Boy Scout New Policy

[StPaulHusker]

omg! who cares about the boy scouts?

...said the poster who opened and posted in this thread.

I think this topic has been beaten to a pulp. All you have to know moving forward is that you do not have to accept what the Boy Scouts do by way of their rules and beliefs and in the same breath the Boy Scouts does not have to change their model of beliefs to appease the masses.

I can understand why you want the discussion to end.
Given your Augusta National reference, it seems clear that you don't understand a key aspect of the discussion. The Boy Scouts of America receives public funding: specifically public funding through tax-exempt status and tax-deductible donations.

Bob Jones University v. United States determined that discrimination based on an immutable minority trait bars taxpayer funding. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez comfirms that public funding can be withheld from organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

What I clearly see in this "discussion" is that you want to vilify the Boy Scouts. You are preaching to the wrong people. If you want to complain this much about them, contact your local Senator or Congressman and tell them your plight. Contact the school, if there is one, that allows your local troop to hold it's meetings and tell them you are unhappy with the arrangement and then take it to your local school board. But I will tell you this. People like me that pay the dues to have their kids in this organization know full well what we are doing and what the scope of the beliefs are. And we have a right to not be part of this organization and not pay the money. What we do not have a right to necessarily is to pay money to join understanding their positions and then get up in arms that they won't change because I don't agree with them.

If you don't have a dog in the hunt, what exactly are you trying to achieve with your condemnation of Boy Scouts?

 

[NUance]

Let's leave the AT-ATs out of this.

Alloy Theoretic Automated Toolkit?

 

[krill]

The scouts seem to have been lost in all the nonsense in this thread.

Scouting is one of the few things I look back on from my childhood and early adult life and believe was worthwhile. At least in our troop all the supposedly rigid rules were not followed to a T. Of course some troops did have more authoritarian leaders that ultimately just degraded the experience for the scouts and probably drove people away.

So, if someone that's been a scout since age 7-8, and discovers they are gay at age 12-14, they should really be kicked out in disgrace if they come out? Continuing on my thoughts above, I can see some leaders that would want to kick them out because of their own beliefs with the rules as a flimsy pretense. The attitudes about homosexuality in this country have changed a great deal in the past two decades and it's time for the BSA to catch up or be left behind with more people being turned off. I feel this is of particular importance because for children and young adults in larger cities, the BSA may be their only opportunity to do things like camping and get out of doors for more than an afternoon. It also affords an opportunity disconnect from a screen for awhile, which far too many children seem incapable of doing unless something else to do is presented.

So again, why should someone who happens to be gay be excluded from this?

 

[StPaulHusker]

The scouts seem to have been lost in all the nonsense in this thread.

Scouting is one of the few things I look back on from my childhood and early adult life and believe was worthwhile. At least in our troop all the supposedly rigid rules were not followed to a T. Of course some troops did have more authoritarian leaders that ultimately just degraded the experience for the scouts and probably drove people away.

So, if someone that's been a scout since age 7-8, and discovers they are gay at age 12-14, they should really be kicked out in disgrace if they come out? Continuing on my thoughts above, I can see some leaders that would want to kick them out because of their own beliefs with the rules as a flimsy pretense. The attitudes about homosexuality in this country have changed a great deal in the past two decades and it's time for the BSA to catch up or be left behind with more people being turned off. I feel this is of particular importance because for children and young adults in larger cities, the BSA may be their only opportunity to do things like camping and get out of doors for more than an afternoon. It also affords an opportunity disconnect from a screen for awhile, which far too many children seem incapable of doing unless something else to do is presented.

So again, why should someone who happens to be gay be excluded from this?

You're right and they shouldn't be excluded. I think that the Boy Scouts stance on this topic is stupid. My point was only they don't have to change if they don't want to. They will succeed or fail on their beliefs and merits and I am good with that.

 

[Someone]

My post was intended to be ridiculously redundant in an already ridiculously redundant thread. Probably didn't come through very well in the sparse nature of the Interwebz, but it was supposed to be a joke.

This is why I don't do stand-up.

Sorry in missed it. I am too new here to know & read posting styles.

omg! who cares about the boy scouts?

...said the poster who opened and posted in this thread.

I think this topic has been beaten to a pulp. All you have to know moving forward is that you do not have to accept what the Boy Scouts do by way of their rules and beliefs and in the same breath the Boy Scouts does not have to change their model of beliefs to appease the masses.

I can understand why you want the discussion to end.
Given your Augusta National reference, it seems clear that you don't understand a key aspect of the discussion. The Boy Scouts of America receives public funding: specifically public funding through tax-exempt status and tax-deductible donations.

Bob Jones University v. United States determined that discrimination based on an immutable minority trait bars taxpayer funding. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez comfirms that public funding can be withheld from organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

What I clearly see in this "discussion" is that you want to vilify the Boy Scouts. ... People like me that pay the dues to have their kids in this organization know full well what we are doing and what the scope of the beliefs are. And we have a right to not be part of this organization and not pay the money. What we do not have a right to necessarily is to pay money to join understanding their positions and then get up in arms that they won't change because I don't agree with them.
If you don't have a dog in the hunt, what exactly are you trying to achieve with your condemnation of Boy Scouts?

I am not here to "vilify the Boy Scouts".
You have stated that you: "know full well ... what the scope of the beliefs are".

Can you rectify these 2 statements from their proposed changes to their membership policy:

1. WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization, nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda
   
2. WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America will maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America [ie excluding Gay leaders].
   

