http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bush-rubio-immigration-reform/2013/01/28/id/487716
The Boy Scouts of America may soon give sponsors of troops the authority to decide whether to accept gays as scouts and leaders - a potentially dramatic retreat from a nationwide no-gays policy that has provoked relentless protests.
Under the change now being discussed, the different religious and civic groups that sponsor Scout units would be able to decide for themselves how to address the issue — either maintaining an exclusion of gays, as is now required of all units, or opening up their membership.
Gay-rights activists were elated at the prospect of change, sensing another milestone to go along with recent advances for same-sex marriage and the end of the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
However, Southern Baptist leaders — who consider homosexuality a sin — were furious about the possible change and said its approval might encourage Southern Baptist churches to support other boys' organizations instead of the BSA.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boy-scouts-may-allow-homosexual-scout-masters (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boy-scouts-may-allow-homosexual-scout-masters)
Quote from: Turks on January 29, 2013, 05:06:56 AM
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/bush-rubio-immigration-reform/2013/01/28/id/487716
The Boy Scouts of America may soon give sponsors of troops the authority to decide whether to accept gays as scouts and leaders - a potentially dramatic retreat from a nationwide no-gays policy that has provoked relentless protests.
Under the change now being discussed, the different religious and civic groups that sponsor Scout units would be able to decide for themselves how to address the issue — either maintaining an exclusion of gays, as is now required of all units, or opening up their membership.
Gay-rights activists were elated at the prospect of change, sensing another milestone to go along with recent advances for same-sex marriage and the end of the ban on gays serving openly in the military.
However, Southern Baptist leaders — who consider homosexuality a sin — were furious about the possible change and said its approval might encourage Southern Baptist churches to support other boys' organizations instead of the BSA.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boy-scouts-may-allow-homosexual-scout-masters (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/boy-scouts-may-allow-homosexual-scout-masters)
So if NAMBLA wants to sponsor, that's OK?
Quote from: Solar on January 29, 2013, 05:10:22 AM
So if NAMBLA wants to sponsor, that's OK?
Nothing shocks me any longer... :sad:
Nambla rights will be assured when states that allow under legal age marriage accept gays have the right to marry. If under age girls have the protection under the law of not revealing pregnancy or abortion to their parents, under age boys by default have the right to not have hospitals reveal the evidence of their sexual activities either.
Nambla does not need the scouts, but they will support any movement that makes what they do seem "acceptable" in our society.
This is really sad.
There isn't a damned thing standing in the way of gays starting their own organizations...........specifically for gay people.
If it's implemented, say good bye to the scouts. No parent in their right mind is going to send their son off on camping trips with a homosexual troop leader.
Quote from: Turks on January 29, 2013, 05:34:07 AM
Nothing shocks me any longer... :sad:
Like all of industry, these freaks have infiltrated the top echelons of management and boards of directorship.
It's time to look at who is
running ruining BSA.
I think that this is a losing decision for the Boy Scouts. I guess i am OK for letting each pack make their own decision but the ones who continue to not allow gays into the troop will be sort of hung out to dry. I think that they should just decide one way or the other. Those groups who say it is a sin and something they cannot accept well so be it. I think that the sooner gays are fully integrated into everything the sooner we can stop considering them a special class.
Just a thought but I think I would feel safer if my son's leader was admittedly gay than someone who is keeping it under wraps. I think back to when I was young and now realize that more than a few of these men who were supposedly super volunteers actually liked being around young boys. I think that a guy who everyone knows is gay has almost zero chance of getting out of line without being turned in for his behavior.
Quite a few religious groups have given up on the scouts (both boy and girl) long ago and created local groups of their own. The Royal Rangers have been around for a long time and though the AG church started it, all denominations are welcome. I can't remember the name of the girls group.
Good or bad idea? Our scouts were divided by school district and met at the school. If the scouts are public, it is pretty hard to exclude people, though one could argue that girls ate seperate from boys, so it would logically follow that a seperate sexual orientation would have its own troop.
Read between the lines. It is all about the money. Each troop/pack makes its own choice, based upon what their sponsor feels. Those sponsored by churches will probably have one position than those supported by say the United Way might take an opposite position.
Not sure I am all that comfortable with groups at that age forcing these children to declare their sexual preference. I was a scout and while I probably knew I liked girls, I was not even near the age where I had any experience with a girl. I just think that defining someone by sexual orientation is screwed up. People that I grew up with since grade school age and I now know they are gay is a very small number and I can honestly say that it was pretty obvious that they were gay as long as I knew them. I also know a few guys that are gay but except for them being admittedly gay you would never guess it. Of course there are some gays that are just outrageous about it but I think that has to be some kind of mental thing to help them cope with a life that has to be very difficult.
