BSA membership resolution passes with more than 60 percent of vote

20130523-171320.jpg

After an extensive discussion within the organization, the Boy Scouts of America’s approximately 1,400 volunteer voting members chose to adopt the membership policy resolution and remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone.

The final vote breakdown was 61.44 percent for the proposal, and 38.56 percent against. The change takes effect Jan. 1, 2014.

Voting results were tabulated and certified by TrueBallot, an independent, third-party voting firm.

Read more at this site, or find the full text of the BSA’s official media statement below:

For 103 years, the Boy Scouts of America has been a part of the fabric of this nation, with a focus on working together to deliver the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training.

Based on growing input from within the Scouting family, the BSA leadership chose to conduct an additional review of the organization’s long-standing membership policy and its impact on Scouting’s mission. 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.

Today, following this review, the most comprehensive listening exercise in Scouting’s history the approximate 1,400 voting members of the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council approved a resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone. The 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. A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. The BSA thanks all the national voting members who participated in this process and vote.

This policy change is effective Jan. 1, 2014, allowing the Boy Scouts of America the transition time needed to communicate and implement this policy to its approximately 116,000 Scouting units.

The Boy Scouts of America will not sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, divisive, and unresolved societal issue. As the National Executive Committee just completed a lengthy review process, there are no plans for further review on this matter.

While people have different opinions about this policy, we can all agree that kids are better off when they are in Scouting. Going forward, our Scouting family will continue to focus on reaching and serving youth in order to help them grow into good, strong citizens. America’s youth need Scouting, and by focusing on the goals that unite us, we can continue to accomplish incredible things for young people and the communities we serve.

1,432 thoughts on “BSA membership resolution passes with more than 60 percent of vote

  1. I’m not sure what the fuss is with Baptists leaving BSA. Baptists started Royal Ambassadors because BSA wasn’t Christian enough for them to begin with, so Baptists going back to RA won’t be much of a change for BSA. Baptists have only been weakly attached to BSA from the start.

    • Hi Curtis- there are a lot of troops and packs chartered by Baptists churches. It might be the 3rd or 4th largest religious sponsor? In some rural towns in the south, they are the only troop in town. Its very sad that we can’t all get along.

      • db The BSA has got along very well for 103 years till the homosexual cheats tried to lie their way into the BSA over the years and to shove a change in its policy to lift the ban. db you seem to have a problem with scouts that have core values and fill very deeply about the pledge of allegiance, the Scout Oath, and the Scout law. All these Timeless Values will be changed because it will not be continued with a homosexuals taking over the BSA. Make no mistake there on there way no stopping them the funds will be cut off if the BSA won’t make the changes like they did to force the vote on lifting the ban and you expect us all to get along. Stop drinking the cool aid it clouds your vision.

      • So why did the Baptists create “Royal Ambassadors”? You and I both know that Baptists never wanted their kids to be influenced by non-Christians, so they created Royal Ambassadors so they wouldn’t have to be exposed to the likes of Catholics, Mormons, and other churches. If Baptists don’t want to associate with people of different religious beliefs, they should go back to Royal Ambassadors where they came from.

        • I am all for that. Having served as Scoutmaster and Director of Royal Ambassadors for the same Church, RA’s is a marvelous program for young boys and youth and we continue to have a thriving program.

          As a Baptist all my life, I can tell you the Baptists wanted a Mission-minded program for boys and youth that reflected the Mission of Baptists which is spreading the Gospel to a lost world with an outdoor component. It was seen as as a Mission alternative to BSA but Troops were never asked to leave. They were complimentary programs.

        • I’m curious how well that works, to have BSA as a core youth program for a church, and then add on a church-mission-specific program, like RA, to reflect the specific mission of the church.

          What does a church youth program, that has a BSA troop, do when they come across other Scouts that don’t adhere to church-specific teachings? For example, how is it handled if a Baptist scout meets a scout from another troop at summer camp who doesn’t think belief in the Trinity is needed for salvation, or who thinks it is okay for women to hold positions of leadership over men?

