bsa-logo

BSA membership policy resolution released, will be voted on in May

The Boy Scouts of America’s Executive Committee today released its membership policy resolution, which proposes removing the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and maintaining the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America.

The resolution, if passed, would be effective Jan. 1, 2014. You can read a summary below or see the complete text at this link (PDF).

Next up, the resolution is sent to all voting delegates, a group of volunteers from every BSA council, who will put it to a vote at the National Annual Meeting next month.

The resolution comes after a lengthy review process in which the BSA gathered perspectives from inside and outside the Scouting family. The five-page Membership Standards Study Initiative Executive Summary (PDF) explains in detail the key findings from this review.

For those with questions, the BSA has prepared this comprehensive list of FAQs (PDF) about the resolution.

Here’s the resolution:

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

BSA media statement

In February, the Boy Scouts of America embarked on the most comprehensive listening exercise in its history to consider the impact of potential changes to its membership standards policy on the organization and gather perspectives from inside and outside of the Scouting family.  This review created an outpouring of feedback from the Scouting family and the American public, from both those who agree with the current policy and those who support a change.

Scouting’s review confirmed that this issue remains among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today.  Even with the wide range of input, it is extremely difficult to accurately quantify the potential impact of maintaining or changing the current policy. While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community, and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.

For this reason, the Executive Committee, on behalf of the National Executive Board, wrote a resolution for consideration that would remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone and would maintain the current membership policy for all adult leaders of the Boy Scouts of America.   The proposed resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.

The voting members will take action on the resolution during the Boy Scouts of America’s National Annual Meeting next month.

America needs Scouting, and our policies must be based on what is in the best interest of our nation’s children. Throughout this process, we work to stay focused on that which unites us, reaching and serving young people to help them grow into good, strong citizens. Our priority remains to continue accomplishing incredible things for young people and the communities we serve. 


May 8, 2013 update: Thanks to everyone for their feedback on this post. The comments section is now closed. -Bryan

1,457 thoughts on “BSA membership policy resolution released, will be voted on in May

  1. This proposed change is a half-measure, but it may be the BSA’s last chance at change. If it fails to pass, it will be years before the issue is taken up again. By then, so many well-meaning parents, leaders and chartering organizations will have left that it will fail again, because only the bigots will remain. The BSA will be a fringe organization and fall into permanent decline and irrelevance.

    • But this proposed change is no change at all. First of all, BSA rarely, if ever, rejects gay youth from membership even now. I can’t think of one case where someone under 18 was kicked out of BSA for being gay. All of the high-profile expulsions for being gay have been of adult scouts, and parents of scouts, not youth.

      Second, and more importantly, this proposed policy continues BSA’s teaching that homosexual conduct is immoral. What really upsets parents is that BSA feels a need to teach about homosexuality at all.

      It is the parent’s responsibility, together with their church, to teach about sexuality. Teaching about sexuality is not BSA’s role. If this is the best BSA can do, families will continue fleeing BSA.

  2. This resolution is just a half-measure. But if it fails to pass in May, it may be years, even a decade or longer, before the BSA considers changing its policies again. That will be catastrophic and could cause wholesale departures by leaders, families, and chartering organizations that have advocated for change. The BSA may end up as a fringe movement, with no possible chance at recovery. The next time the BSA votes on change, it will fail again, because only the bigots will be left.

    • Scouter Dad I think that you are mistaken about the impact that people will have about lifting the ban on homosexuals in Scouting. First if the National Board decides not to lift the ban things will stay basically the same. The percentage of members that favor lifting the ban is around 30% a small number compared to the 70% that favor leaving the ban intact. Second of those 30% that support lifting the ban I believe that that only 1% will actually leave Scouting the other attributes of Scouting are to important to the needs of Americas youth. Scout Dad please don’t be the messenger of gloom and doom the BSA has survived for 103 years and it will survive this obstacle with its core beliefs intact and its mission of building the best youth organization in the United States. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

      • According to the BSA’s own findings, only 48% of parents of current Scouts support the existing policy, and a majority of Scout-age youths don’t support it. While the majority of leaders may still support the current policy, a majority of parents — and their sons — don’t. Many of the parents who have remained engaged with the BSA in recent years have done so in the belief that they could help the organization change from within. If this resolution fails, especially if it’s by a wide margin, the BSA will be telling them that such efforts are futile. I don’t want to see the BSA become a fringe organization, but if this resolution fails, I see no other future for it.

        • Why would you so heavily use the statistics from scout parents and scouters. Is that the same scout parents who refuse to volunteer? The same parents that majority don’t have a clue on the inner workings and issues related to running a troop or pack? The same ones who drop their kids off at the door? Very few parents vest their time in the BSA. Those who do were included in other parts of the survey as committee members, etc.

          Scouts-don’t know about your scouts but mine barely have a clue. They are called kids. It’s our job as leaders to guide them and help them learn from their experiences and mistakes along the path to adulthood. They don’t have the ability to use their life long experiences in their decision making process. If that were the case why would they need scouting and why do they need adults to supervision? I have yet to come across an activist parent who is trying to change BSA because of it’s policy.

          While the statistics are interesting and yes I am happy they were surveyed. As a percent, I expect that the return rate was much higher in the staff/volunteers vs. parents and even scouts. I don’t recall that information being provided though.

        • Scouter Dad your 48% is not correct it is more like 30% support lifting the ban on homosexuals in scouting according to the survey that was sent two months ago I believe that the 30% number will be even lower when the other organizations response will be allowed to be counted as is the case of the LDS Church that represents 24% of scout membership in America. I personally are offended by you doom and gloomers that scouting is dead without homosexuals in the program. Trenton Spears

        • mike – the actual opinions from the scouts are the most valid in this case, and certainly much more so than scout leaders or paid scouters. the majority public option supports equal rights for gays. with the equality approval opinion much more centered towards the younger generation who actually believes its wrong to discriminate.

        • Oops, left out that morally straight cannot possibly include homosexuality since it is incompatible with Scouting.

        • Scouter Dad, if “only” 48% of current Scout parents support the policy, what percentage oppose the policy? The Executive Summary doesn’t tell us, and also doesn’t tell us what percentage were undecided. 11% of the local Council Study Group was undecided or neutral, so if a similar rate applies, are we only looking at 41% (or even less) opposing it? You cite that “a majority of parents – and their sons – don’t support the policy” But you’re mixing two sets of stats – the stats showing that a “majority of parents” oppose the plan was based on a telephone polling group that included parents whose kids were not involved in scouting at all – why would their opinions be relevant if they don’t have skin in the game? Is there any indication that those parents who answered the phone survey would be involved in scouting or encourage their sons to be involved in scouting if the policy changed? The actual stats on “parents of current scouts” show that 61% of the parents of Boy Scouts support the current policy. A majority – 50% – of Cub Scout parents support the policy (a minority – 45% – oppose the policy).

    • If they leave things they way they are, maybe the BSA will be seen an an organization that stands by its principles and won’t cave into politcal correctness or special interest. Scouter Dad, just because someone does not want to be around homosexuals does not make them a bigot. It’s the freedom to associate with who you choose. I believe changing the policy will do more harm. Just leave well enough alone, ignore those who keep telling us how we should think and focus on providing the best program to the youth.

      • the largest special interest is the mormons. and yes if you don’t want to be around homosexuals you are a bigot.

        • Dewey, everybody who doesn’t like homosexuals is not a bigot, you need to be a little more tolerant and accepting, don’t you think. Little less insulting and judgmental?

        • Look, you are free to hate homosexuals..but nothing will every change the fact that it makes you a bigot. You have freedom of association, but when that association is the definition of bigotry, then you are a bigot.

          If I dislike Obama because of his policies, I’m fine. But if I dislike Obama because he’s black and I, like some Christians 50 years ago, believed they are inferior then I’m a bigot. Now, change all that to apply to homosexuals and you’ll get it.

          This isn’t the first time “Christians’ have carried a burning cross and I’m predicting that, like slavery and segregation, they will be on the losing end once again.

        • JCal, I thought we had moved past the whole “hate” thing. I guess all those people who choose not to associate with me because I don’t curse and I defend my faith are bigots and haters. I bet they would be surprised. I don’t hate anybody. I don’t like a lot of people but they go their way and I go mine. Right of Association and all that.

          So, you are equating my not wanting to associate with homosexuals equivalent with slavery and segregation. Really?! First, homosexuality is not a race so that is out. Segregation was evil. My parents lived through it and explained how evil it was. It is not evil to dislike an unnatural sex act and the people who engage in those acts. You dislike the fact that I am a bible-believer and stand by the tenets of my faith. That doesn’t make you a bigot.

          Hmmm, burning Crosses was pretty much the practice of the KKK right? So now you are classifying all Christians as cross-burning segregationists of the KKK. Well you’re getting close to bigot with that kind of thought. But, that’s not what you meant? I don’t think it was but it could certainly be construed that way much like you have accused many here.

          It is interesting how many on the other side do not credit Christians being on the front lines of most battles that bettered humanity. Most of your left-wing liberal close-minded Universities would have never been founded had it not been for Christians. we sure lost out on that one I agree. What cesspool so many formerly Christian Universities have become.

          But all that has noting to do with Boy Scout Policy. Today homosexuals are excluded not because they are evil but because their obsession with sexuality makes them incompatible with Scouting

        • Yeah, I guess we didn’t move past the hate thing. See, it’s like this:

          There’s this woman I don’t like. She doesn’t have good character. I dislike her because of her character. I do not tell others whether or not they can associate with her. I don’t call them bad people for associating with her. I do not tell everyone that if they are friends with her, they can’t be friends with me. I don’t like her, she doesn’t like me. But if we show up at a mutual friend’s party, I will not harangue her or call her names or make her uncomfortable or force her to leave by my actions or behavior. I will be kind and courteous. Our problems will not come up. I will be respectful and decent, because whether I like her or not, she’s a human being with feelings of her own. THAT’s disliking someone.

          Hate..If I hated her, I’d do all in my power to make her very existence as miserable as possible, much like many of ya’ll do to homosexuals. I’d force my friends to choose between me and her, I’d treat her as an abomination and insist everyone else does, too. Do you understand?

          Now, are you going to deny facts? The fact is, after the Civil War the Klan came into its head as a self proclaimed “Christian’ organization. Now, if we’re going to stand around here talking about who follows the Bible right, we’re fixing to tick off a lot of Christians, because if you all agreed on exactly how to follow the Bible there’d be one Christian organization. The Klan’s leaders, back in it’s original incarnation and it’s resurgence after desegregation were deacons, preachers and church leaders much of the time. They frequently delivered their pronouncements at baptist pulpits. You may not like it, but it was full of Christians.

          Many Christians fought integration by arguing racist interpretations of the Bible (this is starting to sound familiar) ie Phinehas and the Curse of Ham. Religion was used frequently especially in regards to interracial marriage. Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania…. Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy—Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503 (more familiar by the second)

          Integration was believed to be the leading edge of a social revolution bent on “overthrowing God’s established order.” They associated civil rights with socialism (jeez, it’s like watching a replay). The fact that blacks were being denied justice and equality was less important than the fact that giving them justice and equality would have undermined long-established social structures. They believed that the subjugation of blacks by whites was designed by God as the desirable social order in America — that God was in effect a racist just like them.

          Fred, if I hated you for being a Christian, yes sir, I’d be a bigot. If I thought all Christians were hateful human beings, just because they are Christian, yes sir, I”d be a bigot. If I don’t choose to hang out with you because we don’t follow the same values, that’s ok. One is unreasonable (such as believing all Christians are card carrying KKK members), the other is just two people who can’t agree.

          But you cannot deny that in all three cases, it was the Christians shouting what was an abomination, what was a sin against God and therefore the world…and in each case good people came forward against them (some Christians) and equality was achieved.

          And don’t give me the “homosexual is not a race and therefore this is ok” argument. You are much too intelligent for that. Religion isn’t a race either, it’s a choice. I still wouldn’t advocate ill treatment of them.

        • I guess you’re right JCal, at least you’re not over the hate thing.

          don’t know why you have so much rage bottled up over this issue but I do not see any point in responding to historical fact about bad people doing bad things that have nothing to do with homosexuals in Scouting.

          If I had the inclination, I would post the stories of Christians on the other side of the situations you detailed. Easily researched. The largest belief in a community has always been corrupted by small-minded people for their own purposes. These people have for the most part failed during their lifetime. Christianity has not and today continues the teachings of Jesus Christ to all who will follow and better their life by it. Segregation had nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ and everything to do with small-minded corrupt people.

          Today, Secular progressive thought is the prevailing “belief” in large urban communities and LGTB issues are the darling of secular progressive thought. A culture of permissiveness pervades the proponents of LGTB causes. No activities too unclean or immoral. Each person is of equal value no matter their moral deficiencies. i don’t want that for the children of my Community. Children want structure and boundaries, not indulgence of all desires.

          There is absolutely positively no correlation between oppression of blacks and opposition to the immoral behavior of homosexuals. That is an insult to an entire people. While the NAACP (National Association of Complaining People) support LGTB issues, Black people do not and I have lived with them and worked alongside them my entire life. .

          Sadly, your example of corruption to end your rant has some truth but only in the sense of bad Christians. It is not true for the vast majority of Christians who follow the Bible. You are angry at the wrong people. You should look at the members of your own community to find the hate in Society today.

        • Fred, I find your arguments sophomoric at best. So when it was used to deny black people their rights, it was wrong but when it’s used to deny homosexual people THEIR rights..it’s right? Then to top it off your next defense is “ok, we did bad stuff, but we did GOOD stuff and that makes the bad stuff alright”.

          I do not hate, not even you. I don’t go out of my way to tell people I disapprove of them, but I will say this: The Scout Law only applies to those you approve of and yeah, that makes me angry.

          My argument wasn’t to say Christians are all bad, but it was to show that this isn’t the first time you’ve coopted your book to exclude a group of people and as history has shown, it was wrong then. Back then those same people were considered an “abomination” and “a sin against God”…and thank goodness they were wrong then. And if it’s wrong then, it’s wrong now. Evil is always evil

        • JCal, your argument is pointless when you try to attach the civil rights struggle of a people fought against all manner of religions and pagans. Muslims and others sold them into slavery or kept them for themselves in Africa and Christians and non-Christians purchased them and enslaved them and Christians were a significant part of freeing them. It was not worth the time and effort to post an easily researched rejection of a ridiculous argument and I will not because it may in some way give credence to the ridiculous argument. It is an argument homosexuals are stridently trying to make and it is ridiculous so I won’t waste time with it.

          The Scout Law applies to all that follow its tenets and currently Boy Scouts of America official policy excludes homosexuality because in the belief of Boy Scouts of America, it is incompatible with the Scout Oath and Law, correct? You just refuse to accept it so you lash out at those who do. It does not suit “people like you” as you say and you would be correct.

          You are correct that evil is evil and it is insidious and evil to teach young children of Cub Scout age that sexuality should be celebrated in a character education program. A child acting on sexual identity at 6-101/2 years of age got it from somewhere. Probably his/her adult mentors and authority figures. That’s evil to me.

          I’ll take the lumps over the Christian faith that many have unfairly used but that the good that has been done far surpasses those failures. I just wish you would take the lumps for homosexual advocates who corrupt young children with sexual agendas.

