Mr. Gates Address At National Meeting

[Gone]

The whole hiring practices issue is bull. Councils have been hiring employees for YEARS without legal contest on this issue. The ONLY reason it's being made an issue now is to test BSA.

 

I say again, if you don't like the policy then LEAVE and start your own group.

 

Imagine how you'd fee if the tables were turned.

[Daped01]

I am one who agrees with Mr Gates.  I am heterosexual male and don't care if you're homosexual, yellow, white, black, or other.

 

Boys need this program.  I will continue to provide it.

 

 

 

WELL SAID!

[TAHAWK]

If - if - you have a constitutionally-protected right to discriminate any state law purporting to make that conduct unlawful in null and void.

 

So far as I recall

 

BSA's argument that won was that BSA excluded gays due to beliefs inconsistent with having gays in the organization.  Now they don't exclude all gays - just gay adults.  That has not been litigated.

 

Employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation by an organization that allows gay members has not been been litigated.

 

 

From what I can find

 

The view that homosexual men present an enhanced risk of committing child sexual abuse by virtue of their sexual orientation is held by a shrinking minority.  As of 1999, that view was held by 19% of men and 10% of women, down from about 70% forty years ago.

 

Most of the people attacking BSA on this issue have no interest otherwise in BSA.  Thus, they could not care less if obtaining BSA acceptance of their views would help BSA or Scouting achieve its goals or the contrary.  If BSA will not go the way they demand, they are perfectly willing to see BSA and Scouting destroyed.  It's the "greater good" argument.

 

 

 

We live in a world of belief but also a world of facts, whether those facts seem appalling or not.,

[moosetracker]

Imagine how you'd fee if the tables were turned.

 

They were turned, we use to have local option then BSA was pressured by conservative religions to implement this policy..  Didn't feel good, but we stayed with BSA anyway enjoyed the positives Scouting offered our son and worked hard to reverse this bad decision..  So now the tables are turning to right the wrong..

[Sentinel947]

Not trying to stir up this thread more than it already has been but I have a few points, observations, what have you:

 

*In the interest of full disclosure, I'm for allowing homosexuals, girls and atheists as youth and leaders to units that want them.*

1) A majority of millennial's support gay marriage. This is a provable fact based on polling. The BSA is right to worry about the future, and about the perceptions parents who will soon have cub scout age boys.  

 

2) I fear this will cause groups like the Mormons and Catholics to drop their units. As a Catholic myself, I understand that both groups don't believe being a homosexual is a sin, but that being in a gay marriage is. Therefore, a married gay couple wouldn't be very appropriate role models in a Mormon or Catholic unit. A celibate homosexual (like a recently aged out Scout) would probably be fine, but that only pushes their expulsion further down the road till they are dating or married someone of the same sex. 

 

3) Public pressure by homosexual rights groups would make it impossible for any church who opposed gay marriage to not have gay leaders. They would be pile drived by the media until they gave in or folded their unit. If they folded their unit, they'd get even more bad PR. While some pastors would choose to forge on with a program and include gay leaders, their governing bodies would probably not be too sympathetic to that. 

 

4) Progressive CO's want to be able to have gay leaders if they want. I'm sympathetic to this argument. I serve in a Lutheran CO that would be happy to have homosexual leaders. 

5) I object to the whole notions of "Start your own group" and "nobody is for this change." Both are understandable emotional reactions, but they miss the point and motivations of plenty of people who want to change the policy. 

 

6) There aren't any bad guys in this situation. It's a clash of societies changing values. I think we all need to seek to understand one another, and try to make a compromise that suits everyone. Unfortunately, both the zealots of the left and the right will not allow such a thing like local option to really work. Ultimately, the BSA is caught between Conservatives who want to keep things the way they are, and the gay rights movement, which has a variety of motivations. Some would be fine with local option, and others would continue to press to make others accept their lifestyles. 

 

7. The only certainty in this situation is that there is no certainty. 

I think this is a change that has to be made at some point. I don't think allowing gay people to be leaders is going to change much on the micro/troop level. On the National level, the BSA will lose the South and the Mid West for decades to come. Tough decision all around. I'll be sticking around. Regardless of the decision, I believe in Scouting. 

Sentinel947 

Edited May 22, 2015 by Sentinel947

[Scouter99]

This is a straw man argument, but one that is often made. There is this idea that if the BSA allows gay leaders, that the next day we are going to see ASMs showing up wearing feather boas and announcing to the troop how great it is to be gay. That isn't the issue. It's not about leaders wanting to promote being gay!

 

I can't comment on everything here, so I will just pick out a few:

 

 

Well, "promoting" a particular sexual orientation (whether gay or straight) probably would be grounds for removal regardless of any change in policy. I guess it depends on what you mean by "promoting". But I think it is clear that Scout leaders are not supposed to be promoting sex.