          Have Baptist troops been able to join in BSA activities with boys of various, sometimes incompatible beliefs, and still hold onto their core beliefs as Baptists? Do you do anything to keep your boys from being lead astray with incompatible beliefs from other troops?

        • Curtis G. That is where adequate adult Supervision comes in. BSA has always taught that Churches could use the program and support their belief statement at the same time. Its in their published literature. Zig Zigler was the spokesperson for the Baptist faith in Scouting.

          When diverging thoughts and beliefs were encountered on Camporees, District events, Jamborees, etc, You were accepted as a Baptist troop and nobody questioned your religion or teaching in Scouting events. Scouting was compatible with Christian teaching through the Oath and Law. It was complimentary and we didn’t have to accommodate all manner of behavior because we were compatible.

          No more but BSA always said you could use the program in your Church and encouraged it. 70% faith-based. Do you think a Church would sponsor a Troop if iit did not support their MIssion? Why would they? Especially an organization supporting the declining morals and ethical values of a more secular progressive culture.

        • Fred. There have been churches on the other side of this issue for the past decade. A few dropped their charters. But most of them stayed on as sponsors. You ask why? I can not speak on authority – I could only hazard a guess that the benefits outweigh the negative.

          In addition you said: “BSA has always taught that Churches could use the program and support their belief statement at the same time. Its in their published literature.” It may be in the BSA literature, but its not true. The BSA told the Unitarian-Universalists that their religious medal was not approved to be worn on the BSA uniform. So much for the BSA being reverent and for allowing churches to use the program in a manner which supports the church’s beliefs.

        • db, If was in a running debate with about five people regarding whether UU is even a Church. Words were parsed into being almost unrecognizable to support UU as a Church. I support BSA’s position on the medal. The who debate is on an old thread. I am not going to repeat it again.

          All I am saying is that in my mind, it does not help your argument and ready the material and you will se what I say is true and BSA agrees with it. LDS has been their Wednesday night Youth Church program since the beginning.

        • So allowing female leaders is a local option that is left up to each CO to decide if they accept them or not. Sounds reasonable to me. I wonder why BSA didn’t apply the local option to the gay issue as well? Let each CO decide if they want to accept gays or not. Seems to work fine for the women scouts issue.

        • “Let each CO decide if they want to accept gays or not.” That would be fine if it wasn’t for LGBT advocate grooups – who have pledged to continue to bring lawsuits. BSA pushing the decision down to the CO would remove them from the umbrella of the Supreme Court ruliing and require every CO to deal with individual lawsuits. I don’t know how many COs could handle a lawsuit such as that?
          The difference is that women haven’t been trying to sue BSA to get access. If they did, we’d probably see a different reactioin. For example, the LDS units charter Venturing Crews, but do not do coed at all – and will not allow young women to join. If there was a constant barrage of lawsuits to force them to allow young women, you might see Venturing units chartered by LDS units go away.

    • According to this Wikipedia page, Baptist CO’s make up only about 4% of BSA troops and Scouts. Losing any troop is a concern, of course, especially in small towns. And it’s particularly rough on a non-Baptist kid in a town where a Baptist CO runs the only troop. But in the long run, Baptists seem to make up a very small percentage of Scouting troops.