        • Fred, no you BELIEVE it’s incompatible with Scout Law, that doesn’t make it true. I believe that homophobia is incompatible with Scout Law. You BELIEVE that homosexuals corrupt young children, again, that does not make it fact.And thus the problem we have here, your belief does not outweigh my belief, but my facts do. And the facts, as science has discovered, say that (as anyone with a reasoning brain would know) not all homosexuals are pedophiles. In fact, the award for most pedophiles is actually held by straight men. Knowing that would it be fair for me to assume YOU are a pedophile? I’ve never met a grown man who likes little boys and I’ve known lots of homosexuals, but I sure saw an entire ring of grown men arrested who like little girls when my cousin was molested. Would it be fair to take that example of the worst male humanity had to offer and apply it to every man? To teach it to my children? Or would I at some point have to employ logic, the logic that says that all men are not perverts? That heterosexuality does not equal pedophile?

          Fred, I’ve talked to you for some time..you are intelligent enough to get this and maybe my frustration is coming through because I’ve seen you are not a stupid man, you are capable of analogous thought. But you are willfully blind to logic when it interferes with your belief, and it’s frustrating to watch an otherwise intelligent person continually ignore the truth. I have a Christian friend that does not have a problem with this. She does not approve, but she “hates the sin, loves the sinner”, so she accepts homosexuals as part of our world, is capable of living in peace with them, is kind and courteous and neighborly. What’s the difference between her and those yelling abomination? Two things, both in the Bible “Jesus preached a message of love” and “God will judge them. It’s not my job. My job is to live a Godly life and spread the word of the Lord by example and witnessing”. See, that’s what I always thought the Bible said myself until I started attending church. Now, don’t take this to mean she approves. And if you ask her, she will tell you homosexuality is a sin. She doesn’t support civil unions because she condones homosexuality, she supports civil unions because we live in a country that is not ruled by her belief. She accepts that in order to enjoy HER freedoms, she knows she has to protect the same things that allow the rest of us freedoms.

          She has employed logic (she lives in a free country with belief systems that are not all the same, and our country supports freedom and equality) not to counter her belief but to allow her her belief. She also believes that no matter who a sinner is, or what his sin is, kindness, courtesy and respect are signs of love and love is what Jesus stood for. That woman would be just as kind to a murderer as she would a saint.

          BTW, who is celebrating sexuality? If my husband and I hold hands I am not “shoving my heterosexuality down your throat”..I’m showing my husband affection. If I ask to equality and freedom, I’m not celebrating my heterosexuality, I’m asking to stop focusing on that aspect of my life to limit my rights in this country. To be honest, if folks would stop using homosexuality to deny people rights, you’d never hear about it. Since I have rights, I do not go around saying “Hi! I’m heterosexual!”

          Before I went deaf, I never had to advertise I was hearing. Never. Now that I’m deaf, people use that as a way to exclude me or not be friends with me. Do you know how much of a pain it is, and how hurtful it is, to go up to people and be dismissed as a worthy person because I can’t hear? If I’m stupid enough to speak people think I’m dumb or retarded, because I sound funny. I don’t sound as bad as people who’ve been deaf from birth, but it’s definitely affected my speech. My feelings and my time are spared because I advertise it constantly. I’m not celebrating my deafness. I just let you know up front so the rejection is easier. When I push for an interpreter when I get pulled over (not that it happens often), I am not “shoving my deafness down his throat”..I’m trying to take advantage of rights that should be mine already and be sure that I’m not railroaded because of what I am. And if I were to ever sue someone over discriminating against me, I’m not shoving my deafness into the world’s face. Someone has used it to take advantage of me and that’s not right.

          You need to learn the difference between celebrating something, and just trying to live with the people that will abuse you over it.

        • JCal, I also believe you to be an intelligent person who makes sound arguments from your perspective and your beliefs.

          Beliefs are personal and internally based. It is obvious to me that there are some things we will never agree on or find common ground. One of them is that I support the current policy and feel it is based on a sound foundation of Youth Protection and sound values. One mistake under the proposed policy by a boy on a Campout and i would never forgive myself because I had a part in creating an environment for that mistake to happen and the resulting tragedy for a young Scout. That is why I will resign if the proposed policy is adopted. I cannot reconcile homosexual behavior with young children and young men in Scouting. Maybe you can.

          I believe homosexual advocates, homosexual guardians and homosexual-supporting teachers and authority figures including religious leaders corrupt young children by offering homosexual behavior as a life choice at an early age and encouraging homosexual tendencies. I do believe also that they believe it is right and acceptable to do so. As you say, it doesn’t make it right universally or in the eyes of many many people who have every right to oppose it stridently. I don’t hate anyone and will help anyone but I will not enable sinful behavior of another. With love I will say, you must first repent of sin to be saved. We all fail more often than we should but we try not to do it on purpose and continually.

          Participation in a private organization is not a “right.” How do you support that position? Its determined by the organization that makes the membership rules as determined by the Supreme Court. Each organization chooses those rules knowing the fallout if they deny membership to any group. That is the right in question. A “right” is not extended to someone who does not qualify to join based on sexual behavior so the organization is forced to accept them against its principles and values as stated in its policies.

          And yes, I do believe homosexuals “celebrate” their sexual orientation. I think that’s apparent to anyone familiar with today’s culture. If we did not know sexual orientation, there would be no exclusion Policy but it is “in our face” so we have no option except to oppose it directly. “open and avowed” requires letting everyone know you are “out.” At least the references I read say so.

          I “abuse” homosexuals by disagreeing? Really? When Christians are cursed at, ridiculed on national media, whose holy Saints are defecated on and called art? Plays with our Savior as a homosexual touted as genius and revolutionary. Children are harassed for their beliefs at School and ridiculed by teachers when they speak about their faith. You touch a homosexual and the whole progressive world declares you evil. My friend in federal government says they was told directly to not say a word to any LGTB no matter the behavior or their career will be at risk. What a protected class we have created in the LGTB population. Coddle, enable and support with taxpayer dollars. Sorry i think your charge of abuse is misdirected.

          If you have been discriminated against as a deaf person that is wrong and I think everyone would agree with that. That is unfortunate and should not have happened.

        • You are really amusing jcal. boxing Christians up and calling them evil. you really are lost and clueless aren’t you. It’s alright because your true spirit shines through everytime you post another message; keep posting; it helps my cause. You must be a very selfish person and feel you have some sort of a right to take and control things that don’t belong to you; The BSA doesn’t belong to you. It was created with principles of its own and anyone that wants to aspire to live within those guiding principles is welcome to join; if not then your free not to join. Just like choosing to live a life as a Christian; you’d probably love to control Christianity to serve your selfish desires too. I’m sure through your life you suffer tremendous frustration as people and institutions you try to control leave you feeling powerless by their resolve to recognize and ignore your selfish desires. That’s happening now for you too. I hope the proposal fails and the policy remains as it always has been. It belongs to all the people who choose to aspire to the BSA principles and mold their character to those principles whether your a homo or hetero. You can be a morally straight homo and not succumb to the sinful temptations you encounter. It happens all the time.

        • You really are a joke jcal. You strike out viciously at people who don’t share your opinion and then call them a bigot when they respond with truths you don’t like. If I find homosexual behavior repulsive, a truth of my heart, am I a bigot? If I hate sin so much that I ask God to forgive my sins every day through the blood of His son Jesus Christ am I a bigot? Do you think a Christian has the power through the Holy Spirit to hate homosexual behavior but love a homosexual man or woman as a neighbor? In your female liberal controlling mind do you find it so convenient to put people in a box, label the box and then throw stones at the box thinking your going to change someone with stone throwing? You do seem to have some anger issues. Do you think homosexuals find heterosexual relationships repulsive or do you think a homosexual man finds a man having an intimate sexual relationship with a woman repulsive? If a homosexual man that finds heterosexual relationships repulsive a bigot too? Do you think homosexuals are angelic and their behavior is blessed by God and God designed and created them to be in homosexual relationships? I’ve heard a couple of homosexuals on here say they’re not so crazy about being homosexuals; must be a wrongfulness about it. As a parent would I be the stupidest parent in the world to allow my 11 year old son to go off and hang out with and be a bunk mate of a homosexual 17 year old boy? Am I a bigot for fearing for my son’s safety? I bet your five boys aren’t in all in loving relationships with boys; are they? And the ones that aren’t, maybe all of them, ask them how they feel when they see two boys holding hands, making out or behaving intimately with each other do you think you can talk them out of their feelings of being repulsed? Do you think you would call your sons bigots for having natural feelings of repulsion. Don’t be so sure if your 5 sons are heterosexual that they don’t feel repulsed by homosexual behavior. Don’t be so sure that if a homosexual was lying on the side of the road and a Christian was walking down the road that the Christian wouldn’t pick him up and care for him in any way possible to help his neighbor. Do you think Fred Cooper would help a man laying on the side of the road and treat him like his neighbor even if he knew the man was a homosexual; I get a sense that he would. Do you think I would; I’ll tell you that I would. These are things you don’t seem to have the capacity to understand. This is the love of the Holy Spirit that dwells within a Christian soul. It isn’t bigotry; you have no idea what bigotry is if you think you believe that. You’ll never change the hearts and minds of Christians on this issue. It would be foolish for a Christian to lead a fellow Christian or anyone to believe homosexual behavior isn’t a sinful behavior. The Christian would be leading the sinner away from their salvation; what a foolish thing that would be to do. I’d never want to lead a sinner away from their salvation. And if the sinner doesn’t recognize the sin in their life and ask for forgiveness of that sin their walk with God is in jeopardy. I wouldn’t want to take responsibility for that diversion and manipulation of His truth.
          You are funny how you attack people on here. I get a kick out of your true ignorance of the heart of a man. I wouldn’t expect you to understand the true heart of a man; I won’t begin to think I’d understand the true heart of a woman. Their will never be equality; not part of His plan on this earth. Your wasting a lot of life trying to attain equality; find biblical ways to handle inequality. That won’t be such a waste of time.

        • dewey I wish that you would investigate the LDS Church and its position on homosexuality they invite homosexuals into the Church. The only requirement is that they cannot practice the sexual act of homosexual and they must seek repentance from the Lord.The Church ‘s position is the same with hetersexuals sex is to remain with in the sanctity of a Holy Marriege between a man and a women. So using the term bigotry is clearly unfounded against the Mormon Church when active homosexuals are dismissed from the Church not based on being homosexual but performing the sex act itself. The Church’s will use all its teachings and the doctrine of Jesus Christ to convince the sin of Homosexual is real and against all of Gods Commandments. There is a clear difference between the Church and the BSA in their role as an organization The BSA uses its private statis granted by the Supreme Court in 2000 to ban Homosexuals from their program and I believe it is the best policy because of its responsibility to serve the majority and preserve the future of its Scouting program. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • JCal, the KKK opposed Catholics as much as they did African-Americans – hard to say they represented an authentic Christian voice, any more than crackpots like the Westboro Baptist Church does. The abolitionist movement was almost entirely composed of religious believers, including Protestants, Catholics, and Jews. Many of the secular and anti-Christian voices of the time (such as Hume and Gibbon) actually spoke in favor of slavery and argued that those of African descent were sub-human, even as Christians argued for the inherent dignity of all men. There were a couple of Enlightenment writers (like Rousseau and Paine) who were honorable and opposed slavery, but the vast majority of those in the American and English abolition movement were Christians, like Dr. Beilby Porteus (the Anglican Bishop of London), the biblical scholar Granville Sharp, deacon Thomas Clarkson, the Catholic Abbe Guillame Thomas Raynal, Irish political leader Daniel O’Connell, the U.S. Baptist journalist William Lloyd Garrison, the Quaker leader George Fox, Tory member of Parliament William Wilberforce, John Wesley and other founders of Methodism, and men who risked their lives and freedom operating the underground railroad – men such as the Quaker Levi Coffin or the Methodist minister Calvin Fairbank.

          The earliest voices against slavery were those of Christians, and the first to say that slaves were of equal worth to free men was Christ and His followers. St. Paul, while in prison, used all his formidable powers as a writer to win freedom for an escaped slave, who later became a bishop. St. Augustine was the first to document the African slave trade, and used the legal system, Church funds to purchase emancipation, and finally direct action by his parish members to rescue Africans who were being seized for slavery. St. Patrick and St. Thomas spoke against the inherent evil of slavery. Numerous popes issued papal bulls excommunicating those involved in the slave trade.

          In later years, Christians and Jews (black and white) formed the backbone of the Civil Rights movement, and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King (who himself dissuaded followers from the sin of homosexuality, even as he urged compassion for those who felt a same-sex attraction) used implicitly Christian language in his most powerful speeches. Many Christian denominations (such as the Catholic Church) have never opposed interracial marriage.

          Were individual Christians guilty of the sin of racism? Absolutely, even as atheists and members of every other faith have been. Religion has always included sinners as well as saints, that’s why it exists. But the greatest bulwark against racism has always been religion. The Ku Klux Klan was largely composed of members of the Democratic Party as well as some Baptists (and long-standing members of the Democratic Party in Congress like Robert Byrd were members), but that doesn’t mean current Democrats are bigots, or that all Democrats in the past supported the goals of the KKK. You can see how holding that they did wouldn’t make sense, right? So to claim that “Christians” as a group were responsible, then or now, for discrimination is equally ridiculous. You’re probably much too intelligent a young man to continue to hold such an absurd notion.

        • Sorry, I responded to JCal with the assumption that s/he was a young man or teenaged male, reading further I realized JCal is a woman.

        • Bobby, it wasn’t a “look at how bad Christians are”..it’s a history of using the Bible to deny people rights and being shown to be wrong. Using the Bible to justify something doesn’t mean it’s right, obviously the case in the KKK and integration. Twice before have Christians stood (and yes, I don’t mean all of the Christians) with a Bible and called people “abominations”, twice before have they used the Bible to justify treating people badly, twice before have they made the EXACT same claims…and twice before history has shown those claims to be wrong.

          But let’s not limit it. Those exact same claims (this is a sin and you are an abomination) were used to burn witches, deny women rights, and kill unbelievers. I cannot think of a single time that those EXACT claims have been used and been on the winning side of history. Not one. So what makes those claims any better now? And when are those that claim to follow God and use these arguments going to get that? In each and every case inclusion has won eventually. Now those beliefs are not a part of your church, right? You don’t believe women are inferior (well except Wallace, but I will not take him to be an example of a Christian), blacks are an abomination, witches should be burned, you don’t kill unbelievers. So, are all current Christians not really Christians? Or were those beliefs wrong? And if those beliefs were wrong in every other single point of history, why are they right now?

      • Moraly straight has NOTHING to do with gay or straigjt. Moraly straigjt was used in scputing 30 years before straight became short hand for hetrosexual..

        • If the premises of your argument are not sound, JCal, your conclusions will not be sound either. You are attempting to make the argument that because SOME Christians have used the Bible to unjustly condemn members of certain groups (which you cite as: black people, women, and witches), then all uses of a Bible to condemn sinful behavior must be also unjust. That is, as I think you will agree upon reflection, wicked crazy false bad logic.