 

This is a lie and it has been a lie for 2 years.  Both of you know it and I'm happy to call it what it is.

5 seconds after gay youth were allowed, activist churches signed up gay leaders on purpose, and activist leaders took their scouts to gay pride parades where their Scouts cavorted around with men wearing as little clothing as nipple clamps and g-strings.

 

And you're happy about it, and blistered those of us who had anything negative to say about it.

 

 

Not trying to stir up this thread more than it already has been but I have a few points, observations, what have you:

 

*In the interest of full disclosure, I'm for allowing homosexuals, girls and atheists as youth and leaders to units that want them.*

 

1) A majority of millennial's support gay marriage. This is a provable fact based on polling. The BSA is right to worry about the future, and about the perceptions parents who will soon have cub scout age boys.

A majority of Millenials think that abortion is morally unacceptable.  Let's make it illegal tomorrow.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Scouter99

[howiezee3]

I have all kinds of boys in my troop ,some born tall some born short,different colors, some born with learning and behaiovior challenges .I know from reading and talking with my doctor that homosexuality is an out come of birth not a choice .So would you have me discriminate againist one and not the other ? I could not ,nor could I againist an adult .We have marginilized this population long enough , old beliefs built on lack of scientific understanding have demonized innocent people ,just because of how they were born .Scouting and all the values we atach to it should require us to be inclusive ,and to be the best example for my Scouts I will work with all types of adults no mater how they were born. I think mr. Gates speech was carfully worded ,some what pragmatic and if it changes our policy it will be one of the best things to happen to Scouting in a long time.

[TAHAWK]

Well, the "L" word has arrived, and I'm outta' here,

[Sentinel947]

 

 

 

A majority of Millenials think that abortion is morally unacceptable.  Let's make it illegal tomorrow.

You won't hear any complaints from me about it. 

 

What's your point exactly? The BSA should cater to older conservatives rather than young people who are about to have children? Does that make sense from an institutional standpoint? 

Edited May 22, 2015 by Sentinel947

[moosetracker]

Scouter99 - You take one incident in which those who planned to march in uniform were warned not to and why, some obeyed the order not to, some did not.. But it is clear the SE words back up what both Rick & NJ said...   So if BSA has a policy against aiming squirt guns at people, and troops ignore the policy that makes someone stating the policy about squirt guns a liar????  Really..  So what does that mean about you stating we have a policy against homosexual scout leaders, when it is clear it is ignored by many.. Does that mean we have never really had that policy in force?? That policy has always been for local option.

Boy Scouts and adult volunteers planning to wear their uniforms in Utah's upcoming LGBT pride parade aren't allowed to do so under the organization's guidelines prohibiting advocating political or social positions, a leader with the program said Friday.

Rick Barnes, chief scout executive of the Great Salt Lake Council, said he learned of the plans for Sunday's parade from a Scoutmaster, Peter Brownstein, organizing for Scouts and adults working with the Boy Scouts of America. 

   

"We as a Scouting movement do not advocate any social or political position, so I reminded Mr. Brownstein that we do not wear uniforms at an event like this," Barnes said. "We do not, as Boy Scouts, show support for any social or political position. We're neutral. If he wants to attend the parade and others do that are Scouts or Scouters, they're welcome to do so as private citizens wearing whatever they want except their uniform."

"That's our official position. It always has been, there's nothing new here," he added. "We just don't want people to use the Boy Scouts to advocate their positions."

 

 

[Scoutmaster Teddy]

I'm in it for the scouts. But I would prefer that my chartered organization have the right to select leadership. Our troop is sponsored by a religious organization which has beliefs that contradict allowing LGBT adults. I would prefer that even non-religius organizations have that same right. IMHO of course.

[AZMike]

The local option is, quite simply, allowing the camel to get its nose under the tent. Once the camel can get its nose in there, you soon have the entire camel in the tent with you. Things will be different from then on. I have no idea what the numbers will be afterwards, but there'll be at least one volunteer less. 

 

As Allahpundt wrote on the Hotair blog:

 

Gates’s solution: Let each troop sponsor set its own standards. If religious sponsors like churches want to maintain the ban on gay Scout leaders, they can. If non-religious sponsors want to allow gay leaders, they can. It’s a federalist-type solution at a moment when the Supreme Court is poised to blow up federalism on gay marriage.

