Local YMCA boots troop over gay issue

[vol_scouter]

Believe or not, I have heard the 'too liberal' comment not infrequently. Those of you in the northeast, west coast, and some large cities, I am certain that the Dale case hurt membership. Like some of you said, I do not buy that it made the difference that many say. Self described conservatives out number self described liberals by 2:1 so I do not see why it is so difficult to believe that other sections of the country have considerably different values and would act much differently than your area. Whether the very experienced scouters would actually leave over the change is hard to know with certainty but a few actually had plans to develop a similar program and had secured a 'guarantee' from the CO to surrender the charter. Would they do it? Many will. I am sure that national has tried to determine what the losses and gains would be and have tried to drive the membership requirements to math what they believe. It is very sad for scouting to be in the middle in this arena where there is no way to win.

 

As to the comment about how one could recognize openly homosexual leaders. If same sexes hold hands, kiss, or otherwise as the kids say display 'public demonstrations of affection'. Smart kids and observant adults will pickup on such things quickly. So if a troop sponsored by a CO that disallows homosexual leaders has obviously homosexuals in a position to make them a role model would have a real issue. This would bring the argument within scouting.

 

I really doubt that anything short of all troops being forced to accept homosexuals and atheists will ever satisfy the left. In fact, until firearms, archery, uniforms, fishing, and anything else that is not considered PC will the left fully relent its' attacks.

 

The only concern that any of us should have is what is the best for our youth. We might disagree what that is and who should be allowed to be members to satisfy that but let us all remember that is why we are Scouters.

[Scoutfish]

Inm y small circle of scouting, which is 90% limited to Cuib Scouts, and the other 10% being Boy Scouts - no sea scouts or venture crews...

 

I have seen more people leave scouting because of two reasons:

 

1) Turns out our pack isn't there for the benefit of their child firxt, and it doesn't revolve around their child only...

 

2) Because we do not do only what that oe leader wants to do all the time. Those same leaders cannot comprehend that not everybody is completely on board or agrees to thier ideas. They will bring up the same ole same oile over and over again thinking that the only reason we do not go along is because we do not understand. Once they realize we do understand - but just not agree - they leave , taking their kids ( who the program was only specifically all about) with them!

 

[shortridge]

Some folks have brought up the example of Scouts Canada multiple times as proof that opening up the doors of the BSA will lead to a mass exodus of people storming out. Can anyone point me to reports, studies, analyses, statistics, etc., that show this from the Canadian example?

[Beavah]

As to the comment about how one could recognize openly homosexual leaders. If same sexes hold hands, kiss, or otherwise as the kids say display 'public demonstrations of affection'. Smart kids and observant adults will pickup on such things quickly.

 

Yah, yeh know... in that case I reckon they must think that most adults their parents age are celibate .

 

Just depends where yeh are. Ever travel in da mideast? You'll see adult males holdin' hands and boys holdin' hands all the time, as a sign of friendship. Young children do this fairly naturally, too, until their parents tell 'em not to. Kisses in greeting are common in many cultures and parts of da world. Has nuthin' to do with sexual preference.

 

Kids only learn to think such things are hinky if da adults around 'em teach 'em to think they're hinky.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

You are correct but society as well as parents set those norms. Scouting has enough problems trying to deal with societal norms let alone attempting to change them. So if that kind of behavior is considered inappropriate, we cannot change that perception.

[Eagledad]

>>Can anyone point me to reports, studies, analyses, statistics, etc., that show this from the Canadian example?

[KC9DDI]

I'd still be interested in seeing some proof of causation with regard to the Canadian scouts and increased inclusiveness, rather than just correlation.

 

I would agree that there would probably be a net loss of members should the BSA change their policy. I think its easier to leave something than to go and become a part of something. It doesn't take much effort to walk away from the organization, but there's no saying that all of those people who shy away from the BSA due to their policy of discrimination will suddenly step up and join should the policy change. Not so sure about a net loss of CO's - I'm sure some will drop their units, but I bet that the pool of organizations willing to become COs will have a net increase. I also imagine that the group of businesses and community organizations willing to donate money, resources, etc to BSA groups will see a net increase in number.

 

What depresses me most about all of this is that the decision will ultimately be based on money, rather than any of the "timeless values" that we're supposed to be trying to instill. It basically just seems to be a comparison between the financial worth of expected membership loss and loss of a set of donors versus the financial worth of an increased pool of potential COs and organizations willing to donate money and resources. It looks like the policy will be determined by that comparison, and little else.