          Clearly, the Bible condemns certain behaviors as sinful, as do other religious works. Scripture condemns someone to the extent that he or she practices those behaviors, and refuses to stop practicing them and to repent. It calls the acts themselves abominations, but the individual is called to change his or her ways and reform. This is an appropriate response to sinful behavior, and is also seen in other faiths. The few times in the NT or OT when people rather than acts are described as abominations, it is due to one’s chosen behavior, not who one is. Other forms of behavior that are condemned in the Bible in general, the New Testament, and the deposit of Faith in particular are, I trust you will agree, appropriate to condemn. Murder is wrong, and those who commit felonious murder are committing an abomination. Abortion is wrong and an abomination, as was taught from the earliest days of the Christian Church, and as we are currently seeing in the Gosnell trial. Child molestation is an abomination, as Jesus Himself said in Matthew. Jesus said a LOT of behaviors were wrong and should be condemned, and those who like to claim that he was all about the love and not about the condemnation of sin aren’t reading the same gospels as the rest of us. Jesus saved a woman who had sinned from being stoned to death by saying that those who are without sin should not throw stones, but his last words to the woman were “Go, and sin no more.” Persistence in sinful behavior was not encouraged by Jesus. Even sins that appear to be “victimless” and involve no one other than the sinner are condemned – hypocrisy, lust, sloth, pride, gluttony. As we are interconnected in all things we do, even “victimless” sins have an impact on other members of the community. Homosexuality certainly does.

          You claim that you cannot think of a single time in history when Christian claims (using the Bible as a source) that a sin is wrong and that it is an abomination was not on the losing side of history. I would first remind you that being on “the winning side of history” is not something I would consider a desirable goal. I would rather do what is right, whether I win or not.

          But if we use acting in a moral fashion, clearly the Christian faith was correct when it condemned Nazism, and even Nazis, as an abomination. The Catholic priests and Evangelical Lutheran ministers who died in “Priest’s Row” alongside their Jewish brethren at Dachau are sufficient evidence, as are the thousands of Jews who survived thanks to the Underground Railroad of the Catholic Church which saved almost a million Jews (as Einstein gratefully acknowledged). The Christian faith was correct when it condemned the Soviet genocide in the Ukraine and the Communist Chinese genocide during the Cultural Revolution. The priests and ministers and missionaries who died in their labor camps are sufficient witnesses to the truth of their claims that this belief, and the actions of the commissars, were abominations. Chattel slavery is wrong and an abomination. Judging another man by the color of his skin in wrong and is an abomination. The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, a Baptist, paid the price for his condemnation of that sin.

          As far as your specific claims, there are no Biblical teachings condemning black people, as most black Christians would be happy to inform you. Women are celebrated within the Church, achieved their highest degree of autonomy and freedom in the ancient world within the early Church (among the reasons for the high rate of Christian conversion from paganism in the early Church). Neither Witchcraft (understood as the neo-religion of Wicca, which was only founded in the last century), nor Druidism (which had no contact with 1st century Palestine, was destroyed by the pagan Romans, and left no written records of their beliefs or practices) existed in Biblical times and so was not condemned. The pagan practices at that time and place which are condemned in the Bible as “witchcraft” did involve religious practices which are an abomination and should be rightly condemned, such as infanticide, and the archaeological record in this case certainly supports scripture. You might not be aware that the Catholic Church (which had little interest in accusations of witchcraft) was the primary force that stopped the witch trials in Catholic countries. Even the Inquisitions and the Crusades, which were aberrations and were certainly not biblically based, were secular responses to Muslim conquests and incursions into Europe and the Holy Land that can and should be understood in the political context of their times, as the responses to 9/11 can be in ours.

          Clearly, if those beliefs you cite as “Christian” are not Christian, there is no need for me to defend them.

        • 1. I never said using the Bible as a source, I said using those same arguments to deny a group of people rights. Still can’t think of one.

          2. Obviously someone thought there were parts that condemned black people…they quoted at least two they thought were right. I believe I mentioned them.

          3. You’re wrong about witchcraft. The original Hebrew word was frequently translated as “witch” and used in connection with women who cast spells. Not infantcide. The Hebrew word was used in connection with other Hebrew words about those who engaged in rituals that produce supernatural results. The Formicarius and Malleus Maleficarum can still be read today.Just because they spread the rumors that they killed babies doesn’t mean they actually did. To this day some people still actually believe Jews kill non-Jewish babies…they don’t. I do believe the Catholics stopped that (and no, I don’t think they started them).

          4. Do you seriously want me to give credit to the Catholics of that time for ending two things they started? The Inquisition was a part of the justice system of the church and the Crusades started because the Christians and the Muslims were fighting over Jerusalem because they both wanted the “holy city”. Now, don’t take that to mean I don’t like Catholics. My Uncle Claude is a Jesuit priest in New Orleans. But c’mon, let’s be honest here…

          Who gets to decide who’s Christian? In those days, it was perfectly “Christian”. Just because the definition has changed since then doesn’t change what happened. And why did the definition change? Because eventually folks realized that excluding a group of people based on race, gender, religion, handicap, etc were wrong. Each time it was decided to be a bad thing and in 50 or 100 years folks will look back to now, Christians will, and say “man, we were so wrong” about gays, too. Let’s just cut out the middle man and start getting along.

          Again, that does not mean the whole of Christianity is wrong. I actually don’t see the Bible as a problem at all, and I like stories about Jesus. Episcopalians accept gays, several reformed churches of Europe, Eastern Orthodoxy, Community of Christ, some of the Lutheran churches, Mennonite churches, Presbyterians, the list gets longer.Are they not Christian? Who decides whose Christian?

    • Scouter Dad, I respect your right to disagree. Just as I stand by BSA’s right to maintain standards, evaluate those standards from time to time, and my right to a Point of View. My point of view is this. Having a faith-based perspective is not bigotry. To reduce my faith to that level is bigotry, or ignorance, on your part. Many of us remain involved in Scouting because of its principles, and we have a right to hold to our standards for whatever reason. As a very active current adult leader, I am concerned about the following impacts. 1 – The increased potential for bullying that could result from this change. 2 – The increased potential for inappropriate behavior and additional load on adult leaders to manage that (same reason as we don’t allow cross gender tenting or showering in our co-ed youth programs) 3 – Loss of perspective of our founding principles. One of the replies to this blog commented about young people being more tolerant. As an Eagle Scout and the father of an Eagle Scout, I see this directly in my son’s feelings about this. However, I also see that he has been innundated with the “okayness” of homosexuality through our schools and the media. It is those same schools and media that tend to bash judeo-christian faith and values. So I have to look at those preference statistics in that context. Unfortunately, this seems to be a critical juncture in our society, and the results of this (due to the choices of man) may be fractious. Regardless of which point of view prevails, there will be people who will be disgruntled and leave. I wish that I were wise enough to have a magic answer, but to my thinking backing away from what in my belief is “Morally Straight” is not that magic answer.

      • ” Regardless of which point of view prevails, there will be people who will be disgruntled and leave.”

        Why is this true? Tell me who would leave if BSA reverted to its 1984 position:

        “Education for sexuality belongs in the home… Scouters should reinforce rather than contradict what is being taught in the family and by the youth’s religious leaders” BSA Statement on Human Sexuality, 1984

        Isn’t that a statement that all Scouts, of all stripes, can agree with?

        Scouts with various, even contradictory, religious persuasions have gotten along for over 100 years. Why do you think we cannot get along now? Leave things that belong in church in church. Bring things that belong in Scouts to Scouts. Then we will get along just fine.

        Scouts have gotten along fine in the past. Why not now?

    • The BSA has once again placed a price on it’s core values. I one statement adult leaders may not be openly gay. However on the other hand a boy or girl can rise thought the ranks and earn the Eagle, Ranger or Quartermaster awards. The highest award scouting has to offer. Turn 21 they may not become leaders. I’m I missing something in this statement.

      • Try this interpretation… No child left behind even if they are questioning their sexuality. As they mature they may or may not change decide they are gay and we will not hold it against them as they decide. Whereas practicing homosexuality is among other immoral acts such as theft, bullying, adultery, etc. and the assumption is that youth will make poor choices from time to time. Unless it occurs to the extreme (active homosexual, won’t quite stealing, etc.) the youth can still hold membership.

        But BSA holds adults to a higher standard since they are adults and assume that they have the maturity to know right from wrong since they are adults. Since Homosexuality is immoral as is theft, bullying, adultery, etc. and as adults BSA holds them to a higher standard in a leadership/mentoring role.

        That’s my take on their proposed policy.

        • Your interpretation sure might be right, but it brings up for me shades of gray. I had imagined that the new policy would mean that even if the boy had a boyfriend he could be a Scout. By using “active homosexual” you seem to be suggesting that a gay boy could be a Scout only if he was just thinking about it, but not if he actually did it. And maybe that is what it means. One thing I’m not sure about is the significance of that word “alone” at the very end. Maybe that’s why it’s there.

  3. I think it is pretty clear that this proposed resolution is dead on arrival, so we need to think about the aftermath.

    BSA will come out of this with its restrictive membership policy reaffirmed more strongly and openly than ever. And after the very public self-flagellation it has put itself through, BSA will be an even bigger target for public ridicule, and more and more Americans will strike BSA from their list of worthwhile activities for themselves and their children.

    So I think it is time for the councils, chartered organizations, and Scouters who oppose any change to membership policies to put up or shut up: They got the restrictive membership policy they want, so it is up to them to increase membership — now.

    • We’ve been having those discussions. I am personally on the fence. We might lose our Charter. I have an LGBT individual who is trying to convince our Chartered Org to keep our unit regardless. I have two Jewish friends who (reflecting upon their experience of discrimination as children) have drawn a line in the sand and said they are out of Scouting and will not participate. I have had close friends accuse me of being Homophobic because of my involvement in Scouting. That truly hurt (probably more than I let them know).

      This has been very, very painful and I’ll have to make the tough decision. The BSA will have examined the issue, thought hard on it, and voted to stick with a belief structure that I cannot support. Most painful is that the fear and hatred I see here (in so many comments) will have won. I don’t think I can just ignore that.

      I don’t know if I’d be able to follow through on plans to be on Woodbadge staff this fall, or if I would continue as Scoutmaster come rechartering time (I’m quite certain that if our current Chartered Org drops us, and we end up where I think we might – at a fundamentalist evangelical church – I would not be asked to continue as a leader).

      Those who have a more apocalyptic view claim that Scouting in New England may essentially die: councils merged down to a handful, camps closed, staffs gutted.

      • Hi Kevin. Your unit is in a tough position. I have personally been on the fence for several years now about whether I would remain active in the BSA because of the current policy.

        Where I have come down is that it is important for those who oppose the current policy to stay. The reason is that if we all leave, there will be no incentive for the BSA to adapt. They will have already lost us. The voice for change from within will no longer exist. We know that acceptance of people that are considered by some to be ‘different’ is a slow process. I will continue to speak up for what I believe is right, and I believe that there will be a change, hopefully sooner than later.

    • p.s. There is one rumor floating around that the Circle 10 District has been offered a $25,000,000 gift that is contingent on the BSA affirming its current policy. That leaves me speechless.

  4. So, one of the things I learned in Scouting — along with ways to put my love of my country into action, how to be an honorable person, how to build a fire, how to lead other people, how to serve my community, and many other ways to make a positive impact in the world — was self respect. And that self respect will not allow me to stand here and take the sort of hateful, personal abuse leveled at me by people like “SR”.

    I have wronged no one here. I served Scouting loyally throughout my teenage years, which is why I was awarded the Eagle rank, why my troop elected me Senior Patrol Leader and to the Order of the Arrow, and why my Lodge bestowed upon me the Vigil Honor. I have put the values of Scouting into practice in my daily life, and work at a non-profit institution to try to make the world a better place. I am a regular churchgoer and Christian, though Scouting isn’t a Christian organization — it embraces folks from a myriad of faiths, including religions like Buddhism that do not necessarily posit a personal deity.

    I am not a “pervert,” as being gay is well within the normative range of human sexuality (as it is with most mammals). I am certainly not a pedarist or a danger to children, as I have been accused of on this site.

    Because I am gay, just like tens of thousands of current Scouts, and countless thousands of previous Scouts, including many Eagles, many of the “leaders” of Scouting on this board have attacked my charactered, belittled my Scouting efforts, accused me of felonious crimes, and basically spewed hate at me — someone they have never met. I have endeavored to respond to their uncharitable, unkind, unfriendly, dishonorable attacks on me in a polite and conversational manner, to no avail. If this sort of rigid worldview, which only accepts as valid those beliefs about morality that exactly conform to those held by right-wing evangelical Christians or Mormons, is what Scouting is today, then it is a very different, and much poorer, organization than the one I loved as a young man.

    And if the brittle, hateful attitudes flung at me on here are representative of the adult leadership of Scouting as it exists today, then the organization will die.

    • Carter, I applaud you for your achievements and service in Scouting. You have clearly grown up to become an honorable adult, in part because of your participation in Scouting.

      There are certainly many Scouters, here and in the ‘real’ Scouting world that are much more welcoming and tolerant of those that are not like them, for whatever reason. I certainly hope that those that have assailed you here are truly just a very vocal minority on this board and not representative of Scouting as a whole. I can’t say that I know any Scouters with the attitudes we have seen expressed here, but I can only speak to my own small area of the nation.

      Thank you for your contributions to this message board. Thank you for your contributions to Scouting.

    • And you’re just a moron. There’s nothing in the oath or law that precludes him from being a boy scout. Aside from your personal or religious interpretations of the words within.

      • Do the words “morally straight” mean anything to you? I do believe they are part of the scout oath.

        • The handbook definition of morally straight: To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance. This should be what morally straight means for all of us, in a Scouting context, since this is the BSA definition.

  5. In all my reading on this thread and other sources, I have yet to see what I am to do as a scout master regarding proposed policy regarding sleeping arrangements for a gay boy. Whether I support the change or not I assume there will be some directive from above on this.

    In explorers, girls can’t sleep with boys. I did see someone suggest nothing would happen if gay boys and straight boys slept together. But It is inappropriate for the aforementioned as well as for Adult male leaders to sleep with non-spouse adult female leaders regardless whether they are attracted to each other or not.

    It is deemed inappropriate for me as an adult leader to sleep with a boy that is not my son for protection of both of us.

    I am led to believe by some statements that nothing would never happen if a gay boy.is allowed to sleep with other boys. Somehow do gay boys have more self-control than straight boys and girls or adult men and women?

    I would go as far as to guess they may suggest 3 or more in a tent so you have 2 deep.for protection of either the gay boy or the straight boy. Billy Graham was noted for leaving his office door open if a female was present to prevent any notion of impropriety.

    If I permit the boys to sleep together knowing that one of them is gay and”may” be attracted to other boys… and if something does happen, does that make me liable? If Council or national says it is ok are they not liable? Will the BSA insurance company cover me? Has the insurance company been asked?

    These are serious questions that national needs to answer.

    • Not sure why the 3 thumbs down with no comments to explain. I present a very serious question that scout leaders on all sides can agree needs answered.

      Perhaps they don’t have an answer or know the answer and don’t want to admit it is an issue that needs resolved.

      • Do you put ADHD boys with non ADHD? How about leftys with rightys? Have any problems with snorers and non snorers? Should not be an issue. If a lefty inappropriately touches a righty (or the reverse), then there is an issue. Unfortunately there are a whole lot of folks who just don’t get it. The BSA has youth protection rules. Follow them.

      • Mike, I agree with you that “National” is leaving us (where the rubber meets the road) out to dry on this issue. I’ve had experience where a supposedly straight girl invited her friend on a Sailing trip and we caught them engaging in Lesbion behavior. We terminated her membership on the spot.
        Sea Scout Adult leadership starts @ 21, so do we have to accept a 18 year old who has “come out”?

    • This is very simple. Gay boys sleep with all the other boys. If something happens, it is handled the same way, with the same liability, than if a straight boy did it. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with misbehavior, and an insurance company would not treat a gay boy who misbehaves any different than a straight boy.