I just cannot imagine that god would create someone who from birth is oriented towards someone of the same sex and then send them to hell for acting on one of our strongest drives.
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 29, 2013, 08:50:49 AM
Not sure I am all that comfortable with groups at that age forcing these children to declare their sexual preference. I was a scout and while I probably knew I liked girls, I was not even near the age where I had any experience with a girl. I just think that defining someone by sexual orientation is screwed up. People that I grew up with since grade school age and I now know they are gay is a very small number and I can honestly say that it was pretty obvious that they were gay as long as I knew them. I also know a few guys that are gay but except for them being admittedly gay you would never guess it. Of course there are some gays that are just outrageous about it but I think that has to be some kind of mental thing to help them cope with a life that has to be very difficult.
I just cannot imagine that god would create someone who from birth is oriented towards someone of the same sex and then send them to hell for acting on one of our strongest drives.
It's not about heaven or hell, or judging gays. We should just accept the fact that people are different, and stop trying to
force different groups to gel together.
Heterosexuals have a right not to be forced to associate with homosexuals. We're talking sexual preference here, it's much different than a discussion about whether vegetarians should be in the scouts.
I think I implied that in my prior post. We need to get to a point where being gay is nothing that gives you a special status. No one should be forced to associate with those who they do not want to be around. By that I do not mean that gays should stay to their area so that they do not mix with those who do not want to be around them. I mean that if an organization allows gays to participate that you have a choice to join or not. At the same time I think a group should be allowed to decide who their members are. There are often blow ups where the libs get their panties in a wad about this group or that being restrictive.
Many country clubs are restrictive on their membership. You can't walk up and pay your money to get in. A member has to sponsor you and then the membership gets to vote if you get in or not. I just do not see how there can be an issue that some group might not allow someone for what ever reason into their group. A better question is why that person would want to belong to a group where they are not wanted. There is only one logical explanation that I can think of and destroying a group does not sound like a good reason let that person in.
If govt funds are involved then I think all bets are off.
Is this an actual change the Boy scouts are considering, of just another example of the media trying to force a change they want?
I enjoy throwing the things that the left pushes, back in their faces.
Homosexuality is marked by a certain behavior; a behavior that some people find disgusting, and yet, it must be accepted.
How would the little leftists react if I was to become a scout leader, and smoked cigarettes and drank beer during every meeting?
Their little heads would explode.
Yeah, well screw you pinkos!!! Smoking and drinking is my RIGHT!!!! You must accept me! You can't judge me on my behavior! :ttoung:
Investiture of Homosexual Scout masters will end poorly :glare:
Billy
Quote from: raptor5618 on January 29, 2013, 08:21:40 AM
I think that the sooner gays are fully integrated into everything the sooner we can stop considering them a special class.
This is a PRIVATE club. When they go this route, it'll be the end of the Boy Scouts.
Quote from: Yawn on January 29, 2013, 05:15:43 PM
This is a PRIVATE club. When they go this route, it'll be the end of the Boy Scouts.
There's a lesson to be learned here. No matter how good it sounds, NEVER, EVER, become aligned with the federal government.
If the Scouts want to purge themselves of this problem, they must completely disassociate themselves from government.
http://militaryatheists.org/news/2012/07/time-to-end-federal-support-of-boy-scout-discrimination/ (http://militaryatheists.org/news/2012/07/time-to-end-federal-support-of-boy-scout-discrimination/)
The National BSA remind me of the unions on this matter. To hell with principle, we want dues.
Quote from: kramarat on January 30, 2013, 06:25:35 AM
There's a lesson to be learned here. No matter how good it sounds, NEVER, EVER, become aligned with the federal government.
If the Scouts want to purge themselves of this problem, they must completely disassociate themselves from government.
http://militaryatheists.org/news/2012/07/time-to-end-federal-support-of-boy-scout-discrimination/ (http://militaryatheists.org/news/2012/07/time-to-end-federal-support-of-boy-scout-discrimination/)
What federal support of the Boy Scouts?
Quote from: mdgiles on January 30, 2013, 08:15:39 AM
What federal support of the Boy Scouts?
It looks like there is no direct financial support, but this is the argument of the left.
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html (http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/articles/bsa.html)