  2. CurtisG A loss in charters in the BSA is a loss period. May be the BSA has become to weak for Christians. If the BSA is Christianity Cleansing in the BSA all of America has lost. God Bless America

    • Trenton Spears –
      The vast majority of BSA troops are chartered by Christian churches. Even in those troops not chartered by Christian CO’s, most of the boys are likely to come from Christian families, as most Americans are Christian. Not all of these troops are leaving Scouting – not even most of them.
      I don’t think the BSA is “Christianity Cleansing”. As we’ve seen from recent votes on gay marriage, such as the ballot initiatives in four states in 2012, many Christians have voted for gay marriage. Opinions on homosexuality simply don’t break down into “Christian” vs. “Not-Christian”. The issue is more complex than that.
      As an organization that remains neutral on religion (except for requiring “reverence”), the BSA is not always going to align exactly with any one church’s teaching on various issues. This is both a weakness and a strength. Since the BSA’s vision is to “prepare every eligible youth in America to become a responsible, participating citizen and leader who is guided by the Scout Oath and Law,” they have to focus on finding common ground between various religious beliefs, and in this process some will be left out or compromised.
      Those who are uncomfortable with this kind of diversity may be better off in an organization more closely tied to their own religion.

      • Eagle Mom I know of the many Christian Churches in Scouting around 65% and a few believe that homosexuality and their definition of marriages are OK this has been a trend I repeat a trend not a revelation from God. Even though it has been on earth for thousands of years it is still a invention of man not of God. Homosexuality has been on the rise since the 1990′s. When a nation or persons faith wavers so does the misconception that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. The more that accepts this lifestyle the further that a person drifts away from God. God already knows this. His truths are the same as yesterday ,today and tomorrow God never changes like the trends of man. If you don’t have a belief in God then I do not know of your future and where you will go when you leave earth you are still subject to the bar of Jehovah regardless of your beliefs. God could stop all sin it if he chose to but he believes that all his children need to find out for themselves as to his truths otherwise what would be the purpose of faith. The more the sin of homosexuality is excepted the more my faith grows that everyone is accountable for themselves to God rather than another mans approval of his actions. Homosexuality is repentable and repairable. Only through faith can a person overcome their transgressions to Gods Commandments. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • Trenton Spears-
          I can understand that you feel that the BSA has made the wrong choice in accepting celibate, discreet, non-political gay youth as members. If you feel you can’t continue with the BSA, I hope that you can find a Christian scouting-type organization where you can continue to pass on your valuable experience and knowledge with the youth of your community. We don’t all need to agree on the BSA’s policy, but I think we do agree that growing boys benefit from being involved in activities led by their elders, such as yourself.
          Thanks for your many years of service to America’s youth through the BSA.
          Sincerely,
          EagleMom

        • EagleMom and Todd Kunze I have stated many times on this blog the many reasons for not lifting the ban. If this is the direction that the BSA wants to go I see many problems for future of the BSA. Neither of you have said a lot about adult homosexuals that have been discriminated by the BSA. I find this very troubling as it is a clear and deliberate exclusion of members that as Wayne Perry says do not have the qualifications to be a BSA Leader without revealing his reasons. This is not ,it is caving in to the homosexual money sources. Saying this is for the boys is a smoke screen for the homosexual agenda. Wayne congratulated the LDS Church for approving the lifting of the ban and I am sure that meeting with the LDS leadership has reassured Wayne Perry that they have given a verbal approval of homosexual inclusion in the BSA in the future. Eagle Mom I have no ideal why you would suggest I find another Christian scout troop that supports my position I already have one it just lost its way. I guess you would suggest I find another religion that supports my beliefs again I already have one. I will always follow the truths of the great Jehovah
          Sincerely Trenton Spears

        • Trenton, why would having a gay scout be any different than say a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist scout? My Christian denomination is inclusive. Different than yours? Yes, just like many other religions, and scouting is open to all of them not just the fundamentalist Christian ones.

        • “why would having a gay scout be any different than say a Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist scout?”
          Todd, being gay, or homosexual, as opposed to a religious belief entails a very specific behavior rather than a belief system. The religious or race comparison is disingenuous in this case.

        • “Neither of you have said a lot about adult homosexuals that have been discriminated by the BSA. I find this very troubling as it is a clear and deliberate exclusion of members . . .” – Trenton

          Oh, but I have stated numerous times in the blog that I also believe that homosexual adult leaders should also be allowed. I am glad that you are also troubled that its deliberately exclusionary. I see that changing in time too. Segregation and was not stomped out over night. It took time.