      Any other questions?

        • So let’s unpack the claims that we have nothing to fear from putting someone who says he has a sexual attraction to someone of the same sex, in a tent with a member of that very same sex:

          The Left, the media and popular culture tell us over and over that teenagers have no control over their hormones and their sex drives. Because of this, we are told, abstinence and chastity programs for youths are useless (and are always mocked and portrayed as hypocritical in sitcoms and films); we as a culture have to provide condoms to youth; provide mandatory sex education; enable easy access to abortion (including enabling abortion without the parents’ knowledge); and ensure easy access to abortifacients for all youth.

          The Center for Disease Control (CDC)’s metastudy showed that youths who identify as gay or bisexual display radically higher levels of virtually every risk-taking and unhealthy behavior compared to straight youth:

          “The study, “Sexual Identity, Sex of Sexual Contacts, and Health Risk Behaviors Among Students in Grades 9–12 in Selected Sites—Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance, United States, 2001–2009,” was published as a Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Surveillance Summary. Findings across 76 health risks in the following 10 categories are highlighted:

          “Behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries (e.g., rarely or never wore a seat belt)
          Behaviors that contribute to violence (e.g., did not go to school because of safety concerns)
          Behaviors related to attempted suicide (e.g., made a suicide plan)
          Tobacco use (e.g., ever smoked cigarettes)
          Alcohol use (e.g., binge drinking)
          Other drug use (e.g., current marijuana use)
          Sexual behaviors (e.g., condom use)
          Dietary behaviors (e.g., ate vegetables 3 or more times per day)
          Physical activity and sedentary behaviors (e.g., physically active at least 60 minutes per day for 7 days)
          Weight management (e.g., did not eat for 24 hours or more to lose weight or to keep from gaining weight)
          Across the sites that assessed sexual identity, gay or lesbian students had higher prevalence rates for 49 percent to 90 percent of all health risks measured. Specifically, gay or lesbian students had higher rates for seven of the 10 health risk categories (behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).

          “Similarly, bisexual students had higher prevalence rates for 57 percent to 86 percent of all health risks measured. They also had higher rates for eight of the 10 health risk categories (behaviors that contribute to unintentional injuries, behaviors that contribute to violence, behaviors related to attempted suicide, tobacco use, alcohol use, other drug use, sexual behaviors, and weight management).”

          (You can read the entire CDC report here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss60e0606.pdf. If you work with youths, you SHOULD read the report.)

          AND YET boys who self-identify as gay will somehow magically exhibit the restraint and self-control in sexual matters that we are regularly told by the Left that the young as a whole don’t possess?

        • Ok, Bobby. That makes complete sense. Now, can you tell me how much of this is due to being gay and how much is due to depression, feelings of worthlessness, abuse at the hands of their fellow citizens, having to hide who they are, etc?

          Abused kids have similar numbers to these here. Are they just bad kids who were justifiably abused because obviously they are a bunch of drug using, alcoholic, risk taking brats or are do they engage in risky behavior because they were abuse and treated like trash?

    • You most likely won’t know that a boy is gay until he decides to tell others and generally he does not tell others until his late teens. For the majority of time that a boy is a Scout it is doubtful that anyone but the boy will know that he is gay. Trying to provide sleeping arrangements with the premise that one of the boys in a given troop is gay would be premature. How will you handle it? Again most likely you will not know if you have a gay boy in your Troop. This policy proposal is to help that boy that may be outed so that he can finish his time in Scouting and benefit from the program that he has stuck with.

      In short there can be very little preplanning for such a circumstance. Especially since the population of gay youth that would be involved in scouting is less than ten percent of the overall population. A Troop that has 20 boys would most likely have 1 to 2 boys on the high side.

      • I can’t tell you that, JCal, nor can any social scientist. All we can do is note correlations, develop possible explanations, then look at the data to see if it supports a theory. It may be that same-sex attraction is genetically linked to a propensity for unhealthy, risk-seeking behaviors in some fashion we don’t understand yet. Certainly, many of the young men I knew growing up who identified as gay died young, for reasons that seemed to have little to do with bullying or parental disapproval and more to do with the kind of risk-seeking behavior identified in the government’s report. It may be that the side-effect of a desire to enter into a sterile relationship with someone of the same sex and to deny the complementary nature of a normal male-female relationship, may have negative effects on one’s self-image regardless of how society as a whole perceives same-sex relationships.

        We know that in cultures where the culture and the local government supports same-sex marriage and has harsh penalties against bullying and harassment of gay people, the suicide rate for gay men is as high or higher than in American society and as compared to straight men in the same society (such as the Netherlands). So I don’t think the scientific research supports your idea.

        • Bobby, you’ll have to link that study because the only one I can find the guy actually states that while he cannot confirm for sure, it seems that the wide spread social stigma and stressors of discrimination and rejection are most likely the cause. So apparently even where it’s legal they are still experiencing some discrimination.

          Looking up fairly healthy countries that show complete acceptance, even Spain,which is far more tolerant than even the Netherlands says that discrimination is still a problem. Not still there, still a problem. Netherlands also state that discrimination is still a problem. Sweden says that though gays are also completely accepted by law the rate of discrimination against gays is on a par with the US’.

          So far, I’m not seeing it supporting what you said. However, I’m willing to change my mind if you can prove otherwise.

  6. David Richard [Obiwan] Yes you are wrong about the founder of the Boy Scouts Lord Baden Powell his mission was to organize a program exclusively for boys. However Baden set the standards for the boy scouts to have a believe in a supreme being or a believe in a divine source for spiritual enlightment. The reason churches were promoting scouting they knew that faith based morals would be a great source and would certainly compatible to the standards of scouting. David churches did not take over scouting as you claim in the 1900′s The BSA was formed in 1910 so that Americas youth could develop the morals and character that Great Briton’s Youth had enjoyed since 1907. When Baden formed the Boy Scouts churches were part of the founding of this great Scouting organization. David I take great sadness as to your labeling the BSA as a homophobic organization. There are millions of dedicated Scouts and Leaders that spend time and money making the BSA the best it can be. Slandering the BSA and these great leaders is a desperate attempt to dishonor 103 years of service by such loyal members. For what reason ! a homosexual agenda that 70% of BSA members reject. David there is no evidence that Baden would except homosexuals into the Boy Scout program not one shred of testimony to support that mistruth. Sincerely,
    Trenton Spears

  7. Here is something I posted on a Facebook topic on the subject.

    Why are we involved in Boy Scouts? Is it about knots and getting the Silver Beaver award and socializing with other adults or are we there for the boys? Let’s take the Eagle BoR scenario out of this, let’s think of a confused 15 year old boy who is struggling with his identity? His buddies are all talking about girls but that just doesn’t interest him. He can’t talk to mom and dad yet. He wants and needs a trusted adult to discuss what’s going on in his mind. As a Scoutmaster I would hope that a Scout would find that in me. Am I qualified to counsel him on such matters, probably not. Am I able to sit and listen to him and let him know that I’m there for him? You bet. Knowing that the BSA would force me to dismiss him from the Troop will put a barrier up between this young man and me at a time when he needs supportive adults in his life.

    Boy Scouts isn’t only about the bright young man, class president, captain of the football or track team with a professional dad and stay at home mom in the suburbs who is well on his way to Eagle and a good 4 year college and likely post graduate school and a great career ahead of him. We certainly have had and will continue to have many of these young men in Scouts. It is also about the kid who comes from a broken home, doesn’t get stellar grades in school, isn’t involved in sports. Boy Scouts may be the only place he has positive adult male role models in his life. We’ve had kids like that through our affluent suburban troop. We paid their way through summer camp, on to the ski trip and the ultimate Scout adventure a trip to Philmont. He’s not gay, but that is beside the point. He’s a young adult that could have easily fallen in with the wrong crowd and given his demographic dropped out of high school and gotten into a lot of trouble. Instead with the positive support he had in Boy Scouts he’s off to community college, working a decent entry level job and trying to improve his circumstances.

    I ask each and every one of you that is being critical of this tough decision before the Boy Scouts why are you involved? Yes I was involved to do some cool things with my son including a trip to Alaska, a Live Aboard SCUBA adventure at Sea Base and last summer a trip to Philmont. But my son is aged out, why do I stick around? Sure the fellowship with the other parents is good, but I have a chance to make a difference in a young man’s life. One of the men most influential in my son’s life was the man that served as Scoutmaster before I did. I’ll bet in 40 years if you ask my son who are some of the people that made a difference in his life Mark B will be at or near the top of the list.

    A few months ago I was in my home town for my uncle’s memorial service. While there I attended the church I grew up in and the charter org for my troop. After church I ran into my Scoutmaster, 88 years old or so, WWII vet, served in Burma, Scoutmaster for 10 of the 80+ years my troop has been in existence. We had a nice chat, and as I shook his hand I had to thank him for his years of service. It is easy as a parent to gripe about what the SM does or doesn’t do. How he doesn’t meet your ideal, but unless you’re willing to step up to the plate, keep your complaints to yourself.

    • Absolutely Jeff! Thank you so much for what you do in service to Scouting and the boys in your Troop!

  8. Something that doesn’t seemed to be talked about much regarding this policy change is the fact that allowing homosexual boys to be with heterosexual boys is basically suggesting that its OK to put teenage boys and teenage girls together in the same tent or shower room. The physical attraction of the opposite sex is probably the biggest reason that there is a separation of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. Why not just have all Scouts (boys and girls) together if we are going to allow humans that are physically attracted to each other to sleep in the same tent and shower together at camp events?

    Surely we can all agree that teenagers of any sexual preference have raging (nearly uncontrollable) hormones and any of them would jump at the chance to spend more intimate time with the people they are attracted to. This concept of physical attraction is something that causes the most concern for me and my local chartered organization. It’s not about being inclusive, its about protecting youth (gay or straight) from making bad decisions within the organization they are a part of.

    • My long post elsewhere (you’ll never find it lol) says the same thing. It is a logistics thing. I had 3 three thumbs down on it but no negative comments (1 positive). It is a serious question that National needs to address.

      The assumption from some comments would lead us to believe that gay boys have more self control than straight boys (not allowed to sleep w/ girls) or even adults (not appropriate for male leaders to sleep with female non spouse leaders).

      So the policy passes. Now what do I do as a Scout master and does national have a directive policy they will establish? Have they discussed it with the bsa liability insurance company? Am I covered by liability insurance if I knowingly put a gay boy with a straight boy and something does happen however rare?

      Serious questions of procedure that need addressed.

      • Joebob8000 and Mike, the difference between putting a gay boy with a straight boy in a tent and putting a boy with a girl in a tent is that boys and girls are mutually attracted to each other. A straight boy is not at all attracted to a gay boy. In the highly unlikely event that a gay boy were to make a pass at a straight boy, the straight boy would rebuff him. As for showers, I’ve not seen any camps where they don’t provide for privacy in the form of individual shower stalls with doors or curtains. If community showers still exist, simply assign different times for everyone to use them, as my troop does at the camps where there are unisex facilities (I am usually the only female). In my experience, most boys avoid showering anyway! lol

    • ” The physical attraction of the opposite sex is probably the biggest reason that there is a separation of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts”

      The United States is probably the last Western country that separates Boy and Girl Scouts.

      The reason Boy and Girl Scouts is separate in the U.S. is purely historic. The two groups were founded at two different times by two different people, and they never merged.

      Separating boys and girls for sleeping or bathing is not primarily done because of sexual attraction. It is done out of respect for modesty and privacy. There are many other youth programs, across the U.S. and in other countries, where boys and girls tent together and bathe together. It is a non-issue.

    • Y’all keep asking this question and while Mike MAY have a point about liability and such (I don’t know much about that aspect)..my only question is:

      Are you guys NOT capable of problem solving? I mean, I saw the question and thought of several options immediately. I mean, I’m honestly not TRYING to be rude, but does someone need to lead you by the hand for everything? It’s just a matter of common sense…

      • I love problem solving, the problem is you can’t identify the problem to solve. It might be easy if you could identify exactly which scouts were gay and which ones were straight and then divide them appropriately, but its just not that easy. Gay scouts aren’t required to specify their orientation, so how can you possibly divide them? I find it much easier to separate boys from girls than I can separate gay and straight thoughts. I can’t see thoughts, can you?

        Personally, I would be very bothered if my 14 year old daughter was required to sleep in a tent with two 14 year old boys. That situation has problems written all over it. Yes, liability is an issue, but so is the potential life damaging effects of a sexual encounter in what is supposed to be a safe environment.

        • But under this ruling, they would be allowed to admit that they’re gay, right now you have boys hiding their sexuality and currently being tented with straight boys…soooo..which point are you arguing exactly?

        • assuming the policy actually is changed you should treat a gay scout exactly no different than a straight scout. by treating them unequally you would be creating the unsafe environment.

    • What do you think happens ag gym clasd, track practice, or public restrooms. 1 in 13 people are gay. How many times have you changed ona locker room. This is the norm.

      • Didn’t know gym involved sleeping in tents. Those examples are controlled large group venues and boys and girls do not shower together. Not the same as 2 kids in a tent over night.

  9. jcal, your one in a million and i have great faith in that. your insignifance in swaying the BSA from changing our membership policy to what you selfishly want it to be to serve your desires should provide you with tremendous frustration for many many years to come. I really get a kick out if the silly ideas you try to put out there to advocate your homosexual agenda. Nobody here is attacking you in spite of your many attacks against the BSA and its membership. people are getting sick if the media trying to dictate our culture to us and watch carefully the rebellion against the media. I actually think the aggresive militant homosexual activists are soing more harm to their cause than any good at this point. You should be satisfied with the tolerance you’ve been given and quit thinking your going to convince heterosexual people from wholeheartedly accepting homosexual behavior as anything less than repulsive. It goes against the deepest part of the human spirit and can’t be changed; a truth acknowledged by God.

    • Wallace, you are a product of extreme ignorance. You have assumed I am a homosexual male, with no proof, which seems standard for the course with you ROFLMAO I’m a married mother of 5 children. In fact, I’m sure there’s a link connected with my name that will take you to my blog (which I haven’t updated in a year or so) that shows that I am a late deafened, married, mother of five. But hey, don’t let the facts stop you! ROFL

      But again, the more you think badly of me, the more proud I am of that fact.

      • Typical of a woman to think they can control everything in their lives. I’m sure the control issues you have provided you a lifetime of tremendous frustration at times. You are funny to me though; the way you try to put me in a box. You can try and continually fail as you have no idea who I am.

        • It’s truly hilarious to see a comment that starts with ‘typical… woman…’ and conclude with something about trying to put said commentator ‘in a box.’

      • When did I ever say you were a homosexual male jcal? You are an aggressive homosexual militant activist though. If you weren’t you would leave the BSA alone and quit trying to control the decisions made to do their best to do their duty to God and our Country to protect the boys who choose freely to become members if the BSA. If the BSA is forced against their will to change their policy I wonder if you or any other advocates terrorizing the BSA into accepting homosexuals will be anywhere around when an 11 year old boy is molested or raped by a 17 year old openly homosexual scout? This will happen one day and you will be partly responsible for having pushed for the circumstance that allowed it to happen.

        • I do not have an aggressive militant homosexual activism. I am simply doing what you are, though I’m more in the right, insisting that a secular organization stop putting one religion above another’s, as according to BP’s own words. I’m asking them to follow their Founder’s ideals.

