Boy Scouts of America may file for bankruptcy

I think there is something to that.

Interestingly, I once had the best history professor ever. Turns out he was a married catholic priest. He started as an Anglican priest and apparently there is an exception made if already married when converting to Catholicism.

 

That is perhaps a reflection of the declining values in the US.

Even still, the enrollment of the other boy scout groups (non BSA) is rising.

That says something.

 

Very few Catholic churches have left BSA--locally I've heard of none, other than units that were dying anyway. My parish priest spoke glowingly of our Troop at a recent Eagle Court of Honor. Also, LDS members were about 18%. Also, the LDS church is sticking with BSA for the 8-13 year olds.

The funny thing is that allowing girls in their own scout units (which currently will be the case when girls are allowed to join the 11-17 year old group of scouts), is probably more popular among existing Scout leaders than allowing gays in. Why? A lot of Scout leaders have daughters, and they see how (for the most part) Girl Scouts is far inferior to Boy Scouts. They want their daughters to have the same great experiences as their sons.

 

It's a combination of factors. It is true that people are no longer joining clubs. Even youth sports is slowly disappearing.

 

There are no other boy scout groups that are non BSA. There are scoutlike groups, but none can claim to be scouts. They are all just cheap imitators that have nothing original, besides changing things enough to avoid being sued for copyright infringement. Their growth in absolute numbers is pretty pathetic.

 

Also flawed logic. The vast majority of people are heterosexual. So it stands that there will be more heterosexual pedophiles.

Not that thats good either. The point is its disproportionally high amongst homosexuals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1556756

This flawed logic is also used when pointing out that the majority of people on welfare are not black. OK. But the fact that its nearly 50% of the total on welfare while the population comprises 13% of the total population shows its disproportionate.

 

There have always been other scouting groups. BSA got the govt charter, the other groups didn't.

 

no, it is not disproportionally high. Your own link shows you to be wrong................

 

Agreed, the BSA is completely non political, and those posters are just flame baiting the thread.

 

This is classic leftist agit-prop, to inflate the tiny cohorts in order to disproportionately represent their influence. 10-20% of Hollywood/TV culture is now gay. In the real world it's just a fraction of that.

Leftists lying for leftism...Shocking.

 

Study from 1992. Good luck funding anything like this today. PC American couldn't stand to see anything concrete about str8/gay differences.

Life span studies have been similarly embargoed. Science is worse for it in every way. What's NOT studied destroyes the credibility of what is studied.

 

Pretty sure I didn't say "pedophiles are gay", so no; no "logical fallacy." However you're asking for trouble if you put gay guys in charge of teenage boys and let them head off into the woods alone. Common sense dictates you wouldn't do that any more than you would put some straight guys in charge of a bunch of teenage girl scouts and let them go marching off together alone.

I think you are making my point here! Why do you think the BSA had a no gays policy for so many years?

 

Exactly right.

 

They were losing ground even before they ended discrimination against gays, until all they had left were the radical right like you, and earned a reputation among millenials for being backwards. When they tried to modernize their policies, it was too little too late, and are now losing the last few evangelicals they had left, but not gaining progressive millennials because of their reputation.

 

You are at least the second person who makes an obvious point that there were massive sexual abuse scandals in the BSA before they opened up to gays and somehow think that hurts my point rather than helps it. Maybe you could explain how "Accepting open homosexuals in the organisation reduces the risk." I admit I'm not following that.

 

Wow that makes the third person who thinks that massive sex abuse scandals before the Boy Scouts admitted gays might have actually been the incentive to want to keep the policy?

 

OK make that 4

 

That's nice.

 

correlation doesn't equal causation.

Sounds more like the courts finally recognized a problem that was happening much longer then just the last few years and has nothing to do with gay folks, and has everything to do with Pedophiles (or more accurately in this case, Ephebophilia)

http://www.newsline.umd.edu/Boyle/scoutshonor.htm

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/lo...cle_47b4a149-79b2-5b35-a2a2-73c84e2e4a57.html

 

Wait, you think they're gay because they cant marry ?

 

My point is that the bankruptcy is not related to letting gays in. It's associated with the sex abuse that happened years ago. The gay issue was just for money. BSA was losing big money from corporations for the no-gays issue. They let gays in because of that. The corporations didn't follow up with donations, and conservatives were disgusted (and, IMHO, rightfully so, speaking as a conservative who was a scout leader from about 2006 to 2016). The gay issue is not a real one. Yes, there may be a handful of openly gay leaders and scouts now (I've never personally met one), but it's not like all of a sudden most Scout leaders were gay. Conservatives who are anti-Boy Scout are helping the liberals kill off something good. Something American that helped produce good men.

 

They should have filed for bankruptcy years ago. Then they could have admitted anyone they wanted or not admitted anyone they wanted. Civil suits are the only recourse that would be effective.

 

Nothing in what you quoted changed the reality of what I said.

Did you even read it?

 

Sounds like you just made up yet another theory with no factual evidence.

 

you should probably actually read the study he cited. It directly refutes his claim, lol.