Pale Horse

There has been a tendency to lump Gen Y with Millennials, but most people still see a distinction between an under 25 Millennial and someone approaching 40 years old. When someone complains about "snowflake millennials" they are complaining about the former and not the latter. Even if we do use the definition of someone born as early as 1984, that person is now 33 years old. Using the average age of first time mothers of 26 (NPR numbers as of 2013), their children are just now coming of Cub Scout age. Of course there are exceptions who had children at much younger age, but these are also typically the ones that don't have spare time to volunteer. Many of them are single mothers struggling to get by. Young millennials are also the people that are struggling to find full employment, pay off crushing student-debt and raise children in a dual income necessary environment. They don't have the luxury of free time that older, established Gen X and retired boomers do. What I do see though is a socially active and involved group of people that actually care about the environment and spending what available time they have enjoying it. If we can interest them in Scouts and pass on our love of Nature as a foundation for Scouting, I'm all for it. I tend to see the extreme lack of parental help and volunteerism as an across the board issue, with no age group having a monopoly on it. Now that we're fully derailed, I'll apologize.

Most Millennials, are too young to have kids, especially those of Cub Scouting age, much less in Boy Scouts. I imagine changing the admission standards to be more inclusive could be seen as BSA trying to appeal to this future generation of parents.

Interestingly enough, the younger generation (millennials, especially the ones you would call "liberals") are far more environmentally active and into hiking, camping and outdoor activities compared to most of the Gen X or Late Boomers I know, Liberal or Conservative. But agree that this topic is regarding Traditional Scouting and not political ideology.

Finally! An area that I am qualified to be a Merit Badge Counselor in.

This is how we do things like Summer Camp. Each family pays full amount for their scout(s), then get reimbursed on first day of camp. If they want to be a no-show, it's their dollar.

Can I have your stuff?

Trail Life isn't a "Scouting Organization." "Trail Life USA is a Christian Outdoor Adventure, Character, and Leadership Program for boys and young men." BSA sued BPSA, so now the S stands for Service instead of Scouting.

Why do you think this is a bigger risk or more likely scenario than little boys accusing you of something and saying "he touched me"? Two deep leadership still applies and would mitigate both scenarios, no?

Serious question: Why do we need the Congressional Charter? What purpose does it serve?

Anybody have any experience / materials to share regarding delivering a LNT class geared for Cub Scouts? We're doing some cabin camping in a few weeks, and would like some backup activities/classes for if the weather is too bad to spend the whole time outside or for after it gets dark around the fire. Thanks in advance.

This right here. That's why the push for year round scouting too. Most people if they leave, do so in the natural breaks between the school year. By providing that year-round program and less-distinct break between cub & boys, it doesn't offer a specific time for parents to reevaluate if they want to keep their kids in scouts.

Please don't assume to know what I get and don't get. You're also contradicting yourself. You say you've never heard scouts speak of their sexual activity, yet you say this scout was. Which is it? I'm not sure where you do your scouting activity, but as many other have said, the topics of sex and inappropriate talk does happen; hormones, puberty, and all that. This is 100% correctable behavior, and not related to the scout being gay. Whether he or anyone was talking about his male or female conquests, it's inappropriate. Instead of trying to shelter your son from the real world, correct the behavior, explain why it's inappropriate and move on.

Ah...yes. I would venture that talking about having sex, or not having sex, are both discussions that aren't scout-related. Good for him/her if that's their choice to remain celibate, but that's not really a conversation that needs to be had. Certainly not in a group setting. Even Sex Ed classes, which specifically deal with this topic, don't solicit active feedback from participants regarding whether they celebrate the "extols of celibacy until call to lifetime heterosexual monogamy," or those who others feel are amoral sodomites.

How exactly was he "vocal about his lifestyle"? A scout, any scout, who brags about how many "chicks he smashed" last week isn't Morally Straight either. This isn't a gay/straight issue, it's a decorum issue. The scout needed to be realize, and it's Leader's responsibility to educate, that there are times and places for everything. Scouting is about scouting.

Can't tell if you're advocating for complete truth with children, which would be instilling them with the knowledge that there is no Santa, Easter Bunny or God. If so, I could understand that. However, part of being a young child is developing their imagination, often through make-believe and games. I see nothing wrong with living the fantasy to encourage this development. However, it's a lot easier to outgrow the belief in Santa Claus than it is to rid someone of the notion of the supernatural, when the vast majority still believe in a god.

To answer your last question, it goes to the belief in whether harm is being done (in one's own eyes). To me, I don't feel that if Joanne wants to be called Joey and do boy stuff, it's causing any harm. This phenomenon has been going on a long time. Yesteryear, they were just called Tom Boys and grew up to be "normal" every day adults. It's just recently we decided that we needed to elevate this and label them as Transgender. As to your hypotheticals/real life experiences, there is obviously considerable harm being done. I don't think anyone will dispute that. I have no reservations about passing judgment in these situations. However, when we start becoming the moral police, that is where I draw the line. There's too much disagreement, to begin trying to decide who is right/wrong and treating people differently based on their beliefs.

I wouldn't exactly call indulging childhood fantasies about Santa et al betraying them. However neither do I lie to my child in order to convince him that there is an omni-present spiritual being watching over us. We believe in doing what is right, because it is the right thing to do, not out of fear of Hell. And while I personally don't know any Trans children, I would be surprised if any such kids feel the way they do because they were forced to feel that way by their parents.

Again, I'm confused. Where exactly am I supporting lying to your children? Unconditional love and support is now abuse? Maybe I'm too new to this particular forum to know how to read everyone's individual slant or sarcasm.

Fair enough. Obviously I disagree. I feel I'm in no position to judge what is "natural" or to tell someone what is moral. Also to consider is that said child will be living their chosen lifestyle whether they're in scouts or not. I'd prefer they have a welcoming and tolerant place to pursue their interests instead of just another place that makes them feel unwanted and alone. If a child wants to learn about bushcraft, citizenship, camping, hiking, project management and leadership skills, I'll gladly share what I can.

Maybe, but I don't think that's it. Regardless of whether it's a choice or not, you can still love and support someone. To stretch it to the extremes, I can love someone regardless of race (no choice) as well as if they dislike lasagna or Batman (a choice, though obviously the wrong one). For the purposes of this debate, I would gladly concede either option for gay/trans preference (choice/no-choice) because it's irrelevant to the argument. I believe, but don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, that EagleDad may be implying that supporting a gay or trans lifestyle is harmful because it it "immoral". Please correct me if i'm wrong though.

There must be some disconnect, I'm not sure what you are referring to as harmful. I am not talking about any parent/adult actions other than loving, supporting, and accepting kids for who they are. I wouldn't classify that as self-serving.

Sorry, I'm not following. How is the adult betraying the child?

Agree. And what's more, the most "Traditional" scouting program, BPSA, which uses the last version of the BS Handbook that BP wrote and still has the major emphasis on camping and bushcraft, allows girls and athiests. Pretty sure they don't feel BP is "rolling over in his grave" about those decisions.

I've seen this argument as well as the one of Trans kids reverting to their sexes. But both beg the question, "so what?" They grew out of a "phase," just like many (all?) of us have. Kids experiment all the time with hair, clothes, activities, etc. and for all their time experimenting before they grew out of it, no harm occurred. I think the same can be said for homosexuality and trans-sexual activity. As long as they are in a loving relationship and supported, where is the harm? If it's a phase and they grow out of it, or revert, they have lost nothing but time.