<p>
</p>
<p>I assume you’re talking about rape or sexual assault or coercion. In which case, “having sex” is a highly inappropriate way to describe it. Just like all the newspaper articles that refer to adults “having sex” with children. So please don’t call it that.</p>
<p>
I will never understand supporting or joining an organization whose fundamental principles you disagree with. There are so many worthwhile groups who don’t discriminate.</p>
<p>To me, Scout Law (that’s that hokey thing about being trustworthy, helpful, courteous) is the fundamental principle, and I support that. The other stuff is what happens when adults with agendas get involved. Maybe not allowing gays is a fundamental principle of the natl organization (though I think of it as a misguided policy rather than a principle), but, again, our day-to-day experience was quite different.</p>
<p>DS was not a scout because he is an atheist. he has joined other groups that have oaths that involve God, but the scout leader in our area was well aware of his (lack of ) belief and discouraged membership. DS knew gay scouts, so he is happy that they no longer need to hide.
I think scouting does some wonderful things and so I am happy that they are acknowledging gay scouts. It may take time, but I think gay scout leaders will soon be allowed. I know of one den mother in our area that lives quite openly as a lesbian and no parents seem to complain.</p>
<p>I don’t want to get too far off-topic, but I do feel I have to say that the religion issue is quite different. BSA has been, from its inception, a non-sectarian religious organization. That is confusing to many people, and it can be even more confusing when a lot of units don’t emphasize religion much, if at all. But nobody complains that that the Catholic Church discriminates against atheists–that’s because everybody knows it’s a religious organization. People should know this about BSA, too.</p>
<p>I think one reason the BSA finally changed its policy on homosexuality is that it became clear that only some religions felt it should be prohibited, and as a non-sectarian religious organization it was inconsistent for BSA to maintain its position on the issue.</p>
<p>I take a more cynical view, Hunt, unfortunately. I think the gay rights movement has gathered a huge amount of steam in the last decade, and will continue to do so. BSA was merely bowing to the inevitable.</p>
<p>I guess I’d take a somewhat less cynical view, but still agreeing with you–BSA bowed to the inevitable because they saw that the views of the youth in the organization were strongly in favor of changing the policy. I also think there has been a gradual change in adult leadership, so I think the needle has moved among adults as well.</p>
<p>While I’m not thrilled about any children being excluded from organizations, I can’t approve of forcing private organizations to do anything. It tramples on the rights of the the individuals who run the boy scouts. If I owned a business and someone walked in dressed in full KKK garb, I would want the right to refuse service to them. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. I wish that tolerant groups would have started an alternative to the boyscouts and even tried to compete and outdo the scouts. There is obviously a serious demand for parents who want a more tolerant organization. It’s below the Gay community to force someone to accept you, they should have beaten them.</p>
<p>That’s a good idea, I’m sure there are tolerant churches in very liberal areas that would be happy to do this, and I bet that you’d could put a huge damper on the boy scout presence in many cities.</p>
<p>The issue with Boy Scouts is that boys typically join when they are 6 or 7 - much too young to know if they are gay or not. It just seems unfair to kick a boy out when he reaches 16 or 17, having been a great Scout, earned his merit badges, held leadership positions, etc., just because he realizes and acknowledges he is gay. It is one thing to refuse to admit girls - we know by the time they are 6 or 7 that they are girls - but to kick out kids because they admit they are gay (or that they don’t believe in God) seems like an awful practice to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody “forced” the Boy Scouts to change anything. The lawsuits attempting to do so years ago were unsuccessful. The policy was changed by a vote. The way things are supposed to work. So I have no idea what you’re talking about. And please don’t tell me that it’s wrong to advocate change and get people to change their minds.</p>
<p>I want to clear up that I’m not saying that LGBTQ’s are equivalent to the KKK, because IMO the boy scouts are wrong and the KKK is wrong. But for the courts to be consistent and fair, they need to rule one way or the other. Just because I(and most of you) believe that the KKK and the boy scouts are in the wrong, that is a subjective judgement and you can’t rely on courts to make those decisions. You can’t ask for freedom for yourself and in the same breath deny someone else their own.</p>
<p>Again - the courts did not decide the change in Boy Scout policy. The Boy Scouts themselves voted and changed. This has nothing to do with constitutional rights.</p>
<p>Right. The Boy Scouts can discriminate if they want, but the rest of us can work to change the organization’s mind. It worked just like it was supposed to in our democracy. Took a while, but change often does.</p>
<p>raiders… the courts did rule in favor of the BSA keeping their discriminatory policies.</p>
<p>Ok I missed that there wasn’t a court ruling. They shouldn’t have put pressure on the BS ever. If they start their own scouts there is going to be only people there who are tolerant and want ALL kids to be there. It makes a better atmosphere. I don’t really think the boy scouts have had a ton of competition lately, so it wouldn’t be very hard to improve on what they offer and the support for the new scouts would make it easy to start.</p>
<p>The courts decided right, the alternative is far more dangerous.</p>
<p>What are you talking about? The public can’t put pressure on an organization? Who’s “they”?</p>
<p>Nobody is forcing the BSA to change. But as they have a right to choose what they want, we have a right to refuse to participate in their organization. I also have a right to refuse to participate in the KKK.</p>
<p>They is whoever put pressure on the boy scouts, whether it be a Gay rights group or part of the public. It doesn’t matter if it was a business who was standing up for Gay rights, whoever put pressure is who I am referring to. </p>
<p>It doesn’t promote equality(for everyone) when you stand up for LBGTQ’s rights, while at the same time not respecting the Boy Scouts rights to decide for themselves. You are standing up for Gay rights, and refusing to respect someone else’s in the same breath. You are strong arming them. </p>
<p>Yes they are trying to force the Boy Scouts to change. The Boy Scouts wouldn’t initially, so there was pressure applied, and they caved. The whole reason pressure was applied was to get them to comply.</p>
<p>The pressure applied is not respecting their right to choose, it would be comparable to the KKK using some kind of pressure(not necessarily violent) to convince someone in a community to join even though they didn’t want to.</p>
<p>When the lawsuit was initially brought many BSA troops were using public schools to hold their meetings. They had no right to discriminate against anyone when using public property, paid for by tax dollars - and there was nothing wrong with bringing a suit forth to end their discrimination.</p>