Local YMCA boots troop over gay issue

[Trevorum]

You are talking like an Irving executive who deals with membership dollars and not a Scoutmaster who deals with boys. I feel deeply sorry for that callousness, and that of others who refuse to see the real pain that this policy causes to real, live boys.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Trevorum,

 

 

The gist of the pro homosexual line of argument in this thread has been that BSAs policies towards homosexuals are a great and growing obstacle to Scout membership.

 

I doubt that's the case. There are some people who are going to be motivated to avoid Scouting because of their liberal orientation --- but they will probably always find reasons to avoid Scouting.

 

By contrast, Scouting has huge opportunities to serve demographic elements such as Asians and Hispanics. Traditional Scouting units in my area don't know how to do that well at all, so we are missing out on a terrific opportunity!

 

As a District Membership Chair, I've been making loud and repeated noises to get attention to this issue. Most recently, our District Executive has been promoted to run two other districts, and I've been promoting the idea of hiring a Hispanic DE or someone who has Xpert knowledge on the Hispanic demographic and can help figure out how traditional Scouting units can appeal to this population.

 

Figuring out how to recruit Hispanics, Asians and similar groups into traditional Scout units is where the future of Scouting is in my opinion. Homosexuals are simply a noisy and insignificant sideshow for Scouting.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

The number of homosexuals who join or don't join Scouts is not the membership problem associated with the issue.

 

The membership issue is whether people think of Scouts as an organization that is intolerant and they therefore don't even consider letting their kids sign up as Cub Scouts.

 

Just google around and you can find lots of examples of people who won't let their kids join - here are a few I found when I skimmed the surface"I know i would never let my son be a boy scout in the USA, but here in Canada they aren't such ignorant [jerks]. (no offense to you Americans, just offense to the scout leaders LOL)" http://www.circleofmoms.com/toddlers/cub-scouts-294025"I love the camping/skills/fun side of Boy Scouts but can't stomach the creed and the very clearly anti non-theist, anti gay stance they take at the highest levels." http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545I'>http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545I already know that I won't let my son participate because of the organization's stance on gay scouts. I find it discriminatory and won't let my son take part in something like that. I'm not trying to dissuade you, though! It's for you to decide, of course!" http://www.parentingbeyondbelief.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=545"I cant let my boys be part of an organization which discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and you woud think that in California, where apparently it is the land of fruits and nuts, there wouldnt be a lot of support for scouting." http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3DJ0zH1iJEcJ:blog.erikajurney.com/trustworthy-loyal-helpful-friendly-courteous-kind/+won%27t+sign+my+son+up+for+cub+scouts&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com"My husband and I are going to have such a brawl over this. I completely agree with you. But I know my husband is going to desperately want my guys to be scouts. ""I could never knowingly participate in an organization that actively discriminates. Its the same reason why I dont ever participate in BSA fundraisers. Good thing its the Girl Scouts selling the cookies, or wed be a sad family. ;)"I hate when organizations.especially ones like the boy scouts, operate wth such descrimination."Wow. I was actually considering letting my oldest join the Boy Scouts. Not now. I had no idea.""I know a lot of people are not bothered by that and let their kids participate anyway because aside from that the boy scouts are a good organization, but I know just as many who have steered their kids away from scouting (I am one) because of their stance on homosexuality. Ive explained to my son as best as I can (hes eight) why I do not want him to participate in the scouts. I would rethink my stance if they would rethink theirs." http://blog.timesunion.com/parenting/5525/are-scouts-still-relevant/"I know many, many moms who will not sign their sons up for Cub/Boy Scouts because of the anti-gay stance. "

 

It's hard to know how many people would actually sign up if the policy changed, but there are real people out there, and apparently many, who say that they will not sign up because of BSA's gay policy. There are a few who say they won't sign up because of a bad experience they had as a kid, and there were a couple of other reasons. But by far the most common reason people list for not having their son join Scouts is the gay issue.

 

I know, I know, some of you don't believe it. The attitude is growing, though. I predict BSA will change. If they don't, the numbers are going to keep getting worse. The military is going to accept gays. More and more states are going to have gay marriage. The Scouts already have an image that they aren't relevant today - if they want to look more and more like dinosaurs, they can just stick with the current path.

 

Back before the civil war there were some churches who argued in favor of slavery. The Mormon church used to prevent blacks from serving. There have been organizations and arguments against women's right to vote, inter-racial marriage. In 1989 Rotary voted to accept women "I would like to remind you that the world of 1989 is very different to the world of 1905. I sincerely believe that Rotary has to adapt itself to a changing world."