 

My guess is that should the policy change, then the youth at the unit level who chose to stay in the program (or whose parents permit them to stay in the program), will see an overall benefit - more community organizations willing to serve as COs, and more willing to donate money, equipment, meeting spaces and other resources to individual units. But I agree that council and national-level business aspects of the organization will take a hit, and that is what will prevent the policy from changing, for the time being.

 

Allowing each CO to set its own guidelines seems like the closest thing to a win-win that we'll ever see in this dispute, but unfortunately it looks like that's not something that's on the immediate horizon.

[Engineer61]

"But, dont ignore the Girl Scouts..."

 

... unfortunately the GS program suffers from a different socio-political-religious conflict.

 

When my daughter was a Girl Scout, none (and I mean zero) of our LDS neighbors would buy GS cookies from here...and after several Mom's verbally blasted her on their doorstep, she decided to quit.

 

Apparently, Planned Parenthood and several other women's organization financially supported GSA (at least at that time)... so the widely held view by the LDS was that GSA was promoting abortion...hence no LDS members buy cookies.

 

It is true even now.

 

Go figure.

[The Blancmange]

>>>>>I'd still be interested in seeing some proof of causation with regard to the Canadian scouts and increased inclusiveness, rather than just correlation.

[vol_scouter]

I doubt that there exists any objective stuadies that determine why the dramatic decline in Canadian Scouting occured. The data provided by the scouting organization itself would have to be suspect. The folks who made the change would not like the blame to be theirs and they woiuld convey that to anyone that they hired. The temporal correlation is powerful and for me the change to allow homosexuals is causal for the decline. Those who doubt that just wish to push their agenda no matter who gets hurt.

[SeattlePioneer]

Again I note that the homosexual issue is a tempest in a teapot as far as demographics go. Scouting would profit handsomely if it ignored the homosexual issue in favor of doing a better job of recruiting and retaining Hispanic youth and families.

 

The chattering classes like to chatter about their political wards, the homosexuals, but that's not where Scouts come from.

 

It's a political issue that masquerades as a membership issue.

 

[Trevorum]

Seattle says, "The chattering classes like to chatter about their political wards, the homosexuals, but that's not where Scouts come from."

 

I strongly disagree. Young fellows enter Scouting at an age when their ultimate sexual orientation is unknown. A small, but non-negligible, portion of these fellows will ultimately discover over the next several years that they are different from most other guys, that they are homosexual. I know for a fact that some of these young scouts can not deal with being told that they are less worthy and some of these young people commit suicide because of this conflict. It is an ugly fact but undeniable: suicide is the leading cause of death among American teen-agers. God help us if we contribute to that.

 

 

[Eagledad]

>>I strongly disagree.

[shortridge]

"There are so few gays that make it to age 13, your suicide point lacks any weight to even suggest taking a risk of accepting gays."

 

It sounds like you're making two points here, but I'd like to make sure I understand them before I respond.

 

>> First: "There are so few gays that make it to age 13." Are you saying that most gay people either change their orientation or kill themselves by age 13?

 

>> Second: "... to even suggest taking a risk of accepting gays." What risk are you talking about? A real risk to Scouts? Or a perceived potential risk to the organization's membership numbers?

[skeptic]

While the onus suffered by pubescent teens struggling with their sexuality is tragic, the BSA policy has to do with adults as leaders. The youth sexuality is rarely an issue, unless the boy himself somehow makes it so. Only then does it become a problem, as the majority of youth of that age are particularly concerned about being seen "differently". And the stigma comes from all directions of the youth culture with which the boy interacts, not just scouting. It is highly unlikely that many troops would seek out youth who may be questioning; it only when the obvious, or perceived position comes to the fore that it becomes problematic. At that time, you very well may have to deal with severe peer pressure both in the unit, and from without.

 

Basically, it is "Catch 22" at that juncture. Don't forget that acceptance by peers can often cause those very peers to be perceived in a different light by the larger majority. It is pretty much no win then. These comments are from actual observations, and one major decision in the troop years back.

 

Hopefully, we eventually will see the issues become less of a problem, and less of an onus for the small percentage suffering from these conflicting emotions. But, currently, the atmosphere in that age group is not conducive to easy solutions.