        • Todd Kunze please don’t misunderstand my resolve I do not believe that homosexuality in any form belongs in scouting period. Wrong move for the wrong reason its money and pressure from the GLBT and GLAAD pressuring large corporations to stop funding the BSA. Discrimination in any form inside of Scouting is very troubling and the result of manipulation of the very core of scouting’s honesty and values. In January 1st 2014 a 17 year scout can be a member of the BSA yet in a week or so when that same scout turn’s 18 he can no longer be a member of the BSA this is a discrimination at its worst. Every member of values in the BSA should be outraged at this turn of events. Anyone whom celebrates this vote to lift the ban has to have a very short sided and lack of vision for the future of the BSA. Our nation of changing values is a nation adrift without an anchor so now it has made its port of call into the BSA. Todd celebrate all you want but the long term problems will continue to haunt the BSA for years to come. The first thing will be the loss of scout charters happening now and all across this nation. The second thing will be in recruiting this move will drive away many parents that will say why would I want my child involved in a organization that allows homosexuals that is a threat to the safety of their child. I am a staff member for Cub Scout Day Camp all this week starting today and the conversation is very ugly for the possibility of allowing of homosexuals in scouting. Todd all is not rosy for the BSA’s future in spite of the celebrations that have captivated some of the members of the BSA. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

  3. Trip report….

    I forgot to blog a post trip report for our outing.

    Attendance was excellent. The only two scouts missing had family functions or sports.

    Fishing was fantastic. the boys caught Crappie, Blue Gill, Lg Mouth Bass and some saugeye. The boys each flilleted one and we brought some store bought fish to augment dinner.

    Weather could have been better. Rained on and off on Saturday but the sun came out Sunday morning and dried the tents before we rolled and put them away.

    Overall a great outing….

    And Scouting continues as always.

    • Bob, I am glad to hear your troop is thriving. I bet the fish was delicious!!! Thanks for passing on these timeless skills to boys in your community.

  4. It’s apparent the National Council Executive Committee made the surveys etc. to find out information about what Homosexual resolution would pass. They contacted with the LDS and a few other large groups that character organizations to see what they would approve before making a resolution. And by passing a resolution, they would only need a 50% majority and they choose the theme that All Boys Should Have the Opportunity to be Boy Scouts. If they would have offered a Resolution for both Homosexual youth and adults they figured either it wouldn’t pass or it would pass, but there would be a major mass exodus because most Chartering Organizations wouldn’t want to lose the Timeless Values that Boy Scouts represented, especially the Duty to God. But the local feeling now is that in time Homosexual adults will be accepted in the BSA by the Executive Committee. I don’t know anything about the BSA By-laws but they require a 2/3′s majority and would be very hard to pass. But if any of the National BSA Leadership, for example Rex Tillerson etc. said the Homosexual issue is a very important subject and it needs more than just a 50% majority, the BSA wouldn’t be in turmoil at this point in time. The BSA leadership at the local level, the CM’s, DL’s, SM’s, Adisor’s, and all there Assistants, that serve the Youth, feel like they had no representation on the vote.

    • Why doesn’t BSA just keep its nose out of sex altogether, like it did until 1991? BSA’s “Timeless Values” made no mention of sex until BSA’s 1991 position statement. If BSA clearly stated that sex should be taught by families and church, and not by BSA, no one would be talking about leaving BSA. Who would disagree with the idea that sex should be taught at home?

      BSA will never be healthy until it returns to the Timeless Value of leaving sex education up to parents, and keeping it out of Scouting.