 

The history of this country is of expanding rights - more people have the right to vote (women, blacks, Native Americans, 18-year-olds), we vote for more things (direct election of senators), more people are protected by law (age-discrimination, gender, disability, veteran status, ...), more people can get married (inter-racial couples, the divorced). Gay rights are going to end up in this category. Scouts will accept them and won't be able to argue against it any more than Southern churches can today argue in favor of slavery.

 

And why? Because when you know actual gay people, as Trevorum points out, it can be really hard to argue that they don't deserve to be treated equally.

[KelcemaChief]

I'm troubled by these "Muslim only" swims SeattlePioneer mentioned. Special treatment for "minority" religions? Horrible! What will they demand next - altering the scout camp schedule?

 

Oh, wait a minute...

[packsaddle]

"...arguments against women's right to vote"

A very long time ago I was a deputy registrar. During one election I overheard this comment by one of my new registrants as she was informed that she did not HAVE to have her husband in the voting booth with her, "But if he's not there with me...how am I supposed to know who to vote for?"

Fascinating.

 

I think Oak Tree is about right, at least for what I observe here. People have left scouting in small numbers over the issue of prejudice. But many, many more merely turn away and are never even noticed as a loss. Local option is almost inevitable. It just might take some time to get all the way there.

[KelcemaChief]

It took 53 years for the BSA to integrate the "Negro" troops. My great-uncle, born in 1916, never stopped bemoaning the fact that I was in a cub pack with "colored" kids. I loved him with all my heart, but the man was a racist. As were/are many, if not most, of his generation. It's just the way society was then. But society changes.

 

How many whites left scouting in 1974 due to integration? How many CO's pulled their support? Did the BSA survive?

 

Note: I am arguing neither for nor against changing the BSA policy on homosexual membership.

[packsaddle]

"How many whites left scouting in 1974 due to integration?"

should read: How many racists left scouting in 1974 due to integration?

Answer: Probably not many. And some are still here, just quietly perpetuating their poison to those whom they think are sympathetic. And if the civil rights example is a predictor, BSA will lag by about a decade behind whatever progress the country decides to make.

 

Alternatively, if a decline in enrollment back then really can be explained by the departure of racists, then the prediction of further decline with allowance of gay leaders might be accurate. But I keep trying to bring a modicum of reality to these threads: there already ARE gay leaders - you just don't know who they are - it's an unavoidable outcome of current policy.

[Scoutfish]

I'm gonna add to what packsaddle is saying, but let me be clear:

 

THis is based on my own personal observations from events that have happened in my own life - and I do not even try to say this applies to all , nor do I think in blanket terms.

 

THis here will be from age 10 to around 22 years old ( before I met my then future wife)

 

Back in the day... way, way back...when I was growing up, my neighbor across the street was my best friend. We always hung out and eventually got in some sort of trouble ( with our parents - not the law). WE built forts, cleared compounds in the woods for forts, tree houses and along the way, lost a great many of our dad's tools ( trouble starts here! ) WE "borrowed" paint from our dads to camoflage our treehouses and forts, and to hide our rocket launching pads. Rockets were botlerockets or roman candles. Now that I think about it, it's pretty AMAZING we never burnt the woods down.

 

Basically, we were very outdoorsy, getting completely dirty boys. Who knows how many clothes we ruined with dirt ground into them.

 

So , many times, alot of our other friends were shown our forts.

 

WEll, this one friend of my best friend happened to be named Bo.

 

He was kinda/slightly girlkish acting, but not that much. He wasn't quite as athletic either. Funny guy - great sense of humor and probably the smartest poerson we ever met.

 

He'd hangg out with us, but prefered to be back at the house, inside. Preferd it, but didn't demand it.

 

WEll, there were many times we all went swimming, to the movies, went to the local video arcade and such. We all ( about 8 of us) went to see Poison, Bon Jovi, Van Halen, Def Leppard, Guns and Roses, and a few other concerts over the years aslso.

 

Bo acted a little bit different than us, but not too much.

 

He wasn't as manly acting as us in a rough and tumble get dirty way, but he sure had a way with the girls. They flocked to him like he was a girl magnet.

 

He was a sharp dresser and had style too.

 

We used to pick on him some here and there, but honestly, we didn't know that he was gay until he told us.

 

Now, the only thing I can say - in retrospect - is that he wasn't the outdoorsy type anywhere as much as we were.

 

So what does this mean?

 

Could very well mean nothing. But based on Bo, one of my cousins who is gay, and two friends who happen to be gay....my limited ( in experience) line of thinking is that MOST but not all homosexual scouts won't be into the type of activity that scouting offers.

 

And I do not pretend to be an authority on this, nor do I think EVERY gay person does or coukld think or feel the same way.