          “Though we hold no brief for any one form of belief over another, we see a way to helping all by carrying the same principle into practice as is now being employed in other branches of education…” Baden Powell

          You’re the one trying to shove your religion into a secular organization, not me, Pharisee.

    • mainstream media is a reflection of what our current culture is. that is simply how they decided what to show, what people want, and what will sell.

      jcal is hardly an “aggressive militant homosexual activists” but merely someone fighting for equal treatment for everyone. there hasn’t been anything even close to tolerance for gays on the part of the bsa. they have continuously opposed the public’s opinions of any minority group and instead stood by only the version of morality prescribed by their largest chartered partner.

      • Equality; ha! another pretty word that doesn’t apply to an earthly existance. Everyone is different to some degree. There will always be inequality. However the way we live with and relate to eachother as unequals is biblical. Biblical principles teach how we should interact with eachother as people who will never be equals. But if can figure out how to attain financial equality with eachother let me know. I’m certainly willing to start with equalizing incomes.. Wait; that’ll be socialism and even the “socialist” countries are unequal as there are the thieves and liars and those who are deceived to think its alright? they aren’t that stupid either.

        jcal is an agressive homosexual militant activist. You’d think she would be proudly claiming the title. If you talk like one and stand with them you are one; or is she denying everything she’s said? I won’t speak for her and I doubt you need to either. She’s loud and clear and mighty funny to me… the Boy Scouts aren’t for girls anyway; there’s no way she could ever understand. Its a boy thing; a heteroboy thing.

        • Wallace, equality is for everyone. If the situation was reversed and homosexuals were trying to ship you out of America then I’d be a militant Christian activist, even if I think you’re wrong. It’s called freedom and equality, which I believe everyone deserves. That’s what our Constitution says.

          There’s no such thing as a “boy thing”. You guys aren’t that complicated, I’ve raised 1, currently raising 2 more and am married to a male. The Boy Scouts don’t do anything my daddy and grandpa hadn’t already taught me. I have the handbook in front of me and there’s no big “boy” secret. Don’t make it out to be some big secret boy thing. Men are no mystery at all LOL

          I wouldn’t put up with homosexuals standing outside your church and yelling hate at you, and I don’t put up with you doing it to them every time they get together somewhere with their supporters. Instead of living in fear of the homosexual agenda, I found out what it was (while meeting some wonderful people) and it turns out, the supposed “homosexual agenda” is equality. Then put me down for furthering the homosexual agenda proudly.

          If that makes me a militant homosexual activist, then I carry the title with a big smile. I always enjoy helping my fellow American’s freedom and equality.

        • Live tormented by all your inevitable failures finding equality on this earth; there will never be equality but you go ahead and keep dreaming. Men will always rule the world because that’s just their nature. Men will never follow a woman as a leader because that’s just their nature; an unchangeable truth. You’ll never really understand the true nature of a man; only think you do. But so what; that doesn’t matter. As far as the BSA goes this isn’t even your debate as its an organization for boys and the men who choose to lead them in their journey to manhood. It was never BP’s intent that women even be part of the BSA and I agree for the very reasons you’ve shown in your words and behavior in this blog. A womans spirit isn’t compatible with what men teach boys in scouting; your a girl and you really don’t understand as much as you believe you do. But your arrogant attitude shines through and that prideful arrogance is exactly what will orevent you from ever truly having any understanding if the true nature of a mans heart. But that’s ok because its not important that you understand because being a woman you’ll never be viewed by men as being their leader; its a natural thing.. a truth of a mans heart that you think you understand so well.

        • I wonder why your Wood Badge training featured that wonderful piece from Margaret Thatcher on leadership?

  10. I would like to encourage anyone who disagrees with the BSA’s current policy, as well as their proposed resolution, to check out some alternative scouting programs in the U.S. instead, such as the Baden-Powell Service Association, a “traditional scouting” organization that is also open & inclusive (as well as co-ed!). To find out more, please visit our website at http://bpsa-us.org/ Thank you! Yours in Traditional Scouting,

    • Thanks for the info. It’s nice to know that other options exist. It would be great if everyone who wants to change the BSA policy would leave to join your group. Love your pic.

      • There are also many Christian specific scouting type groups, you are more than welcome to leave the secular BSA and join one of them, since they will obviously align entirely with your belief system. Awana, Calvinist Cadet Corp, Pathfinders, Christian Royal Rangers (world wide group), Royal Ambassadors, and Christian Service Brigade.

        • Or you can join both groups and be a Leader in both if their principles are compatible with your beliefs as I did. Served as Director of Royal Ambassadors and currently Scoutmaster of the Boy Scout Troop. Two very useful programs for today’s youth. Scouts meet on Monday night and RA’s meet on Wednesday night. The RA’s just finished a successful Camporee with over 500 boys in friendly competition. We see RA’a as inreach and Scouts as Outreach. RA’s is mission-training with an outdoor campcraft section very similar to Boy Scouts.

      • just because a great number of people completely disagree with bsa policy doesn’t mean they should leave. many have taken the difficult road of actually fighting to take back the boy scouts from some special interest religious groups. the bpsa as jeff outlined has attracted mainly those that have just accepted the fact that despite their best efforts scouting as bp intended is almost gone from the current bsa. it was only by reforming from the original outlines and teachings set by bp, as well as the other founders were we able to create a strong traditional outdoor scouting program.

  11. Most of the resolution is fine and well said. However it utterly fails in two places and destroys its own integrity. Here is the first problem which is in the preamble leading up to the resolution.:

    “AND WHEREAS, Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting; and
    WHEREAS, the Boy Scouts of America does not have an agenda on the matter of sexual orientation, and resolving this complex issue is not the role of the organization, nor may any member use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda…”

    It is absurd to say that “any sexual conduct” is “contrary to the virtues of Scouting” and then immediately follow that with a contradictory statement. It is true that we can and should avoid a political position or agenda, but politics is not the issue. We do have a position, including a social position on sexual morality. We just stated part of it: “Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether homosexual or heterosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting…”

    The other problem here is the use of the term “sexual orientation.” This term is open ended and undefined and should never appear in any BSA statement of any kind, more on this below.

    A bit of a switch-a-roo is in play here because we are making this political by not standing on Scouting’s ethics and morals. Because these statements have a political tint to them we are falling into a political trap of own making.

    The second problem is in the resolution itself:

    “Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.”

    What is a “sexual orientation?” Sexual orientation has no real definition. It is a broad and expanding range of behaviors that includes: homosexuality, pedophilia, exhibitionism, voyeurism, bestiality, bisexuality, frotteurism, fetishism (of multiple sorts), gender identity disorder, klismaphilia, necrophilia, partialism, sexual sadism, sexual masochism, transgenderism, transsexuality… and this is a limited list. There are more of these “orientations” than I have listed and more of them are on the way.

    Let us look at a concrete example by picking one of the orientations. Example: Youth “A” is by all means a good Scout in every other way, but his sexual orientation or preference is exhibitionism. Are we seriously going to ignore this one behavior? Are we going to retain a Scout who exposes his private body parts in public? Have we lost our minds?

    What we are really talking about here is sexual morality. Sexual orientation is the vague language of political correctness. This resolution, if passed, will open the door to all sorts of un-Scout-like behaviors and will harm if not end our Scouting ethic. We are, in the words of our Founder, “a society for the propagation of morals.” We are an ethics and morals based organization. This includes sexual morality and it must include sexual behaviors. We cannot compartmentalize our morals.

    Please, National Council voters do not accept this resolution.

    • Your list is wrong. Sexual orientation the sex you “orient to” or are attracted to. It is four types: straight sex (opposite sex), queer sex (same sex), bisexual (both sexes), and asexual (not being attracted to anyone, ever). Now, some things fall under those, in multiple places. Fetishism can be something as simple as a straight man who ONLY dates Asian women. He would be a fetishist, but are you going to kick him out for dating Asian women only? Fetishism is an obsessive fascination that usually presents in a sexual way (not always). It can’t be an orientation and it can be pretty innocent. I don’t think a guy who dates ONLY Asian women is all that weird, personally. He just really likes them. But a straight guy with a shoe fetish? Little weird to me, and any of your business how? However, many women have a shoe fetish that is NOT sexual in nature…but she has a fetish..she gone, too?

      An orientation involves a biolological sex (male or female) who consents, Something pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality do not. Gender identity disorder has nothing to do with sex at all. Klismaphilia is a sexual act, it’s like saying sex is a sexual orientation (guys, unless you’re sturdy don’t look that up, take my word for it LOL I need to bleach my brain…). This also is relevant to sexual sadism, masochism, voyeurism, and exhibitionism. All are sexual acts, not sexual orientations. Transgender and transexual both have nothing to do with sex and are actually GENDER identities, not sexual orientations. You are confusing sex (male/female) with sexual orientation (attraction) and gender (social understanding of identity). Example: If you raise a boy as a girl and present him to the world as a girl then his GENDER is girl, but his sex is boy and his sexual orientation may be straight (though he most likely will be confused, I know I would be).

      First you have to understand what you’re talking about before you can start judging what’s right and wrong.

      • JCal, your familiarity with fetishes, etc has me concerned. You must watch too much late night HBO. You stay in your campsite and I in mine and we will be just fine lol!

        • It’s knowledge. I enjoy learning and I really enjoy knowing what I’m talking about. Also if I’m going to argue for or against something, I like to to be intelligent about it and have knowledge of that subject. I live in the world, I have heard many many things before I lost my hearing and have learned of many many more since then. I was raised in the Bible belt by a Christian mother (not always a good one), a Druidic father (both still together), and a practicing Native American grandmother. I live among Muslims, Mormons, Christians, Hindus and Atheists. I’ve had gay and transgender friends. I’ve known a variety of humanity because I don’t lock myself into a single mindset and because of that I’ve had the pleasure of learning many wonderful things and people and yes, sometimes the displeasure of learning about things I’d rather not be familiar with (I’m more concerned with the guy who rattles off klismaphilia, I had to look that up…and I thought I had no more firsts). I won’t give you a list of those. I question, everything, constantly. What is that, why is that, how is that? Where did it come from? (Origins are a big hobby of mine).

          I’m on a constant search for knowledge, and while I may wish I could unknow some of it, I never regret looking.

      • Some of the things I listed are considered paraphilias and not, at this time, fully accepted as sexual orientations. But the moevment in that direction is clear. Homosexuality was at one time a paraphilia, but now it has moved into the range of normative, non-paraphilia. The APA’s book on these issues continues to move behaviors out of the paraphilia range and into the normative range. The new book coming out soon DVM-5 continues on this slide of moving paraphilias by creating a new catagory. There will be “paraphilas” that are “normal” and then those that will continue to be disorders.

        One of the worst possible cases of this movement is the drive to make pedophilia a sexual orientation. Here is just one of many examples that can be easily found demonstrating this, from the LA Times Newspaper: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/many-experts-now-view-pedophilia-as-a-sexual-orientation-google-hangout.html

        • I’ve looked up what you claim and it’s not true. There are TWO, only two, psychologists going around pushing this and they are interviewed repeatedly (we should keep an eye on those two guys). There are two more I’ve found interviewed, but they were only interviewed one time. I found nothing suggesting the DSM-5 will be adding it as an orientation.It is still a mental disorder.

          Now, I DID find where some democrat in California put it on a bill to make it an orientation and the Republicans tried to strike it down, but the Dems wouldn’t let them. One of the VERY few times I can be sad the Republicans lost and one of the MANY times I can ask the Dems “WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE???”

    • It is a contradiction for BSA to state that sexual activity by youth of Scouting age is contrary to Scouting virtues, and then in the next paragraph to state that BSA does not promote or advance any social or political position.

      I don’t know any parent who wants BSA telling my son what the correct age to become sexually active is. Teaching my son about sex is the job of me and my pastor.

    • sexual orientation should have no actual bearing on scouting because we somehow have to assume that all scouts under 18 somehow aren’t allowed to have any sexual contact with anyone of either the same or opposite sex. i dont think bsa particularly cares that a very large majority of this countries population has sex before that time, or out of marriage. any changes on sexuality policy options really should have zero affect you your local troop other than ending some homophobia. as no one should be having sex on scout outings, its just that simple.

      also exhibitionism is not a sexual orientation. nudity is perfectly acceptable in some settings like particular beaches, and specialty camps/resorts.

  12. This resolution is, for lack of a better term, ridiculous. “You should respect and defend the rights of all people”. The Executive Board should be ashamed of itself for trying to “split the baby”.

    Get with the times, please, and get rid of this unnecessary distraction to the mission of the BSA.

  13. Some commenters here really need to study up on the Scout Oath and Law. Keep it civil people.

  14. Please tell me the difference between letting a homosexual boy join Boy Scouts and letting a heterosexual boy join Girl Scouts. Do the Girl Scouts allow this practice? Should the Boy Scouts allow heterosexual girls to join if they change the policy? Why not? What’s the difference?

    • The Girl Scouts’ policy is based on sex/gender, not on sexual orientation. You are not the first person in this conversation who has been unsure about the difference between sex/gender (boy vs. girl) and orientation (to whom one is attracted), but I think most people are clear about the difference. “I’m a girl” or “I’m a boy” is not an orientation.

      • I’m clear on the difference between gender and orientation. I’m asking about the reason for the division between the genders. Don’t we divide the genders to assist in avoiding potential issues between the attraction of two people. Doesn’t a gay boy have the same orientation as a straight girl? Don’t they both have sexual attraction to boys? Why not allow straight girls in boy scouts then?

        • Instead of wondering about GSUSA, which is structured entirely differently, why not check our own co-ed program, Venturing, for solutions?

        • the boy/girl scouts were separated in this country due to the belief that boys and girls should have a completely different type of program and catering to often sexist policies. they were in no way made based on whom anyone was attracted to.

  15. If the resolution passes, what the gays really want is to say being homosexual is also “morally straight” I am sorry. But after a decade as a scoutmaster… I have will disband my troop! I will have no part of being responsible for boys going camping with a gay scout! Hey, if you don’t like what I said, there are plenty of opportunities to lead a troop! But we will not be camping!

    • if you are so repulsed by being around gay people you probably shouldn’t be in any organization with people at all.

  16. This is my first visit here.
    I’m a registered Scouter, and former Scout. I have been in the same Troop for 43 consecutive years. (My Troop is 67 years old.) I have my Eagle, as well as several Palms. I have witnessed many things as a Scout & as a Scouter. Unfortunately, I have seen sexual abuse happen in scouting.
    One of the biggest things I find that has NOT been discussed directly is the true mission goal of Scouting. It’s to guide young boys into adulthood & teach them life lessons.
    Nowhere is it our mission to discuss sexual preferences, or guide any youth in either direction. It’s not our job as adult leaders to discuss sexuality at all.
    Yet, if we believe the “stats” where 70% oppose a change, and in the one where 48% disagree with current policy, I have to question the numbers. Some of the “stats” say a lot of youth want the change.
    Ok, we all work with youth,, and how many times have we had them come back to us & proclaim they made a mistake or were wrong about anything?
    Any youth does not have the maturity of the wisdom of years as a sexually mature person to make decisions. Especially ones where open discussions about sexual preferences would happen if the policy changes.
    The BSA spent a lot of money several years ago in a legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court to keep us a private organization. As a private organization they have the right to restrict membership to anyone who doesn’t abide by the rules of the organization.
    A few years back, I had to re-apply as an adult leader to get a “security background check.” One of the mandatory questions asked for my Social Security number. That is private information, and according to Federal law, is not to be used for identifying a person. I took my concerns to my local council, then to the regional, and all the way to national HQ. I was told that yes, my information is private & they can not demand my SSN. HOWEVER,, since the BSA is a private organization, they CAN as a policy request it. And if a person refuses, they can (and would) deny membership.
    I had nothing to hide, yet I was concerned about an outside security firm having my SSN & feared a leak of information to unauthorized persons.
    But I had a choice to make. Stay in Scouting by obeying their rules, or get out & protect my private information. I chose to stay in Scouting.

