fact that various politicians are racist. It doesn't follow.
If you say, for example, "The Boy Scouts of America discriminate against atheists," that would mean I discriminate against myself. This is not only wrong, but also impossible. Believe me, there are plenty of atheists and homosexuals in the Boy Scouts that owe a lot to the organization, and though they disagree with some of its leaders, wouldn't trade their experiences for the world.
The real problem is that due to the actions of people on both sides of the issue, no one is attacking the root of the problem, and nothing is getting done.
This isn't a few rogue scouts -- it is the official position of the BSA on homosexuals.
Here's what they say about atheists:
The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members.
I'm sorry, you may not want to hear it, but the organization to which you belong open advocates bigotry. I'm glad you, and many other scouts don't -- I suggest you try to make your voices heard within the organization. But saying it's "just a few leaders" is simply not accurate.
|
|
If you say that the BSA as a whole took bribes, got sweet deals, or any sort of special treatment, then you imply that I myself am part of a corrupt organization. This isn't the case. I was in the Scouts for over half my life, and never once did my unit receive special treatment. We raised our own money, occasionally paying for gear out-of-pocket. We organized our own trips, and kept track of our own. We did NOT receive any sort of trickle-down from some fat cat executive in Washington with an axe to grind.There seems to be a awful lot of assumptions in there, but the BSA does get special treatment compared to other private organizations...that is a matter of public record. It has gone to many state supreme courts. I have no idea if that makes it a "corrupt" organization or not...
From what I've seen (mostly on a Penn & Teller BS episode), enforcement of the atheist/homosexual thing is very spotty. That doesn't change the fact that the top of the organization strongly advocates bigotry. No offense, but perhaps as a member of the scouts, you should look at cleaning house instead of getting defensive?
I'm basing what I said almost entirely on the post I was quoting.
On the other point, it's hard to clean house with people on both sides of the issue breathing down my neck. I try to do my part. When my Venture crew was still active (it folded about a year back due to lack of district support), every one of us signed a multi-district petition to end discrimination against gays and atheists, and every one of us wore the diversity knot or the diversity patch on our uniforms.
Sure, it doesn't seem like much, but when it comes down to it, in this situation, there's really not much one can do in the way of actively changing policy from the top down. The most we can hope for is to try to foster tolerance and inclusiveness at the ground level.
Sure, it doesn't seem like much, but when it comes down to it, in this situation, there's really not much one can do in the way of actively changing policy from the top down. The most we can hope for is to try to foster tolerance and inclusiveness at the ground level.
And that's very commendable -- seriously. But with all due respect, I don't see how it should allow the scouts to continue receiving government support. :(
|
|
Here's what they say about atheists:
The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of His favors and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members.I'm sorry, you may not want to hear it, but the organization to which you belong open advocates bigotry.
This isn't some nebulous "organization" we're talking about. It's people.
I knew the policy when I was old enough to understand what it was about, and I still kept going, as did my friends. The way we saw it, the best way to change people's attitudes was not a boycott, but merely to show everyone that we had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.
|
|
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.
The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.It's just words. You can subscribe to them, or you can choose not to. It's not like you have to take all of it or none of it.
Sure, I would LOVE it if the BSA changed its policy. I would do almost anything to see everyone included in the organization this very second. But that's also not practical. We have to do what we can here and now.
This isn't some nebulous "organization" we're talking about. It's people.I knew the policy when I was old enough to understand what it was about, and I still kept going, as did my friends. The way we saw it, the best way to change people's attitudes was not a boycott, but merely to show everyone that we had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.
I'm sorry Mr. S. I'm really not trying to piss you off. I understand that an organization is made up of people, and that not all people support everything the organization does. But on some level, an organization's culture is shaped by what goes on at the top. I' not saying I hate the BSA...just that I don't think it should receive government funding. I truly hope that changes. With more people like you in there, it just might.
|
|
Sure, it doesn't seem like much, but when it comes down to it, in this situation, there's really not much one can do in the way of actively changing policy from the top down. The most we can hope for is to try to foster tolerance and inclusiveness at the ground level.And that's very commendable -- seriously. But with all due respect, I don't see how it should allow the scouts to continue receiving government support. :(
This is one of those things that are terrible, but can't really be dealt with on a small scale. I don't think they should be getting government funding either, but the fact of the matter is, they are, and there's really nothing we can do about it.
Like I've said several times, we're not going to change this by railing at the heavens and screaming at Washington. This needs to be changed by getting people to understand that everyone has a place in the Scouts, and then maybe the sentiment will trickle back to Washington. In the meantime, though, all we can do is sit back, keep trying, and wait.
|
|
I'm sorry Mr. S. I'm really not trying to piss you off. I understand that an organization is made up of people, and that not all people support everything the organization does. But on some level, an organization's culture is shaped by what goes on at the top. I' not saying I hate the BSA...just that I don't think it should receive government funding. I truly hope that changes. With more people like you in there, it just might.
This isn't some nebulous "organization" we're talking about. It's people.I knew the policy when I was old enough to understand what it was about, and I still kept going, as did my friends. The way we saw it, the best way to change people's attitudes was not a boycott, but merely to show everyone that we had just as much of a right to be there as anyone else.
I know you weren't trying to offend, man. It just kind of hits home, you know? I think everyone on this thread has the same opinion on the issue, just different ways that we think it should be dealt with. Sorry if I snapped at anyone (I probably did), but this is one issue that demands taking a step back.
|
|
For the last time, it's not "The BSA" or "The Army" that's doing discriminating. It's groups of individuals within each organization. If you want to continue this argument, it's like saying "The United States is a racist country" based on the fact that various politicians are racist. It doesn't follow.