      • CurtisG,
        “it did until 1991?” Isn’t that a bit of a Historian’s Fallacy? Ignoring the actualy history and applying today’s situation to history. BSA’s 1991 position statement wasn’t a decision to get into the sex education process because it totally ignored it before. It was specifically instituted to answer a specific issue. Similar to the Youth Protection Plan. Prior to the plan, BSA wasn’t interested in having youth victimized, but as the situation arose, the policy was codified to deal with it.

        • and here we can go back to 1978. Dale case if fascinating. I hope all the pro-policy people have “find and replace” to update those previous posts about 1991 being the first time BSA spoke about homosexuality.

          from Dale…

          “A 1978 position statement to the Boy Scouts’ Executive Committee, signed by Downing B. Jenks, the President of the Boy Scouts, and Harvey L. Price, the Chief Scout Executive, expresses the Boy Scouts’ “official position” with regard to “homosexuality and Scouting”:

          “Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader?

          “A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization and leadership therein is a privilege and not a right. We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate. We will continue to select only those who in our judgment meet our standards and qualifications for leadership.” App. 453—454.

          Thus, at least as of 1978–the year James Dale entered Scouting–the official position of the Boy Scouts was that avowed homosexuals were not to be Scout leaders.”

          That’s got to burn…

        • I’m aware of the 1978 statement, but that was an internal statement shared only with the BSA executive committee. It was never shared publicly.

          In 1984, BSA released a public statement that “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”

          That is exactly the position I favor. It leaves BSA completely out of the sexuality debate, and leaves it up to families and church, where it belongs.

          However, instead of leaving well enough alone, BSA decided they wanted to enter the culture wars full bore and distract from BSA’s core mission. 1991 is the year that BSA first publicly stated that “We believe that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight”. BSA will never be able to extract itself from this unending debate until it goes back to its 1984 official policy that “Education for sexuality belongs in the home”. That is the only position that all Scouts, no matter what their religion, can agree on.

        • Also note that the dissenting opinion in the Dale case noted that the BSA published materials and statements were that the issues of sex education were to be left to the family and to religious leaders. The testimony in the court case by the BSA professionals was disingenuous, to say the least.

        • db, “The testimony in the court case by the BSA professionals was disingenuous, to say the least.”
          Not at all. Sex education and a specific behavior are two different things. When BSA was asserting that homosexuality was inconsistent with BSA values, they were not advocating BSA teaching about it.

        • CurtisG;
          In 1984, BSA released a public statement that “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 is my point – these statements were made at a time when there was a different environment. If you think this comment was made to allow homosexual members in Scouting, and then BSA retracted that with their later statements, you are not correct.
          You’re comment “decided they wanted to enter the culture wars full bore and distract from BSA’s core mission.” is disingenuous. BSA did not deceide they wanted to enter the culture wars at all. They were dragged into it by homoosexual advocates.
          Whether you agree that’s good or bad depends on your position, but you can’t take comments like that out of their context.

        • Well said. Strange things are being said. The other side now asserting that I believe Jesus would be incompatible with Scouting since he did not feel the need to declare himself heterosexual.

          I cannot see how anyone thought homosexuals in Scouting was policy up until 1991 even in the face of evidence to the contrary and the moral values of the time.

          BSA should clarify what “morally straight” means. In 2005 as far as I can tell, “clean” has been watered down to using a fork and having good manners, having good hygiene and wearing clean clothes and being eco-friendly. (green).

        • “If you think this comment was made to allow homosexual members in Scouting, ”

          I do not think the 1984 means that at all. I think the 1984 statement means what it says: Stating when sex is moral and when it is not is far outside the bounds of Scouting. Sexual morality has always been an important issue. It was in 1911, in 1984, and it is in 2013. Ever since its founding, teaching sexual morality to boys that contradicts the teachings of boy’s family and church was outside the bounds of Scouting. BSA policy even said so, until 1991.

          It is a very simple policy that Scouts of all religions can agree with. All other national youth programs have a similar policy. It is amazing to me that BSA would be the only national youth program foolish enough to make teaching sexual morality a core message of its organization.