    All this discussion about gays in Scouting FORCES people to openly discuss their sexual preferences.
    As an adult leader, I am not permitted to discuss any sexual subject. But what if a boy asks a question in an open meeting? It has to be answered somehow.
    This country was founded on solid beliefs in personal liberty. Yet,,, in todays society, we are forced to discuss many subjects publically that are better left to professionals, or in the case of youth, the parents.
    Where are my rights as a person who believes in modesty? In keeping my sexual preferences private? In respecting the privacy of others?
    Too many people want to force the BSA to change & allow gays in. They have spent years & lots of money trying to force the BSA to change. Well, I can say this, if the policy changes,, I know the change will have a big ripple effect. In some areas, we will see adults cheer & push for their child to “come out” & join scouting. But I will also predict that many youth will never see any BSA activity. I was speaking with a customer the other day. He is a pastor. His grandkids (2 boys, ages 6 & 9) want to join scouting. He told them to wait, as he is watching the vote closely. If the policy changes,, those 2 boys will not be in scouting.
    Personally, if it changes,, I will hang around a few years to see what happens. But my monetary support to the local council, and to national programs will stop. I will support my Troop and the boys I see that need help. But, if I see any case where a boy steps up & wants to discuss what it means to be gay or whatever, I will quietly resign my position as a leader. I will not put myself in a position to be charged with any inappropriate discussion or behavior.
    Basically if the policy changes,, yes, we’ll see a change in Scouting. But I fear it will be in a huge reduction of qualified leaders & ultimately in the loss of opportunities for many young boys. I speak of this because of my many discussions with a lot of the local adults in my area.

    The policy does not need to change.

    If people who want gay scouts & scouters in an organization that teaches youth lessons & skills about life I have a suggestion.
    Why not create an organization just FOR gay scouts & scouters. Why force another organization to change for a minority? Why not create your own organization?
    Spend all this energy & money on a different organization that is a PRIVATE organization, and you can make the policies as you see fit.
    That way, we could use the financial resources of the BSA for helping more boys rather than fighting a group wanting hope & change.

    • “All this discussion about gays in Scouting FORCES people to openly discuss their sexual preferences.”

      if we remove the current policy, there would be no need for this discussion of sexual orientation. It is the BSA itself that has made this an issue by having the policy in the first place.

      “As an adult leader, I am not permitted to discuss any sexual subject. But what if a boy asks a question in an open meeting? It has to be answered somehow.”

      I would answer a question of this nature by stating that it’s an inappropriate topic for a scout meeting.

      • ” But what if a boy asks a question in an open meeting? It has to be answered somehow.”

        This answer always works:

        “That’s a great question, Tommy. Do you have an adult in your family, an elder at church, or a counselor at school that you can bring that up with? By the way, how’s that square not coming?”

  17. I give to the National Capital Area Council. I am against changing the ban or even diluting it. People who don’t like the present policy can form their own scouting organization. They don’t have to force their ideas down everyone elses’ throats. The Boy Scouts should stand up for the moral principles they claim to support rather than giving in to political correctness. I have received much literature from the National Capital Area Council about how the Boy Scouts build character and how the organization contributes to good moral values. Homosexuality does neither. Does the literature I have received mean anything?

    • Quite frankly, being heterosexual does nothing for morality, either. I’ve known a number of disreputable, immoral, or amoral people in my time here on earth, and their sexual orientation had nothing to do with their character. If anything, their smug superiority was fed by their religion.

    • i repeat for Todd: “Since Boys Scout policy says homosexuality is incompatible with Scouting, we can rest assured it does not include being homosexual.”

      Follow the logic.

      • Fred, there is no logic to the current policy. The current policy is counter to parts of the Scout Oath for those whose religion teaches tolerance and inclusion and in Scouting all religions are welcome. BSA created this problem and they need to fix it.

        . . . To do my duty to God . . .
        Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs. . .
        . . . . . . . . .
        and morally straight.
        To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

        • Todd, My statement on Policy seems logical to me. The Policy itself seems logical to me.

          My religion teaches tolerance of those who would repent and sin no more, not sinners wallowing in sin. A practicing homosexual would be that. If that homosexual is open and avowed, he is living in and with Sin and unrepentant. A repentant non-practicing homosexual is welcome in our faith. You brought religion into it and that is my religion and how it looks at unrepentant sinners.

          Todd said “Scouting all religions are welcome. BSA created this problem and they need to fix it.” Yes, but BSA has standards and many Churches in error do not.

          Todd said: “To do my duty to God,.. Your family and religious leaders teach you about God and the ways you can serve. You do your duty to God by following the wisdom of those teachings every day and by respecting and defending the rights of others to practice their own beliefs. . .” That’s good but homosexuality is incompatible with Scouting. didn’t think you wanted Christians to have any influence.
          . . . . . . . . .
          Todd said : “and morally straight…To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.” A homosexual fails on “clean in actions” and a homosexual is incompatible with Scouting.

        • Fred may well believe that his faith is the right one; that’s common among certain faiths. But he is not arguing that the Boy Scouts needs to be governed by his faith. Fred’s argument is that he, and many he knows, joined BSA because it was in accord with his faith (not of his faith, but with policies acceptable to his faith), and he doesn’t want them to change. He feels that the policies work well for him.

          Fred also seems to live in a place where all the Scouters are in agreement about this issue. That is very different from the place where I live and probably from the place where you live. Maybe instead of a local option, we needed a council option, or a region option.

        • Well stated Karen. Exactly as I believe. Thank you.

          I am not trying to force my opinions on anyone but stating what Scouting believes where i live. If I was in the minority religion where I live, I would voice the same opinion. The Community where I live is about 50% secular but secular people here by and large respect that Troops with Christian Leadership will teach their sons values and principles they may not hold but their son will benefit from and their son will make his own decision in his own time. My experience has been that children of today that are in Scouting here reflect more of their grandparents beliefs if they are in a troubled family situation.

          I do believe Christianity is the only way, but Scouting is a Program, not a faith and I easily separate.the two. .

          I don’t like local option. Morality should be easy to identify. if not, there is a deeper problem that needs to be brought out and vetted.

        • Here is a place we totally disagree. You say Episcopalian is a Christian religion. It was an adherent to the Christian faith in the beginning as far as I can tell. Since that time, ordination of women as been approved in the episcopalian church and then later lesbians,homosexuals, transgender and bi-sexual. By taking those actions, the Church is in direct contradiction with Bible.

          Our Pack and Troop left the Episcopalian church when they ordained homosexual people. .

          Each person is entitled to their theology. No one is trying to take that away from anyone. I see them as a Church in error but that has nothing to do with Scouting policy except Episcoplians would accept homosexuals and I would not.

        • This is another of those points where we fall into a conversation-killing circularity. BSA is absolutely nonsectarian, and expects youth to follow their own faith community’s training. Group A says, “Wait, your policy requires my kids to go against their church training. We need to end this policy to allow all Scouts to practice their church’s faith.” Group B replies, “Well, we’re nonsectarian, but your church isn’t a church — it’s in error.” How do we know it’s in error? Because if it weren’t in error, it would agree with the policy.

          Mainstream Christian churches, churches hundreds of years old, churches that brought forth America’s founders — these faiths are teaching that in their understanding of Scripture they believe we should stop excluding gay people. BSA could decide to give up its century-old nonsectarian policy — policy is always subject to change. It could decide to modify its membership policy so that it is really nonsectarian. But to say, “We’re nonsectarian, but your church is wrong,” this is not the BSA’s job. An argument that says we don’t have to listen to what the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, etc., say because they have left the True Faith — this is wrong for an absolutely nonsectarian organization.

        • Karen, My response was to the proposition that Episcopalian is a practicing Christian Church today. I do not believe it is and should not be looked to for Christian positions on Biblical teaching. Their doctrine has strayed away from biblical teaching to more liberal and progressive cultural pursuits. My Church is far closer to Biblical teaching and Scouting Policy, so we follow it. We will choose Bible over Progressive thought any day and that is what this homosexuality inclusion is about in my opinion.

          No reference to Scouting Policy since I do not believe BSA is a Church or Christian organization.

        • Fred, you say “No reference to Scouting Policy since I do not believe BSA is a Church or Christian organization”, but the only valid (in your eyes) definition of morality is the one defined by your particular brand of Christian belief. And therefore, when the Scout Oath refers to “morally straight” it *must* be the version you believe in.

          Am I understanding that correctly? If I am, do you not see the disconnect? “Scouting is not a Christian organisation but *this particular statement* must be as my Christian church teaches, no exceptions.”

          I’m genuinely curious if you think that is a consistent statement.

        • 1. Is not BSA’s policy that homosexuality is incompatible with Scouting? Can we agree on that? You can look it up if you want to, it’s been cited on this convo many time. Scouting is a program that teaches young men moral principles and values.

          2. My Church believes that homosexuality is immoral and incompatible with any Program that teaches young men moral principles and values.

          3. I serve in both programs and their beliefs are completely compatible. You don’t have to be a Church to think open homosexuality is incompatible with a Program that teaches young men moral principles and values. BSA is one.

          Clear enough?

        • The fact that they are entertaining changing it suggests it’s not incompatible. If it was really incompatible it wouldn’t even be a thought to change it or a discussion.

        • So if the motion is defeated, homosexuality will be even more incompatible since there will be no review or change in Policy for a long period of time? Without a proposal on the table, the issue will be settled? Somehow I don’t think that will be the case.

        • No no, wait…I’m going to ask you a question you’ll hate, but it has a point and it’s not to insult you, I promise.

          Think of it like this: You’re a Christian, right? Would you ever even mildly have even half of a thought of worshiping God’s enemy?

          Now, I’m going to assume you say no, right?It is the direct OPPOSITE of all you believe. That is COMPLETELY incompatible with EVERYTHING you believe..so you would never, under ANY circumstances consider that.

          So if homosexuality is COMPLETELY incompatible with EVERYTHING the BSA stands for…why are they considering it?

        • Good question. I would say the money-grubbing Key 3 and the amoral money-grubbing National Board are the reason we are considering this proposal. As I said a long time ago on this blog, they have turned away from the most experienced Scouts and Scouters and embrace the least experienced Scouters and most immature scouts for this resolution.

        • Circular logic. If they don’t agree with you, they’re a bunch of money grubbing greedy guts, but if they vote against it they’re all of a sudden proper appreciators of your PoV? Fred, the very fact that they entertain the idea, even if they decide against, ought to make them money grubbing greedy guts…And that’s a violation of everything the BSA stands for for sure.

        • So … “no” then; you don’t think it’s a consistent statement to say “Scouting is not a Christian organization but some things must be as *my particular **Christian** church* teaches.” Nice tap-dancing.

        • Whatever DavidE. You don’t have to be a Church to agree with Christian principles and values. If you don’t get it, I can’t help you.

        • The Christian church I belong to (Evangelical Lutheran Church in America) doesn’t believe that homosexuality in itself is immoral. The proposed policy change is entirely consistent with *my* church’s beliefs and teachings. I suppose that puts us in the “fallen” camp as far as you’re concerned.

          So we’re back to the question of if Scouting is not a church or Christian organization, how is it only the beliefs you and people like you subscribe to are valid for “morally straight”?

          I suppose there’s no answer for that, but the more tolerant among us would welcome holders of more conservative views “in the tent” so to speak. It’s apparent the reverse is not true.

        • Any one of you who support homosexual inclusion are more than welcome under the tent if you would stop being activists for homosexual inclusion. Since sexuality is not acceptable in any Scouting event, this should be a compromise you are willing to make.

        • Then you’ll be fine letting gays in? Because if sexuality is not allowed at any Scouting event, it again becomes none of your business.

        • You are good. No. I said “stop being activists for homosexual inclusion.” That would mean stop being activists for homosexual inclusion so they would be no homosexuals to be included.

        • People advocating for inclusion aren’t asking for people to be allowed to engage in sexual activity at scouting events.

        • So, Fred, we can be allowed “in the tent” if we favor inclusion of homosexual Scouts and leaders so long as no *actual* homosexuals end up in Scouting? That’s quite the generous attitude.

          You seem awfully concerned with “sexuality” at Scouting events. Since heterosexuals also exhibit “sexuality”, shouldn’t we ban them also?

        • As much fun as this has been, I’m really feeling like this is a “trying to teach a pig to sing” thing – it wastes my time and annoys the pig.

    • I had a look at this site http://usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/bsoath.asp, but Australian English must be different to American English because no where is there the word “gay”, “homosexual”.

      How ever
      . . . and morally straight.

      To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

      So where does the above statement say this only applies if you are heterosexual

      So far on this site I haven’t seen much of this “respect and defend the rights of all people”, everyone seems to want to name call, slander, be little and not respect each others thoughts.

      • You know, you creeped another discussion on an American Scouting Board and I asked you then why you were here. You are not American and can only defend the polices of a country governed by the Crown. You liberal judge told you what to think there and you bought it hook, line and sinker. Support your own policies in you own land and leave us to sort ours out on our own as you have no voice and are an interloper.

      • “You should respect and defend the rights of all people.” is incompatible with fred’s religion and therefore he thinks its his job to decide what others are are allowed to do.

        • Another episode of Dewey gets creative ;) I really have no idea what you are talking about but keep trying if you must to twist my words to weaken the argument that membership in a private group is not a right. I’ll defend your constitutional rights but not something that is not a right to begin with. Not even a nice try

          Australia might be the place for you though.

  18. oh my. HK Edgerton? A slavery and KKK apologist? How is this in any way relevant to this issue?

  19. A question a little off topic since most of you spruce on about Christian beliefs. Is the BSA a religious group

    • in several legal briefs, including one in a 1992 case in Kansas and another in 1998, lawyers for the Boy Scouts put in writing that the Scouts are a religious organization. Here’s the quote in ’98:

      “Although Boy Scouts of America is not a religious sect, it is religious, and, while the local council is not a house of worship like a church or a synagogue, it is a religious organization.”

      Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108666,00.html#ixzz2RKdLWTh5

  20. BSA should have seen the folly of choosing one church’s beliefs over another in the 1990s, when they first started doing it. No other national youth program has bungled this issue as bad as BSA has. Rather than debating homosexuality, we should be debating the competency of BSA National leadership that has brought us to this point.

    • This is really a good point. When they dip into religion they limit their growth. As it is, many Christian organizations have claimed that at the rate of the church’s current decline, 2050 will see a loss of about half. Those same organizations say that 60% of the youth who identify as “Christian” no longer attend church. Out of that 60%, 65% of them have abandoned the church and most of it’s practices, while 38% have abandoned all of it. This means those kids will not be teaching their children Christianity. I know my husband will answer on a poll that he is “Christian”, but that man hasn’t seen a Bible or been in a church since high school (other than for weddings or funerals). Meanwhile Unitarian Universalism is slowly rising.

      Now, if the BSA sees these numbers and still wants to limit themselves to one religion, they are not thinking of the organization.