The institution has policies which discriminate. Saying that it's groups of individuals doesn't really hold water considering it's an institutional policy. It's not like 82nd airborne doesn't allow gays but the 101st does. The army as a whole doesn't allow gays. That is their official "party line." Same thing w/ the BSA. That is their official policy. Whatever members of the organization individually believe, the organization itself is bigoted.
Prior to the civil rights movement, the US was a racist country. There were laws in place advocating and enforcing racism. Now there are laws that enforce the opposite. Therefore the US is no longer racist. The presence of non-racists pre-civil rights movement and the presence of racists post-civil rights movement does not change the facts of the official policies.
If you say, for example, "The Boy Scouts of America discriminate against atheists," that would mean I discriminate against myself. This is not only wrong, but also impossible. Believe me, there are plenty of atheists and homosexuals in the Boy Scouts that owe a lot to the organization, and though they disagree with some of its leaders, wouldn't trade their experiences for the world.
See above.
The real problem is that due to the actions of people on both sides of the issue, no one is attacking the root of the problem, and nothing is getting done.
That doesn't really work in the army. It might work in the BSA, but it's more likely just to get you booted out.
|
|
Other areas of the problem:
The World Organisation of the Scout Movement will only recognise one scouting org per country, and thus any scouting group that DOES recognise homosexuals or atheists is still represented by the BSA on an international level.
Also: If you're an Eagle Scout, you generally receive extra rank/pay when you enlist in the US Military. The highest ranks of the Girl Scouts do not receive such recognition.
Of course the BSA wants it both ways. They want the luxury of discrimination and the state subsidies. Fortunately I understand that since the BSA has become more blatant about this, various levels of government are starting to wise up and stop cutting them checks.Fallacy of composition. Just because some of the high-level bureaucrats make sweet deals for themselves, it does not mean that every member of the Scouts is complicit.
I think that you have misread me. I am not saying that the BSA is some kind of mafia that parties with local politicians over hookers and blow. I am saying, and this is a matter of public record, that the organization routinely gets special treatment from local governments in the form of reduced or waived fees, rents, and access to facilities. This does not mean that something nefarious is going on. It just means the organization enjoys special treatment, which I would hope you saw from my previous post that I am not necessarily opposed to in itself. I am opposed to the BSA getting these subsidies and continuing to discriminate. Apparently your troop never got any, but other troops did and in all likelihood still do. I have read about such arrangements in the past.
Nor for that matter did I say that every single Boy Scout who ever lived is a disgusting homophobe who should be taken out back and shot out of a cannon shaped like a giant kangaroo in the name of social progress. (Though I confess that it would be pretty cool to see a giant kangaroo-shaped cannon just as a novelty, provided nobody was being shot out of or by it.)
But the fact remains that the organization as a matter of official policy is in fact quite homophobic. And yes, the same thing is true of the American military. And the Catholic Church. It's not possible to fairly and honestly consider this a matter of a few bad apples while the policy continues. That could only be true if there were no such policy and rogue troop leaders instituted it on their own and without the approval or knowledge of the head office.
I do not have any particular animosity towards anybody just for being or having been a scout. I have never been or desired to be a scout myself, but what other people do for hobbies isn't something that ordinarily I get too worked up about.
As a child one has fairly limited choices as to what organizations one is a part of and thus can certainly be forgiven for some unfortunate associations. Likewise children are in no position to create, enforce, or even really defend the policies of these organizations. They're kids.
I do have particular animosity towards adults who are in a position to understand the policies in question, to know better, to freely join or leave organizations at their own initiative, to work to change those policies, who then go along anyway. This is, obviously, not a category into which you fit.
I further have a more intense animosity towards those who being reasonably accountable for their associations and aware of the policies in question, then go on to enforce, institute, or defend such policies. It's bad enough to keep one's head down and do nothing, but it's still worse to actively seek to become a bigger part of the problem. This is again, obviously, not you.
In deciding to jump down people's throats on this particular issue, you've missed the point entirely. Thanks a whole lot.
Your defensiveness has caused you to misunderstand me. You're welcome a lot. :)
Why is it that straight people think that all gay people have on their mind is trying to figure out ways to f~~! straight people?I can't answer much else about the rest of what you posted, but this one is easy.
Why should homosexual boys be any different from heterosexual boys? Sex is on their minds a majority of the time because they are teenaged boys. It was on my mind much of the time when I was a teenager. And sadly, I have seen several adult men who keep pestering people that have turned them down, whether straight or gay.
Why should homosexual boys be any different from heterosexual boys? I have never been a heterosexual; it's against my libido and I take those commandments very seriously. However it has been my experience that the great majority of boys, heterosexual or homosexual, are capable of the following things:
1) Thinking about sex a lot.
2) Wanting to have sex a lot.
3) Desiring to have sex with people who may not be interested in having it with them.
4) Not desiring to have sex with people, even if they are interested in having sex with the boy in question.
5) Wanting to have sex, even really really badly, and then not having it.
You can tell because huge majorities of both boys and men are not rapists. The sex they have is consensual. They may make and receive unwanted advances from time to time. If these are rude or persistent they can be harassing and that is unfortunate and of course in such cases measures should be taken to deter them just as we would deter any harassment. But two straight boys are every bit as capable of harassing one another as one straight boy and one gay boy or two gay boys together are, sexually and non-sexually alike.