If it is true that no member may "Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda" then it is hard to understand how excluding Gay leaders isn't advancing an anti-homosexual social agenda.

Their anti-gay leaders position runs contrary to their No bulling policy (a fact that I believe they figured out with regard to gay youth). In fact, their anti-gay leader policy was established based on a long disproven assumption that gay men are a pediophile risk for scout youth.

Do you disagree that Bob Jones University v. United States determined that discrimination based on an immutable minority trait bars taxpayer funding. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez comfirms that public funding can be withheld from organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Do you disagree that with the idea that receiving tax free donation is a form of public support?

 

[Someone]

Nothing. However, Boy Scouts of America receives public funding, specifically public funding through tax-exempt status and tax-deductible donations.

Their public funding as you call it is by DONATION. To my knowledge, they do not receive tax dollars like other programs. And their tax-exempt status is because they are a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. This is the case with a lot of organizations

Just because an organization doesn't have a profit motive dosen't make them tax-exempt. To receive donations that qualify for a tax deduction from the grantor, they have to be an organization with an 'exempt' purpose.

Read what the IRS says:

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501©(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I am done with you and this "discussion". You haven't proven or solved anything and you continue to talk in circles.

I'm Out.

 

[Someone]

I am done with you and this "discussion". You haven't proven or solved anything and you continue to talk in circles.

I'm Out.

That is your best move, given the errors in your posts, like #71.

 

[Someone]

The moral high ground that Boy Scouts of America is similar to what we heard in the 1950's all the way up through 1974 from the organization, when BSA allowed local unit/troops/etc to be segregated.

Boy Scouts of America was on the wrong side of history then.

How will history judge them this time?

 

[ShawnWatson]

 

[JJ Husker]

LMAO. Thanks for that ShawnWatson. "Someone" 's posts affect me like an old Pink Floyd Lyric "and the worms ate into his brain".

 

[HuskerThor]

Scout numbers have declined greatly in my hometown since I did it 10 years ago. Im not sure about other areas, but it seems like in the areas I have been there hasnt been much participation.

The Boy Souts of America have recommended a policy that allows gay teens to be scouts but gay adults can't be scout leaders.

Their rational for this distinction is explained as follows: _______________________. It turns out, they don't ever explain their rational.

The scouts do point to morality as a virtue they require from their leaders. Below is a list of other morality violations that from this point forward will exclude an adult from being a scout leader:

1. Divorce
   
2. Tattoo(s)
   
3. Obesity or gluttony
   
4. loss of virginity before marriage
   
5. extra-marrital affair
   
6. drunkenness
   
7. being behind on your federal, state or local taxes
   
8. viewing porn
   
9. having a mortgage or other forms of borrowing
   
10. Failure to love one another
    

On a related note, 99% of all scout leaders fail the morality standard.

Make plans now to attend the first ever de-advancement ritual where perfectly worthy Eagle Scouts who have served as leaders and mentors to younger scouts as required by their code, are told that they are now old enough to be unworthy to continue to serve in a leadership role with scouts from this day forward.

There numbers are indecline in most places.
Do you have a link to these "official" morality standards or, are we just supposed to take your word for it? Some of these are a pretty good idea but I have trouble believing something like having a mortgage is an official disqualifier.

Your sarcastic detector is broken again, I see.
Just for fun, tell us which ones you believe are "pretty good" reasons to exclude a person from a leadership position in Boy Scouts.

I was a boy scout for 2 weeks, got kicked out for eatin a brownie. I would be excluded from said leadership.

 

[HuskerThor]

We discriminated against kids who weren't exceptional hockey players.

This act of "discrimination" is known to most people in the sports world as try-outs. Now if you did not choose a kid because they had long hair or were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

What would be wrong with allowing the Scouts to promote the values they believe in, without the need to accommodate every disparate view that comes along? It would be wrong if we—society, gov't, etc.—wouldn't allow those who have a different view of family values to form their own organization and promote their own beliefs.

Nothing. However, Boy Scouts of America receives public funding, specifically public funding through tax-exempt status and tax-deductible donations.

So are you saying that you are upset that they will not allow you to become a Boy Scout leader, for certain reasons?

 

[Someone]

So are you saying that you are upset that they will not allow you to become a Boy Scout leader, for certain reasons?

Nope. Why do you ask?

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Isn't the only difference between heteros and gays who they're interested in sleeping with? It's a sex issue. Every other "issue" is pretty much down to the individual, regardless of sexual preference. Yes?

Yes. It is a sex issue.

Sorry, the way this conversation progress towards the question of gays compared to heteros led me to misunderstand what you were asking. I wasn't trying to make any distinction, but only to simply state that people of all kinds go through life with different pressures and scars that impact them in a number of ways. Sometimes these are easy to spot, most times not. I think we can all agree that people don't choose their sexual orientation, and that it always ends up as a combination of different amounts of genetics and societal conditions in which they are raised.

And Nobody, this is an answer to your latest post as well. Not specifying it just to sexual orientation, but to all things. Alcoholism is a combination of genetic tendencies and upbringing; just as anger, depression, generosity, stubbornness, the ways in which we form our friendships, and any number of other things. Alcoholics don't have deeper issues than non - they only have more visibly apparent ones.

I certainally don't agree with the bold statement and most of the research on the topic doesn't support it as well.

Uhhhhhh...you're wrong.