      Again, these numbers come from Christian organizations worried about the loss of their flock, so I myself am inclined to believe these numbers to be true.

      • You sound so excited and proud to report your informamtion with regard to children being raised in families outside the Christian faith jcal. what a pitiful shame that would be. That’s why its so important that I share my Christian faith with the scouts I’m in contact with. You won’t bridle my freedom to speak and my freedom to practice my Christian faith. But more than 83 % of Americans identify themselves as Christian and probably a much higher number in the BSA. What a let down our generation is to the one behind us to not have left them with a culture of faith in God and the salvation His son graciously gave us through His sacrifice and resurection. I am thankful my children have the Holy Spirit living within them. They understand the value of all Christianity has for their lives. God will always woo us back to Him and I’m thankful to be in a nation that allows us to be free to answer His calls. Check how the membership in the non-denomenational evangelical church movement are growing. homosexuals have hijacked Presby USA, Episcopalean, Lutheran, Jewish reform for themselves and Christians are leaving to Evangelical Christian churches that align their disciplines to biblical principles; that’s divine intervention. God always has His Victory so don’t get yourself too excited about what your so happy about thinking you’ve helped rob our youth of. God has His ways of making Himself known to them and He’ll have His way of revealing Himself to you in your silent world. It will be glorious you can be sure of that. Its jist His way.. I’ve been blessed to see His hand in many things in my life.. Your in for some amazing experiences in your life. He will surely show you just how much He truly does love you.

        • Wallace, quit assigning emotions to me. I know you think you are God, but you actually do not know what I’m feeling right now.

          I never denied that a large portion still identify as “Christian”, what was stated by a group of Christian organizations is that 65% of those that have left the church practice minimal “Christian” practices and 38% practice NONE. Like my husband, who always answers “Christian” under religion but abandoned the church in high school, does not read his Bible, or even pray. If I was a Christian, I would not be proud of that nor would I take it as a sign of my church being in a good way. This group is saying that in less than 40 years current church participation will be at half it’s current state because it is DECLINING. They are concerned.

          Some non-denominational churches ARE growing, I just said Unitarian Universalism is slowly growing, because they accept EVERYONE. I can, as a Pagan, join that church and practice my Pagan religion right next to a Christian and a gay man. They are NON-denominational, not Christian. LOL People are disassociating with traditional churches. You should ask yourself why.

      • The fastest growing religious category in the U.S. is “Spiritual, but not Religious”. If you combine those folks with all religious folks, you get to 96% of the U.S. population is still spiritual in one manner or another.

        That is exactly the 96% of the U.S. that BSA was designed to appeal to. “The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizenship without recognizing an obligation to God.” Current research show that 96% of Americans believe in God of one form or another.

        Considering that non-traditional spiritual beliefs about God are among the fastest growing segment of the U.S., and the U.S. is becoming home to an increasing number of non-Christian religious folks, the logical response of BSA should be to double-down on its non-sectarian posture, and ensure that BSA is open and welcoming to anyone who adheres to a spiritual belief, the same way that BSA was able to be open and welcoming to Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Mormons in 1913. At a time when those disparate religions were hardly talking to each other, BSA gave them a way to work together on the common goal of developing healthy boys.

        But instead of re-enforcing the non-sectarian posture that made BSA great, BSA has increasingly been forcing the moral teachings of a minority of conservative churches onto all of BSA.

        Favoring one religious belief at the expense of others is completely outside the spirit of Scouting, and is completely contrary to the entire history of BSA. This posture has already led to a weakening of BSA over the last 20 years, and will quickly lead to BSA’s irrelevance in American life if it continues.

  21. Many of you are imposing your morals and views on Lord Baden Powell. Again I say that is wrong and disrespectful of you to do so.

    Here are some of the things that he said?

    “No man can be really good, if he doesn’t believe in God and he doesn’t follow His laws. This is why all Scouts must have a religion”.
    (Scouting for Boys, 1908)

    “Scouting has been described as “a new religion”. It’s not, of course, a new religion: it’s just the application to religious formation of the principle now accepted in non-religious formation, i.e. to point out a precise aim to the boy and give him the way to learn and practice by himself” [Quoted in Taccuino, a collection of B-P's writings and essays published in Italy. Dated January 1912]

    “There is no religious side to the [Scout] Movement. The whole of it is based on religion, that is on becoming aware of God and His Service”
    (Headquarter’s Gazette – November 1920)

    “By Religion I mean not just a formal homage tributed to a Divinity, but a deeper akcnowledgment of God as a Being perpetually inside and around us, and the consequent higher level of thought and action in His service”
    (ibidem)

    “Scout Activities are the means by which you can lead the most accomplished street urchin to nobler feelings, and have the faith in God start in him”
    (Aids to Scoutmastership, 1919)

    “Love of God, love of your neighbour and respect of oneself as God’s servant are the basis for any form of religion”
    (ibidem)

    “Many difficulties may arise while defining religious formation in a Movement such as ours, where many religions coexist; so, the details of the various forms of expressing the duty to God must be left to thoses responsibles of each single association. We insist however on observance and practice of that form of religion the boys profess”
    (ibidem)

    “Nowadays the actions of a large part of youths are guided just in a small part by religious convictions. That can be attributed for the most to the fact that in the boy’s religious formation the worry was on teaching instead of educating”.
    (ibidem)

    “If you really wish to find the way towards success, i.e. your happiness, you must give a religious base to your life. It’s not simply attending church or knowing history or comprehend theology. Many men are sincerely religious almost without knowing it or having studied these things. Religion, briefly explained, means: First: know who God is Second: use to the best the life He gave us, and do what He expects from us. This means mostly doing something for the others.”
    (Rovering to Success, 1922)

    “I have been asked to describe in more detail what I had in my mind regarding religion when I founded Scouting and Guiding. I have been asked `Why must religion enter in it?’. My answer has been that religion needn’t enter, because it’s already inside. It is already the fundamental factor pervading Scouting and Guiding.”
    (from a speech to Scout and Guide commissaries, July 2, 1926)
    The method of expression of reverence to God varies with every sect and denomination. What sect or denomination a boy belongs to depends, as a rule, on his parents’ wishes. It is they who decide. It is our business to respect their wishes and to second their efforts to inculcate reverence, whatever form of religion the boy professes.

    “Scouting is nothing less than applied Christianity”

    “….We aim for the practice of Christianity in their everyday life and dealings, and not mearly the profession of theology on Sundays…. The co-operation of tiny sea insects has brought about the formation of coral islands. No enterprise is too big where there is goodwill and co-operation carrying it out. Every day we are turning away boys anxious to join the Movement, because we have no men or women to take them in hand. There is a vast reserve of loyal patriotism and Christian spirit lying dormant in our nation today, mainly because it sees no direct opportunity for expressing itself. Here in this joyous brotherhood there is a vast opportunity open to all in a happy work that shows the results under your hands and a work that is worth while because it gives every man his chance of service for his fellow-men and for God.” – (Scouting For Boys, 1908)

    “No man is much good unless he believes in God and obeys His laws. So every Scout should have a religion….Religion seems a very simple thing: First: Love and Serve God. Second: Love and serve your neighbour.” – (Scouting For Boys, 1908)
    “Father of us all, We meet before Thee here today, numerous in the lands we come from and in the races we represent, but one in our Brotherhood under Thy Divine Fatherhood.
    We come before Thee with hearts grateful and gladdened by the many blessings Thou hast granted us and thankful that our Movement has prospered as acceptable in Thy sight. In return we would lay on Thine Altar, as our humble thank-offering, such sacrifice as we can make of self in service to others. We ask that during our communion here together we may, under Thy Divine Inspiration, gain a widened outlook, a clearer vision of all that lies open before us and of our opportunity. Thus we may then go forth with strengthened faith to carry on our mission of heightening the ideals and powers of manhood, and of helping through closer understanding to bring about Thy happier Rule of Peace and Goodwill upon Earth.”

  22. Discrimination has no place in Scouting.

    To that end, Scouts for Equality is releasing our proposal to change the BSA’s membership standards. Like this issue, it’s simple and straightforward.

    WHEREAS, as reflected in the Scout Oath and Law, BSA has established high standards of conduct for its members and adult leaders. Sexual promiscuity, inappropriate sexual behavior, inappropriate discussion of matters of sexuality, the use of Scouting as a forum for discussion of, or advocacy of particular views with respect to, matters of sexuality, and/or overt sexual behavior—regardless of sexual orientation—are inconsistent with these standards of conduct.

    NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

    Effective this date, May 24, 2013, the current BSA policy is hereby modified, consistent with BSA’s historical standards and principles, to expressly implement a policy of nondiscrimination and continue a focus on inappropriate conduct, by changing the current language:

    From: “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of . . . volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA,”

    To: “Membership and adult leadership positions are open to persons regardless of their sexual orientation, subject to compliance with Scouting’s standards of conduct. BSA does not inquire about the sexual orientation of its members and adult leaders, nor does it inquire about the sexual orientation of prospective members and adults leaders in the course of recruitment and registration.”

    https://www.scoutsforequality.com/donate/

      • dewey: This is from scouts for equality. I did not write it but I am in support of it.

    • Sounds like the foundation of your new youth organization. If your so convinced its such a great idea then go start recruiting members and start building your organization. The members of the BSA aren’t interested; isn’t that what this is all about. Build your organization on the principles and they will come? Be sure you have a strong youth protection plan. Be sure you have a media response so you know what your going to say when the first 17 yr. old homosexual scout molests or rapes a 10 year old scout and they say “what did you do to prevent this tragedy from happening”? Then buy a lot of nails so your prepared to board up shop when it all collapses because your organization went bankrupt because of all the lawsuits filed against your org for negligence to protect the victim. That day will come. Why do you wish it on the BSA. “Be Prepared”.

      • I don’t see any YMCA camps boarding up and closing up shop.
        Get this, there are gay scouts already in scouting, leaders too. Your fears are unfounded!

        • Their not infounded. I know a boy that was molested by an older homosexual Eagle Scout who had no right to be in the BSA. Nobody took action against him then because he was a predator to young scouts who didn’t understand and were afraid to speak up at the time. I wonder how many of those situations exist in the mysterious files the BSA was required to surrender a few months back but now seem to jave mysteriously disappeared or are no longer persues by the media who demanded their release to the public and justice departments. Lets get all that dirty laundry out there now and see how the public and voting delegates feel about supporting a membership policy that aligns more with inviting more boy on boy and man on boy and possibly man on man molestations and rapes. What about all those hundreds of files locked away on social degenerates who have been discovered by the BSA and dealt with internally. How many of them were the homosexuals that leark undetected within the ranks waiting for that moment to strike. As a leader whose seen it before don’t think I don’t look for it now. Funny how all those files mysteriously disappeares from the medias attention when the issue of allowing homos into the BSA membership caught on fire. What happened to the files and what were the details of the files.. Anyone know? I’d like to know now before its too late and more boys are attacked and scared for life.

    • So if the families of a troop decide to circulate a “congratulations” card at a troop meeting, for everyone to sign, because the Scoutmaster is getting married to a same-sex-partner next weekend, would be Scoutmaster be expelled?

      • cwgmpls said: “So if the families of a troop decide to circulate a “congratulations” card at a troop meeting, for everyone to sign, because the Scoutmaster is getting married to a same-sex-partner next weekend, would be Scoutmaster be expelled?”

        What a repulsiive thought. He wouldn’t be Scoutmaster under current policy and that eliminates your premise for an argument.

        • We’re talking about the proposed language, above. Especially the ” BSA does not inquire about the sexual orientation ” part.

          I know such a man would likely be expelled under current policy. I’m wondering about how this situation would be handled under the proposed changes.

          There are several instances where an adult, who is known to be gay, has been asked to help lead a Scout unit, because the families that know that person has high regard for that person and value that person’s contribution to the troop.

          If the families are in full agreement that they want a person to lead, would the fact that the person is gay, but never talks in Scouting about being gay, disqualify him from membership, under the proposed policy?

        • A homosexual Scoutmaster would be banned under the proposed policy. Did you read it. No reason to talk about this impossible situation.

        • I too wondered about same-sex marriage with regard to this discussion. I seems reasonable to assume that having a same-sex spouse would imply open and avowed homosexuality, and thus disqualify someone from being an adult scout leader. There are some rare cases of couples who were heterosexual when they married, then one underwent a sex change, and they remained married. I have no idea how to apply BSA policy to that.

        • I’m talking about Todd Kunze’s proposed language, which doesn’t have the “open and avowed homosexual” phrase in it. It only mentions “compliance with Scouting’s standards of conduct”, whatever that means.

          Probably a moot point anyway, because I don’t think the language Todd Kunze refers to is being actually considered by anyone.

      • I can’t understand for the life of me why a responsible parent would allow their teenage son be involved in a troop where the leader was a male homo who has a sexual and emotional attraction to other males. Why does that homo man want to be involved with boys at that age anyway? I wouldn’t allow my teenage daughter to be in a girl scout troop that was led by a 25 year old hetero male whether he was wed or unwed. There are boundaries a responsible parent just knows naturally in their heart. Ehy would the young man want to be their leader anyway; same flags should be raises by the responsible parent. I think I’ll sacrifice being called a homophobe, bigot, racist (still wonder how that applies), politically uncorrect, old fashioned, non progressive, SOB…etc. when it comes to protecting my 15 year old daughter which by the way I have along with my teenage Eagle Scout son. You activists gotta get real and realize that we parents just aren’t stupid enough to let you oull this perverted scheme off. We don’ have to enroll our children in scouting this January if homos are allowed to enroll; most parents won’t if their unit changes to a homo leadership. I guess the selfish militant homosexual activists want nobody to have the BSA if they can’t have there way with the BSA. Typical feminen mentality of wanting to control everything and everybody in their world.

        • I can’ understand for the life of me why a responsible parent would allow their teenage son to be involved in a troop where the leader does not recognize Jesus as the only Son of God, begotten by the union of the Holy Spirit with Mary, that the Father, Son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one, single God, and there are not other Gods.

          It is not for you and me to understand. Scouting does not require us to understand. Scouting only requires us to be Reverent, which includes respecting those who believe differently from us.

        • As a respinsible parent I better be making the effort to not only understand but take action to protect my children and other children from harmful situations. I also better take a leadership role in teaching my children and other children about what it means to be an American Citizen; Rights & Freedom and how to beware of tricksters like you and the other militant homosexual and left winged radicals who are trying to steal their rights and trample on their liberties. I also have lead my children and other children to a faith; the Christian Faith.. Children need to understand the right way to live their lives; need to know God and how to have a relationship with Him. It’s my mission in this life.. If you fear that then you must be the enemy I’m preparing them to battle when they grow older. Your free to choose cwgmpls how you choose to live your life and how you will have a lasting impact o the lives of the children you come in contact with and I am too.. I guess its a timeless struggle of good and evil.. I’m not unsure which side I stand for; are you?

        • Wallace: Shall we work on getting Mormons out of Scouting then, since they don’t meet our definition of Christian?

          Of course we should not. That would be ridiculous.