 

That being so, why Gates thinks his policy is more sustainable than the current BSA policy is a mystery to me. The DOJ flatly admitted during oral argument before the Supreme Court a few weeks ago that religious nonprofits will inevitably find their tax-exempt status being challenged in court for opposing gay marriage. Even if the BSA maintains its right to exclude gay members, its 501©(3) status is bound to end up on the menu if affiliated troops continue to bar gay Scout leaders. I don’t get why he thinks giving gay-rights activists half a loaf here will protect the other half. Then again, the Scouts knew that he’d helped lift the ban on gays in the military as SecDef when they named him president; they also know that the national leadership is under tremendous pressure from corporate sponsors, political institutions, and even Gates’s old boss to change its position on this matter. They had to know this was coming, no matter how reluctant Gates has been to force the issue. And like he says, what choice does he have, really? The courts have forced it on him.

 

No religious or other traditional CO will be able to maintain current standards for youth leadership, if the Local Option becomes a reality. "Local Option" will soon become "The National Mandate," as the stated opinions of LGBT activists, in the quoted comments in dcsimmon's post, demonstrate. Nothing less than total victory is acceptable to the forces of the Social Justice Warriors. Fail to follow the new party line, and expect to have your reputation trashed, if you Google your name you will find foul insults the LGBT lobby has written about you and find they will have doxxed your home address and place of business for any Social Justice Warrior who wants to count coup and safely establish his progressive bona fides by harassing you, until you fall in line. It's inevitable. All the traditions of Scouting and Woodbadge songs and good memories of times past won't change that. 

 

I don't need that, and won't be a part of it. If the so-called "Local Option" passes, yes, I will leave Scouting for good. I may not be missed by the new leadership, but I suspect I won't be alone. Maybe you'll have an influx of new volunteers. Good luck to all who remain. 

Edited May 22, 2015 by AZMike

[numbersnerd]

The program doesn't have to handle it. The program can ignore it. That's the whole point.

 

Yes. There is a tremendous amount of doubt. The "LGBT lobby" can advocate whatever it wants, but the actual change that has occurred, and is likely to occur, is being driven by people INSIDE the BSA who believe that local option is the answer. Like the Scout Executive of my council, who wrote to a letter to the entire council expressing his disappointment that the policy regarding adult leadership was not being changed (at that time.) Like me, not individually, but in conjunction with all the Scouters' voices that the BSA has finally heard (and partially listened to) on this issue. (I'm not talking about posts in this forum necessarily, but I did take the survey two years ago.) Like Mr. Gates. He is not part of the LGBT lobby, but there was a passage in his speech where he indicated that local option is not merely inevitable, but is the right thing to do as well.

 

Your comments on this issue indicate that you apparently have your head in the sand.

 

The program doesn't have to handle it? It can ignore it? Not our problem? Is that really the response you expect to give people concerned about their sons being exposed to inappropriate content within the context of the program? Really? "Eh, if it happens, it'll just go away, no need to do anything about it. Little Johnny will get over it." You really have your finger on the pulse of parents, don't you?

 

These changes are only in response to the vocal protests of a small number of activists pushing their political agenda and have little concern with true well being of a specific group of people. Destuction of those not in agreement with them is their goal, no matter how much appeasement is offered. They capitalize on the fear of those not wanting to be labelled as bigoted, discriminaitory, or insensitive, the great modern era bogeymen. Many gay acquaintances roll their eyes when the LGBT activist groups are mentioned. They are as fatigued by these activist groups as anyone. These groups do not represent the gay populace as a whole despite how they position themselves. They are disingenuous opportunists exploiting pop culture sentiments with little real concern for anyone but themsleves. If they truly espoused the ideals they claim, they would be more cognizant of the damage they are doing in whole to many organizations, institutions, companies, and individuals. If the issue were left to debate with the larger gay community, exclusive of these activists, the discussion would be much more cvil, productive, and acceptable to all parties.

[Scouter99]

Scouter99 - You take one incident in which those who planned to march in uniform were warned not to and why, some obeyed the order not to, some did not.. But it is clear the SE words back up what both Rick & NJ said...   So if BSA has a policy against aiming squirt guns at people, and troops ignore the policy that makes someone stating the policy about squirt guns a liar????  Really..  So what does that mean about you stating we have a policy against homosexual scout leaders, when it is clear it is ignored by many.. Does that mean we have never really had that policy in force?? That policy has always been for local option.

Both state that admitting gay leaders will not result in their sexuality being advocated within the program.  Both know that is exactly what happens and will be happening.  It is exactly what newly-allowed gay Scouts have been doing, it is exactly what gay leaders have been doing, it is why they pushed for the change.  Scouts UK it's the same story, they have staff and events dedicated to promoting homosexuality.

[NJCubScouter]

Both state that admitting gay leaders will not result in their sexuality being advocated within the program.  Both know that is exactly what happens and will be happening.  It is exactly what newly-allowed gay Scouts have been doing, it is exactly what gay leaders have been doing, it is why they pushed for the change.  Scouts UK it's the same story, they have staff and events dedicated to promoting homosexuality.

Prove it. Any of it.