Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts are a private organization and can set their own rules consistent with their values. Note the last part of the 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 BSA is on the wrong side of this. They are a great program, but they will either slowly become marginalized in society or they will eventually cave. Now that the military has dropped DADT, I think it is harder for the scouts to maintain this stance. Society is changing and this will not go away. The scouts can join society are become a minor poorly respected subset of society. For example, I think, the rank of Eagle Scout will eventually be tarnished. I am encouraged by the disagreement on the BSA board and from other BSA members, but I think this is a battle.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Boy Scouts are a private organization and can set their own rules consistent with their values. Note the last part of the 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

Anonymous wrote:Boy Scouts affirm policy excluding gay scouts and leaders.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/17/12790471-boy-scouts-were-keeping-policy-banning-gays?ocid=ansmsnbc11

Certainly agree that not all gays are pedophiles, etc. And the Boy Scouts are purusing an overly risk-averse policy. I think they should welcome gay/lesbian parents of boys who wish to be involved with Cubs or Scouts. But if a single, gay man shows up volunteering to go camping with the troop, alarm bells should go off.

Boy Scouts affirm policy excluding gay scouts and leaders.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/07/17/12790471-boy-scouts-were-keeping-policy-banning-gays?ocid=ansmsnbc11

We are in Fairfax. Are there other scout-type organizations that aren't so closed minded?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:gay pedophiles naturally gravitate towards positions of power over their victims. If you were to allow gay leaders it would remove a barrier against abuse. Look at what happened with Sandusky and his firm for children.

But Sandusky, like most male predators who prey on boys, didn't identify openly as gay, and wasn't interested in relationships with other men. Excluding openly gay men just gives a false sense of security and doesn't actually exclude the predators.

+1000

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that politically-correct, smart-minded people criticize the Boy Scouts of America for doing what they criticize the Catholic Church hierarchy for not doing.

--Eagle Scout (and a Catholic)

Ummm, no. I criticize the Catholic Church heirarchy for allowing known pedophiles to stay in leadership positions where they have access to children, and for not reporting incidents of child sexual abuse.

I think every parent on here would agree with me that the Boy Scouts should not allow known pedophiles to be leaders, and that they should report incidents of child sexual abuse that they become aware of to the authorities.

That issue is entirely separate from the issue of sexual orientation.

The catholic church does not allow women to be leaders, so it discriminates too.

I'm the 2nd PP here. Yes, the Catholic Church does discriminate. It does plenty of other things I object to. But the thing I would criticize them for "Not Doing" as the first PP says, is identifying and removing the pedophiles in their ranks. Identifying and removing criminals is totally different from identifying and removing innocent people because of their sexual orientation.

Anonymous wrote:gay pedophiles naturally gravitate towards positions of power over their victims. If you were to allow gay leaders it would remove a barrier against abuse. Look at what happened with Sandusky and his firm for children.

But Sandusky, like most male predators who prey on boys, didn't identify openly as gay, and wasn't interested in relationships with other men. Excluding openly gay men just gives a false sense of security and doesn't actually exclude the predators.

gay pedophiles naturally gravitate towards positions of power over their victims. If you were to allow gay leaders it would remove a barrier against abuse. Look at what happened with Sandusky and his firm for children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was completely against Boy Scouts for my son because of their stance against the gay community. However, I just learned that apparently it is quite variable by jurisdiction. I was advised to find out what the reality is in the DC area. Can anyone educate me? Thanks.

You do understand why it would be a problem for an all male organization to have elder gay scoutmasters or scouts?

Actually, by this reasoning they should limit cub scout leadership to lesbians, barring heterosexual women.

^^ our DC's school only takes smart kids so they discriminate too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that politically-correct, smart-minded people criticize the Boy Scouts of America for doing what they criticize the Catholic Church hierarchy for not doing.

--Eagle Scout (and a Catholic)

Ummm, no. I criticize the Catholic Church heirarchy for allowing known pedophiles to stay in leadership positions where they have access to children, and for not reporting incidents of child sexual abuse.

I think every parent on here would agree with me that the Boy Scouts should not allow known pedophiles to be leaders, and that they should report incidents of child sexual abuse that they become aware of to the authorities.

That issue is entirely separate from the issue of sexual orientation.

The catholic church does not allow women to be leaders, so it discriminates too.

Anonymous wrote:I love the way that politically-correct, smart-minded people criticize the Boy Scouts of America for doing what they criticize the Catholic Church hierarchy for not doing.

--Eagle Scout (and a Catholic)

Ummm, no. I criticize the Catholic Church heirarchy for allowing known pedophiles to stay in leadership positions where they have access to children, and for not reporting incidents of child sexual abuse.

I think every parent on here would agree with me that the Boy Scouts should not allow known pedophiles to be leaders, and that they should report incidents of child sexual abuse that they become aware of to the authorities.

That issue is entirely separate from the issue of sexual orientation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boy Scout troop in AU Park is run by cliquey, snotty Republican-stealth-Mormons. My son was practically fragged by some other boys on a camping trip. It's really a very mean group of Dads without real jobs--but that went to big name schools--they are grown men strutting around pathetically in boy scout uniforms. They are disorganized poseurs who ruined boy scouts for all 3 of my sons.

Substitute "Jews" for "Mormons" in the above paragraph and imagine the outrage on this board. It's time to declare that there should be no "safe harbor" for bigoted comments, even about Mormons.

You're right. And some troops apparently don't welcome Mormons as leaders either:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2010/1021/Boy-Scouts-group-removes-Mormons-from-leadership-roles-over-religious-beliefs

Anonymous wrote:Boy Scout troop in AU Park is run by cliquey, snotty Republican-stealth-Mormons. My son was practically fragged by some other boys on a camping trip. It's really a very mean group of Dads without real jobs--but that went to big name schools--they are grown men strutting around pathetically in boy scout uniforms. They are disorganized poseurs who ruined boy scouts for all 3 of my sons.

Substitute "Jews" for "Mormons" in the above paragraph and imagine the outrage on this board. It's time to declare that there should be no "safe harbor" for bigoted comments, even about Mormons.