        • cwgmpls Why are use so concerned about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints. What has the LDS Church done to you to be so aggressively judgemental? Are you a Christian? If you are do you practice the teachings of Jesus Christ ? The LDS Church is a Christian Church and Jesus Christ is the head of our Church at all times and in all places. You have the right to bash the LDS Church but you could at least stay on the subject of the BSA’s proposal to lift the ban on Homosexuals under the age of 18 and stop this nonsence about whether the LDS is Christian or not. This forum is not the proper place for bashing any Church. Your comments about the LDS Church are off the subject and if you are a BSA Leader or supporter lets do all we can to make the BSA the best it can be. That is the mission of the LDS Church and always will be. cwgmpls I hope that this is your mission also. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • Calm down. Wallace is the one who said he didn’t want non-Christians in Scouting. I’m cool with having all sorts of religions in Scouting. I even said getting rid of Mormons would be ridiculous.

          If you want to lean on someone for being intolerant of religions, you need to address your post to Wallace, not me.

  23. Great story on this issue for the women on this blog. My wife sent it to me. She is a former Tiger Cub, Wolf Cub, Bear Cub and Webelos den leader and Troop Committee member.

    Last two paragraphs:

    “By allowing homosexual members but not leaders, the Boy Scouts of America is seeking to appease the activists that have plagued it for so long; but it’s not possible to appease a radical group that seeks nothing less than complete and total surrender. If the current occupants of the Boy Scouts of America executive committee can’t muster the courage to stand their ground, then it’s time for them to step away. And if they didn’t agree with the policies of the Boy Scouts of America in the first place, then they should never have agreed to serve.

    Via the United States Supreme Court, the Boy Scouts of America has every right to keep its policy in place. It should stop playing games and do just that

    http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-boy-scouts-of-america-lift-its-ban-on-gay-members/sex-and-politics-dont-belong-in-boy-scouts

    • I cannot imagine signing this petition and recommend that no one on this blog does sign it. The wrestling match over the definition of “discrimination” will tie up BSA in the Courts for years. This is a bad idea.

      Excluding members based on sexual preference is not discrimination in the sense of what those on the homosexual side want it to be. They want it to be like race, gender and religion. It is not and by creating yet another federally protected class we advance nothing.

      • So that’s a ‘Maybe’ then? Kidding. I note, however, that the proposed solution — an amendment to BSA’s federal charter — does not use the word ‘discrimination.’

        • You said the amendment eliminated the “discriminatory” policies of the Boy Scouts of America. I will try to find time to read it tonight but I do not support that organization after reviewing their principles.

          But, I will read it tonight if you say it does not in any way treat exclusion of homosexuals as “discrimination” or prevent Boy Scouts of America from setting its own policies for its private organization without federal interference or intrusion. A federal charter is symbolic anyway and any traditional values organization.stays as far away from federal government involvement as possible these days as it usually bring left-wing progressive strings even if no money is involved which there should not be and federal money in BSA.

    • The full text of the petition:

      “The Boy Scouts of America currently bans ‘open or avowed homosexuals’ from membership. BSA has proposed opening membership to youth without regard to sexual orientation, but would retain the ban for gay and lesbian adults. As an organization chartered by Congress that is devoted to training youth in citizenship and leadership, BSA should be in the forefront of liberty, equality, and civil rights.

      “The BSA is a ‘patriotic organization’ under federal statute, 36 USC 30901 et seq. The President should propose an amendment to 36 USC 30901 to add language similar to the following: ‘The corporation [BSA] may not deny membership to any person based upon actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.’”

      • Thanks for posting.

        I wholeheartedly reject the petition and the suggestion that we do not add yet another protected class to any federal document. I strongly recommend Scouters who support the current policy to recommend the federal charter be surrendered before BSA is dragged deeper in the politically-correct quagmire the federal government has become. It is symbolic anyway and BSA will not suffer. They don’t even issue them anymore.

        “A congressional charter is a law passed by the United States Congress that states the mission, authority, and activities of a group. Congress issued federal charters from 1791 until 1992 under Title 36 of the United States Code.

        The relationship between Congress and the organization is largely a symbolic honorific giving the organization the aura of being “officially” sanctioned by the U.S. government. However, Congress does not oversee or supervise organizations with the charter (other than receiving a yearly financial statement).”

        • Frankly, I think that surrending the federal charter, taking BSA completely private under the aegis of the major churches and conservative organizations — in essence, inviting the more liberal, less religious elements to leave — is perhaps the only long-term viable alternative for keeping the current policies. The demographics set out in the study summary make clear that change is inevitable. It is really just a question of how and when the split happens.

        • I agree with you that a split is inevitable. It would be sheer speculation to try to develop a picture of it this early in the process. After the May vote, much will become clearer. The divide will be much sharper and better defined and people waiting on a decision will stake out their positions like LDS and Catholics.

        • Fred Cooper from my understanding by the comments on this forum the mission of the new proposal is to add more Scouts to the BSA program and find a way to increase funding for our program. This must be the priority of every Scout member and warrants more support to accomplish this goal. There is a lot of comments regarding who will stay or who will leave. Sometimes it is better to bite the bullet and stay the present course and not let outside influences try to change our program. The success of the BSA because of its past policies has to be appreciated and continued on its present mission. How can we accomplish this mission will take a lot of work from all Councils and Charters. We can do it without changing the core values of the BSA. If the BSA has taken the path of unwanted change it will become a program of never ending change to accommIdate the the wishes of different groups that will be certainly disruptive and the lawsuits will come flowing in. The Supreme Court in 2000 gave the BSA the right to run its own program the way they wanted to chose because of its private status. When money becomes more important than values the BSA will never accomplish the goal of a organization of values that we have now in its present form. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • Dan, I tend to agree with you. But what is that even necessary. BSA was established, from its beginning, to be strictly nonsectarian, and to accommodate people of all faiths — conservative, liberal, Christian, Mormon, Muslim, Jew, Buddhist, all working together to develop healthy boys.

          Why abandon that ideal, the ideal on which BSA was founded, and turn BSA over to be run only by conservative, Christian-identified organizations? Especially since there are already so many youth programs around that are specifically designed for the development of conservative Christian youth, like Royal Rangers, Awanas, Royal Ambassadors, Pathfinders, Cadet Corps, Columbian Squires, and so on?

          Why not let conservative, Christian-leaning organization use the many youth programs that already exist for that purpose, and allow BSA to be used by families that are open to the wide variety of religious doctrine and expression, that BSA was originally designed to accommodate?

          If we allow BSA to be transformed into into a conservative, Christian-only organization, then aren’t we re-defining the timeless values of Scouting?

        • What a funny comment this is. Completely does exactly what you put other people down for doing. I don’t think there are enough boys youth organizations led by homosexuals who invite homosexuals to become unit leaders, counselors at resident camps and encourage children from the ages of 6 to 18 + to join. hmmmmm? there’s like none so why not take all the energy your putting into destroying the BSA and apply it toward your ideal youth organization. Or if you find one that more closely aligns with your morals and guiding principles why don’t you go terrorize them and attempt to hijack their organization to serve your selfish self serving purposes and leave the BSA alone.

        • One alternative is for the more conservative elements to gain tighter control over BSA so that current policies can be maintained. The most likely alternative (in my view) is what is happening now and may take another 10 or 15 years to fully play out — that current policies will be scrapped and the more conservative elements will leave to their own or other programs more in tune with their philosophies. A third alternative (my personal favorite, but seemingly not very popular) is creation of a fully inclusive Scouting program within Learning for Life, with the current traditional BSA program left to the more conservative elements; if there’s going to be a split anyway, it makes sense for BOTH programs to be within the BSA family.

        • Dan, what current policy needs to be maintained?

          The one from 1984, “Education for sexuality belongs in the home… Scouters should reinforce rather than contradict what is being taught in the family and by the youth’s religious leaders.”

          The one from 1991, “We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight”

          Or something else?

          Why can’t conservative and liberal Scouts stay together in one BSA, the way BSA was founded, and the way we have for the last 103 years?

        • All we have is the current Policy as approved and ratified. We are considering a proposal that includes homosexual inclusion. That is all that is on the table. I don’t see the 1984 policy returning. Liberals would say it approves homosexuals and conservatives would say homosexuality was never envisioned.

          This homosexual inclusion policy seems to be a core policy for liberals so they will agitate until they get it or leave angry. They firmly believe they are right.

          It is also against a core of Conservatives as it relates to Youth Protection and morals. These will not be surrendered based on a popular vote. They will leave angry or not.

          That is why i believe a split is inevitable. The homosexual lobby is on a roll so they will persist relentlessly for inclusion continuing to use the Courts and I believe will turn on Boy Scouts if they do not change the Policy.

        • The policy that BSA claims is the current policy. Why can’t we all stay together in one big happy BSA as we’ve done for 103 years? Because like the ocean, society is ever-changing. And the current wave of social change is now crashing on the rock of traditional religious and conservative views about homosexuality. There doesn’t seem to be much of any agreement on an accommodation (such as local option or the proposed youth-only policy) that would keep us all together.

        • I do not believe Local Option wouldn’t keep us together. This is my opinion based on the way I have seen homosexual advocates work in other organizations. “Diversity” training would bare its ugly head and Progressive CO’s and Units would ignore and marginalize Troops sponsored by Churches and Conservative CO’s. Non-inclusive CO’s would be sued and BSA is non-supporting because it is now inclusive and “Hey, its a local option, your call guys.”

          BSA would no longer have a national standard for morally straight. A boat without a rudder. Local community standards prevail. That should cause an interesting Jamboree.

        • We all agree on maintaining BSA’s timeless values.

          So why don’t we scrap the current policy, and revert to the earlier policy from 1984, that everyone agreed with?

        • ” Liberals would say it approves homosexuals and conservatives would say homosexuality was never envisioned.”

          Clearly it does neither. It says sexuality, and homosexuality, has nothing to do with Scouting. Period. What is the harm in that? That was BSA’s teaching on sexuality from its founding.

          So some troops have gay leaders, some don’t. Some troops have black leaders, some don’t. Some troops have women leaders, some don’t. Some troops have Christian leaders, some don’t. Some troops have multiply-married leaders, some don’t. Some troops have leaders that go to church, some leaders think prayer is a waste of time. Some troops have leaders who drink and smoke, some don’t.

          What is the harm in having troops whose leaders hold different moral teachings, so long as they don’t violate core BSA values?

        • Fred, I agree with you that the local option is not a viable accommodation, and I don’t think the current proposal is workable either. And cwgmpls, I’m sympathetic to returning to the earlier policy. I’m just afraid that the former policy would be seen as having a very different meaning now than it had then — that now it woul look like an attempt to cover up the elephant in the room.

        • So rather than approving a policy that everybody already agrees with, BSA is intent on maintaining a policy that has split BSA in half. I agree that the waves of cultural change are buffeting BSA. But that has been true for over 100 years, whether the issue is race, gender, religion, culture, BSA has weathered far more social change in the last 100 years than it is feeling now.

          The only difference is a leadership that is intent on institutionalizing an artificial social division, rather than claiming the unity that BSA was built on. These are not good times for BSA. Matthew 12:25

        • “BSA has weathered far more social change in the last 100 years.”

          Yes, absolutely. Does anyone remember what an earthquake it was when BSA allowed female Scoutmasters? That was huge, and the objections to it from some people were often on theological grounds, and on grounds that were perceived to be very core to BSA. And remember the practical concerns: “Where will they shower?” Yet we made it through.

          Our boys and girls from Utah and Minnesota and Georgia and New York go to World Jamborees, where they camp between the Ugandans and the French and Egyptians and the Israelis and the Swedish Scouts. They come home with great stories, great patches, great pictures, and no scars. They know that other units have very different values from their own. Why could they not tolerate a unit with very different values than their own sharing the Summit or their own Camporee?

          I think that BSA is falling victim to a different American illness that has nothing to do with sexuality. It is a loss of a sense of being a whole country. It comes out when you hear people reject the whole idea of the federal government, or call their political opponents evil, or get their news only from sources they agree with (and I’m not talking about one side; those sources exist at every point of the compass). We ought to be able to live with the idea that people in other units will think differently than we do, and let that be so.

        • Yep. What I don’t want to see is this controversy dragging on and on and on, with BSA’s reputation constantly getting stomped on, and membership continually shrinking so that when the split finally comes, BSA is too weak to handle the shock.

        • “But that has been true for over 100 years, whether the issue is race, gender, religion, culture, BSA has weathered far more social change in the last 100 years than it is feeling now.”

          The difference I see here is that it isn’t simply a matter of getting used to something strange, unfamiliar, unconventional, contrary to history and tradition, etc. Here, the “other” who would be teaching, spending lots of time with, and setting the example our children for is perceived by a large segment of the organization as intentionally, willingly, purposefully engaging in conduct that is inherently evil, disgusting, sick, and predatory.

          (Not my view now, by the way — but like many, my views, feelings, and beliefs have changed over the years. So I understand where the more conservative folks are coming from.)

        • BSA would not have to teach anything about homosexuality in order to admit gays as members. Just as BSA does not teach anything about Islam but still admits Muslims as members.

          Up until the mid-70s, over 1/4 of all Scouts believed that black people were inherently inferior to whites. Some people felt blacks were evil and disgusting. That disagreement effected a much larger portion of society, and of BSA, than the current debate does. BSA weathered that change just fine. If they applied the same wisdom now that they did then, they will do just fine. But I’m not sure BSA has the wisdom of leadership now that it had in the mid-70s.

          BSA stood up to those who were on the wrong side of history in the mid-70s. It is a shame if BSA does not have the courage to do the same now.

  24. I have a question not addressed in the FAQ:

    The resolution says no youth can be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America basis of sexual orientation or preference alone, however could a youth be denied advancement on the basis of sexual orientation or preference?

    If a Scout is a “known and avowed homosexual,” could he be signed off for living the Scout Oath and Scout Law in his everyday life (Scout requirement 7, Tenderfoot requirement 13, Second Class requirement 11, First Class requirement 12, Star requirement 2, Life requirement 2, and Eagle requirement 2)? Could a unit deny a Scout advancement because of their sexual orientation?

  25. So, to boil this controversy down, a very successful youth organization with one hundred and three years of tradition is going to change itself to reflect three years of pounding by the homosexual juggernaut led by certain political leaders and the massive power of mainstream media. I see a Pandora’s box being opened here which is in line with the strategy of the aforementioned… divide and conquer. To change with the winds of a fickle society is a mistake and has been the downfall of many great humanitarian efforts. Full disclosure: twenty year active Scouter.

    • ” going to change itself to reflect three years of pounding by the homosexual juggernaut”

      Wrong. BSA has been changing its policies on sexuality issues throughout its one-hundred-and-three-year history.

      Who invented to female-only role of “Den Mother” in 1936?

      Who changed the role of “Den Mother” to “Den Leader” in 1967, allowing adult men to lead Cub Scout dens for the first time?

      Who decided to allow women to be scoutmasters, and go on over-night camping trips with boys, in 1988?

      Who decided to change BSA’s 1984 “Statement on Human Sexuality”, which read, in part, “Education for sexuality belongs in the home… Scouters should reinforce rather than contradict what is being taught in the family and by the youth’s religious leaders”?

      This homosexual juggernaut sure has been busy if they have been re-writing BSA sexuality policies for the last 103 years.

      • None of the “changes” you just mentioned have anything to do with my topic. The agenda I am referring to involves the further breakdown of the Family, the core unit of civilization itself. It is a form of rationalization for the great secular goal of relativism.

  26. Reading over the comments here, there certainly are many points of view. The one thing that seems to emerge indirectly is that no one feels the proposed resolution is the perfect solution. Does anyone know if the National Annual Meeting operates according to Roberts Rules of Order, or some other set of procedures that permit the proposal of ammendments to a resolution under consideration?

Comments are closed.