Boy Scouts Consider Lifting Ban on Gay Leaders

Interesting.

Not quite sure what would prompt such a drastic change in position. A desire to remain relevant? Pulling their heads out of their asses and getting with the current century? A realization that gay does not mean incompetent?

If the ban on gays being Boy Scout leaders was lifted and to be decided on local levels, what does that mean for the institution? I daresay that they are an organization who is not staying up with the times and has a declining membership due to a variety of factors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/boy-scouts-consider-lifting-ban-on-gay-leaders.html?_r=0

The Boy Scouts of America, which refused for years to allow openly gay scout leaders, a policy that made the organization a lightning rod for the nation’s debate about homosexuality, said on Monday that it was considering ending the ban, and allowing local scouting groups to choose for themselves whether to allow gay members.

“This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, and the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with each organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs,” a spokesman for the Boy Scouts of America, Deron Smith, said in a statement.

Mr. Smith added: “The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles, or religious beliefs.” He said that members and parents would be able to choose a local unit that best meets the needs of their families.

Scouting, with its three-fingered salute and oath of honorable conduct, has for generations of boys and leaders held itself out as a place of high moral conduct and quasi-military upright bearing. Outdoor skills and experience were bound up, the organization preached, with the values of character. But revelations about sexual abuse by scout leaders, which have increasingly emerged in recent years with some victims and parents saying the organization shielded predators and tarnished the group’s reputation as always protective of youth.

The ban on gay leaders created a kind of crosswind of criticism: Would removing the ban alienate tradition-minded families who might fear gay leaders and see them as potential abusers or boys? Or would lifting the ban attract a new generation of scouts whose families no longer feared gay leaders?

Meanwhile, a pressure for change was coming from within. A California chapter of the Boy Scouts of America, Reuters reported on Monday, is directly challenging the ban on gays by formally recommending that an openly gay former scout be awarded the top rank of Eagle.

 

Well, if they lift the ban, you can count on a sharp decline in membership, as well as a sharp decline on funding.

Because I doubt the overwhelmingly Christian donors will sponsor it any longer. It will probably disappear into a foot note of history. Or be rebranded as something accepting of the whole LGBT crowd.

Either way, if they do it, it is suicide for the organization as it is.

Gay may not mean incompetent, but to many it is undesirable. Particularly around their children.

 

I would think that pedophile are undesirable around children. And child abusers. Gay leaders have always participated in boy scouts. . .just as gay have always been in the military. . .it is just that the hypocrisy of having to hide is finally being called and rejected by a majority.

 

Pedophiles are, and are child abusers. And gay cub scout leaders that our found out are soon shown the door as they should be.

Boy Scouts are a private club, if they don't want homosexuals in their midst they can set that bar if they want. Joining the Scouts is an option, one that gays don't have to explore.

 

Are they?

Do they not get federal money?

 

Truthfully, I don't know if they get federal cha-ching or not. I read on wikipedia the other day that they get about 60% of their resources from Christian religions though. If they get federal money it is likely in the form of grants which have different requirements of the recipient.

 

It's such a great idea.

 

Checking crystal ball....

2 years in a facility, then let out for good behavior. Then he'll probably get a job at a pre-school as a janitor so he can do it again.

Ought to be a lifetime enslavement where the proceeds go to the victim. Or at the very least an amputation of his genitalia with a cinder block.

 

This was a married man, not an open homosexual. By the current rules of scouting he is allowed to be a scout master. Banning gays didn't stop this or the other thousands of molestations by scout leaders, most of which were married men,

Can you explain how banning openly gay men will stop married men who molest children from being scout masters? Also why would someone who was molesting children draw attention to themselves by being openly gay? That would just draw attention and closer scrutiny. They would be the perfect hetero male, generally married with children of their own. They wouldn't do or say anything to bring more attention to themselves.

 

it's called mitigating risks. Do you not understand that concept? I might survive standing on the railing overlooking Niagara Falls, but I'm not going to risk it.

 

Except there hasn't been a case of an openly gay scout master molesting scouts. All, that I am aware of, have been hetero, mostly married men. You don't mitigate risks by banning something that has never been shown to be a risk.

 

when a male molests another male there is nothing hetero about that. It is gay

by having a policy in place to try and protect little boys it is better than no policy at all. Since the BSA is a private institution then they can do what they want.

If you want to go start the gay scouts and only allow gay scoutmasters then have at it. The amount of parents bringing their kids to you will tell you if they support you or not

 

The policy in place is called two deep leadership. No adult is allowed to be alone with any child that is not their own. Banning gays when the one abusing the boys are not openly gay, and the majority are in fact married makes no sense.

Yes they are a private org. and can do as they please, but the policy makes no sense.

 

Are they a private institution?

Whilst I do not think anyone would argue against pedophiles not being around children, there seems to be no evidence presented that indicates that homosexuals have molested boys in the boy scouts any more or less frequently than straight men do.

So onto the next part of your argument.

The Boy Scouts are free to be as discriminatory as they like, if they were truly a private organization. However, they do receive federal funding, which changes things a bit.

http://secular.org/news/government-funding-boys-scouts-discriminatory-policies-unacceptable

I could not possibly care any less if parents want their kids to go to a private club that will fill them with Christian "morals" and all sorts of other nonsense, but if I am paying for it, which I am, I do have a problem with discriminatory practices.

 

There are women scout leaders, particularly for Cub Scouts..

So by YOUR "logic", these boys are at elevated risk for molestation since these women would presumably be attracted to males, thus a kid must tempt them..

Silly? Yes. And so is your suggestion that openly gay men would be any more likely than anyone else to commit rape on young boys.

Child predators trying to be Boy Scout leaders don't wear signs like "I'm gay", whether or not gays are prohibited from the position.

 

start a "gay scouts" and report back how it's working out

 

Uh.....please read the title of the thread for your answer to that one. They have been banned till now.

 

Pedophiles and ephebophiles will always put themselves around children and adolescents. They become teachers, social workers, day care workers, priests, rabbis, pastors, cub scout leaders, etc. Male predators because of male physiology are more prevalent and aggressive.

If you want to have your children avoid the presence of predators then basically keep them home. Banning any one type of person won't stop it because they don't look like you expect--how could they? They wouldn't be allowed around your children if they did.

 

Righties should learn some modern history.

Gay leaders were only banned organization-wide in 1991.

 

The scouts are making a decision in May. The current rules do not allow gays to be scouts, or scout masters. So they didn't, and currently don't, allow gays yet there were over 1500 molestations by scout masters, most of them married men.

 

Welcome to the Republican position on paying for other people's abortions. Not so fun to be forced to subsidize something you find morally reprehensible, is it?

 

Federal funding and moral/ethics are relevant to the thread.

 

WE DO?

 

You said you don't want to be forced to pay for something you have a moral problem with. And I'm not even faulting you for that. I think it's a legitimate complaint. I was just pointing out that you're not alone here. This is exactly what we're being put through on the other side with another issue that not too many of you guys seem too concerned about. I thought perhaps pointing this out might help you guys see the other side a little better now that you realize you're facing it too. Sucks, doesn't it? Not very fair at all.

 

And conversely then you agree, Unifier, that as long as the Boy Scouts receive federal aid they should be likewise accommodating, or no?