LGBT News boy scouts to end gay ban for youth.

How typical. If only Scouting USA could join it's gay-friendly brother and siter orginisations.

 

I love the "lets throw them a bone and see if they go away" mentality the scouts are taking. As if we would be ignorant enough to be pacified by this half-assed attempt. :dry:

 

"no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone," Deron Smith, the organization's spokesman, told Reuters.

Wait, what?

I'm reading that to mean that being gay, by itself, isn't enough to be banned from the BSA, but if a bigoted leader or administrator can pair that up with some other undesirable trait, (such as anything cooked-up by anyone who despises that youth for being gay, or simply "not being able to get along",) then... well...

Am I wrong in being suspicious of the wording?.

 

The thing is, scouting here has been open to everyone for a looong time, so that's kind of a bad excuse.
It's pure bigotry imo. Trying to hold onto it as long as possible.

 

It comes off as very "what's the least we can do to stop bad press?"

I wonder if it's possible to accept the incremental (and somewhat questionable) good while still being clear that it's not good enough? Seems like a tough needle to thread, but there is potential good in this, if it means more gay kids not being kicked out of scouts when it's important to them. It stinks of a token offering, but it might have positive effects in the immediate term, while people keep the pressure on for true equality.

 

No, I was thinking about this too...this doesn't stop homophobic leaders from kicking gay kids out, it just tells them to go fishing for qualities they don't like to go along with the sexual orientation.

I could have let this slide as a valid attempt to be more open to the LGBT minority, if it weren't for the wording that's going to make easy loopholes should the proposal go through.

 

I guess it's a step forward.

I wish it were more than a small step. But I do know they are a private organization, and they have the right of freedom of association. Meanwhile, I have the right to decide not to support them, a right I shall exercise this summer as I drive by any and all Boy Scout yard sales in my area....

---------- Post added 19th Apr 2013 at 01:17 PM ----------

I don't particularly like the wording, either. To me, sexual orientation should be irrelevant. If a boy does something seriously wrong, than that may be grounds for not allowing him to join or stay with the Boy Scouts. For example: if a boy rapes another boy, it's reasonable to toss him out. But his sexual orientation does not matter in this situation; what would matter is the rape. It's irrelevant if he's gay, or if he's 100% straight, but decides that raping that other boy would be a fun experience.

 

It's not just scoutmasters Chip.

They are proposing that when the gay scout becomes an adult, they lose all of their boy scout badges/etc. whatever you want to call them.

It's not a compromise.

 

Basically, what I am hearing, "you can join our group, but you'll never be a worthy leader." It's like saying, "We'll allow gay students to attend our school, but they can't grow up to be teachers here."

No thanks.

 

Depending on how the actual final policy language is worded, you could potentially spin it in almost any way BSA might want, including something very much like DADT. Being gay would be officially OK, but engaging in any 'gay' behavior, whether during a BSA event or out in the world could be grounds for expulsion. Gay behavior could be anything they want to say it is, including PDA, admitting having engaged in any sexual act with another male, admitting masturbating while thinking about engaging in any sexual act with another male, admitting being gay, or even admitting to experiencing same-sex attractions could all be grounds for getting kicked out because sex or discussing sex could be said to not be in line with BSA values or disturbing and disruptive to the other scouts or some such.

The whole kicking scouts out when they become adults thing also seems likely to prevent a lot of gay youth from joining or make them more likely to 'self deport' as they get older or figure out their orientation or start questioning as puberty hits (thanks Mitt Romney!). Why put in all the time and effort of scouting and getting the badges if its all gonna disappear the sec you turn 18? Also likely to result in less effort or some attitude among those who try to tough it out, which could provide ammunition for kicking them out over and above being gay. Etc.

All potentials of the current wording anyway. Need to see what it ends up saying, assuming that this even passes in the first place.


Todd

 

It sounds to me that perhaps the BSA is trying their hardest to "keep both sides happy." Maybe their "polling" and "surveying" revealed split results and the only compromise they know it to try to appeal to both sides. However, by doing this, the fight will not be over, just for the youth, in a limited fashion. Are they really accepting gays if they still keep some form of bans? What message does that send?

 

Its hardly a step forward.

I am so proud of UK and Irish scouting in comparison we accept anyone regardless sexuality, religion or race. The whole no gay masters and teaching "morality" argument is kinda indoctrinating kids with prejudice.

And yet the bigots accuse us of indoctrinating kids

 

I have an inexplicable urge to kick the balls of whoever thought this up. Hard.

 

My tired mind first read 'kick' as 'lick' and I became very confused. :lol:

Silliness aside, the new policy would still be discriminatory, homophobic, and wrong.

 

*disturbed laugh*

Precicely, hence the back kicking

 

I think the BSA is sending a terrible message to America's youth. Like everything else in America, it all comes down to money. BSA calculated the donations they would no longer receive if the ban was completely lifted, and published it. I can't remember the figure but it lead with them trying to go as far as they can with accepting gays without too much damage to their income.

It lead to this ridiculous statement saying they can no longer ban a child on the basis of sexual orientation ALONE, but they still can ban an adult.

 

I think I may have posted this before, but it's worth reading if one hasn't. It's written by Chris Crutcher, a YA novelist.

Boy Scout "Leadership" - Author & Loudmouth, Chris Crutcher

 

It's a good compromise, but still a half-assed attempt.