 

I'm just sying that it's not like all gay boys everywhere are upset about not being able to do the activities more than the principle of not being allowed to join.

 

Personally, I do not care if they are allowed to join. If they want to be in a troop...why not?

 

If you are scared of the sexual tones that could be tossed out, all ytou have to do is look at hetero people: Does your troo allow heterosexual people to walk around hugging and kissing all meeting long? Do your leaders sit and talk about all their straight sexual escapdes and accomplishments?

 

So, in my own personal opinion...I have nioo issue if gays join.

 

In my own personal experiences with gay people, most of them wouldn't join anyways.

 

So my whole point is this: I do not see BSA losing a ton of membership due to no gays being allowed to join.

 

But I do see BSA having trouble with the principle idea of it.

[packsaddle]

This just in:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43859711/ns/us_news-life/

 

Obama has just certified the end of the DADT military policy.

[Eagledad]

>>

You are talking like an Irving executive who deals with membership dollars and not a Scoutmaster who deals with boys. I feel deeply sorry for that callousness, and that of others who refuse to see the real pain that this policy causes to real, live boys.

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Oak Tree,

 

 

There are a certain number of people who will choose not to join Scouting for political reasons, just as you suggest. Seattle is a hot bed of such activism --- but it's still a minor factor around here.

 

If I'm looking for membership growth, I'm not going to look at that faction, because they are mostly NEVER going to be happy with Scouting anyway. They wont be happy until every vestige of religion is wiped from the Scouting program. They wont be happy until a quota of openly gay Scoutmasters are recruited to lead troops. The California legislature just adopted a law requiring that homosexuals be featured in school textbooks.

 

They will NEVER be happy, and pandering to them is a waste of time.

 

If BSA wants to change it's policies because they think it's the right thing to do --- fine. But chasing after this demographic is pointless, in my view. It's a small element of the white liberal political/social class for the most part. Noisy but SMALL.

 

By contrast, the Asian and especially the Hispanic demographic is HUGE around here, and growing rapidly. A good many schools in my district are 60% Hispanic and 10% white --- but we are mostly recruiting from the 10% --- that is a losing proposition.

 

The most powerful and successful districts in my mostly urban council are those with mostly high income, highly educated, primarily white populations --- the same districts where the white liberal population is maximized as a percentage of the population. Yet these districts are doing the best of all.

 

Sorry, I just don't see evidence that this issue amounts to much when looking at the demographic evidence. Much noise is made about it as this thread indicates, but it's not much of a membership issue that I can see.

 

 

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello Kelcema Chief,

 

 

 

[KC9DDI]

Eliminating sex discrimination in employment sounds fine, but then you wouldn't be able to exclude male lifeguards and staff from these women only swims.

 

Are the male life guards being denied jobs at the pool, or just being assigned to different tasks as appropriate? Unless their being denied employment, its not employment discrimination.

 

And if you are against sex discrimination, how do you justify women only swims anyway?

 

The same way I'd justify women's-only restrooms, for example.

[SeattlePioneer]

Nice try, KC9, but of course you can't legally discriminate on job assignments either. It's just more sex discrimination --- you are opposed to that, right?

 

 

Just as an example of the consequences of non discrimination, I used to work for a utility company. Women wanted to become eligible to be trained to do repair work on furnaces and things in people's homes, but weren't so hot on the idea of working nights and going into the homes of strangers alone at night to do inspections and repairs. But that was one of the consequences of accepting the job.

 

Similarly, women liked the extra pay of being classified as collectors, but liked being collectors in the office dealing with people about their bills. Few women wanted to go out to the homes of people and tell men twice their size they had to pay $259.68 right now or they were going to have the gas shut off on their wife and their child and their dog and their cat --- and then do it.

 

 

[KC9DDI]

Nice try, KC9, but of course you can't legally discriminate on job assignments either.

 

That's not what I said. In the specific case that you're describing regarding women's only swimming times, aren't religious groups renting and staffing the pool with their own staff? They own staff would voluntarily agree to adhere to stricter guidelines than what equal opportunity employment provide? Kind of like why females can't be Catholic priests?

 

Just as an example of the consequences of non discrimination, I used to work for a utility company. Women wanted to become eligible to be trained to do repair work on furnaces and things in people's homes, but weren't so hot on the idea of working nights and going into the homes of strangers alone at night to do inspections and repairs. But that was one of the consequences of accepting the job.

 

So what, exactly, are the consequences? If the women were being denied the opportunity to be repairmen based only on the fact that they are women, then that's discrimination. If women are given the opportunity, but some women decide not to take the job based on the job description, then that's just a case of a woman being able to make the same choice about the same job as a man?

 

What exactly is your point in all of this?