        • CurtisG –
          Ahh,I see. You’re suggestion is that BSA should not adhere to any specific morality, just insist that people follow some moral standard. Sure. OK – let’s examine that. How about honesty? People have differing ideas about morality – in some cases deception is perfectly within their morality. There are highly moral criminals – for example, assassins only target those they consider evil.

        • Curtis, I am seeking a clarification.

          “teaching sexual morality to boys that contradicts the teachings of boy’s family and church was outside the bounds of Scouting.”

          What are you speaking of here.

        • I’m speaking of

          “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

          The 1984 statement applied to straights and gays. Gays were not to each anything in Scouting that would contradict the moral teaching of family or church, and neither were straights.

          That was official BSA policy until 1991, when BSA released a statement that homosexual conduct is not morally straight under all circumstances, even if your family or church says otherwise.

        • “You’re suggestion is that BSA should not adhere to any specific morality, ”

          No. My suggestion is that BSA should not adhere to any specific sexual morality.

          BSA recognized that entering into sexual morality teaching would be a minefield. How would BSA handle divorce? Marriage after divorce? Contraception? Masturbation? Abortion? Extramarital sex? Polygamy? Those were all pressing issues in 1911. Wisely, BSA founders chose to keep BSA far away from these distractions. That policy held until 1991, when BSA leaders determined that sexual morality should be a core teaching of BSA.

        • “BSA recognized that entering into sexual morality teaching would be a minefield. How would BSA handle divorce? Marriage after divorce? Contraception? Masturbation? Abortion? Extramarital sex? Polygamy? Those were all pressing issues in 1911. Wisely, BSA founders chose to keep BSA far away from these distractions. That policy held until 1991, when BSA leaders determined that sexual morality should be a core teaching of BSA.”

          I call BS. In 1911, all of those were not considered normal or appropriate. BSA did not involve itself because they were all obviously considered morally wrong. Assuning that early Scouting did not consider sexual morality is totally revisionist as well. Baden Powell has made many comments on the fact – and made some pretty specific ones about sexual morality as well. You really should research it.
          This whole revisionist movement trying to redefine what Scouting values used to be are pretty silly. You can look through some of the old literature to get the info.

        • Curtis, however strongly you feel about homosexual and bisexual inclusion in the Boy Scouts, it’s intellectually dishonest to repeat the new argument/mantra that somehow, there was a Golden Age of Homosexual Acceptance in the BSA until 1991, when George Bush and the Religious Right came along and ruined everything.

          I would presume you would agree that one cannot be homosexual without feeling an attraction for the same sex that must include a desire for sexual relations. A man can feel an intense love for another man (or a woman for another woman), but unless that love includes a sexual component, it’s not homosexual. A man can love his brother intensely, or his son, or his father, or his best friend, or his comrade in battle. There’s nothing wrong with any of those things, nor are they considered homosexual. So we can’t say that one can be “homosexual” and yet not want to have sex with others of the same gender.

          It was only quite recently in history that the idea was promoted that homosexuality could be defined as an immutable and probably genetic “identity” that could be conveniently divorced from the set of sexual behaviors that define it. Before that (i.e., well before 1991) it was held that homosexual people were those who practiced, well, homosexuality – sex with others of the same sex. It was held by all religions that same-sex attractions, whatever their origins, were to be resisted and that accepting an identification that defined yourself by those weaknesses was unacceptable and immoral. And, again, until comparatively recently, homosexual acts were a felony in every state of the Union and could result in imprisonment. Given that being a homosexual meant you were engaging in sex acts that were a felony, why would the Scouts need to have a specific public regulation against that, anymore than one would need to enumerate a prohibition against exhibitionists?

          Yet, clearly there were such BSA documents, which were accepted as court evidence in the Dale decision. It is disingenuous for modern LGBT apologists to argue that because this was not a “public” document, that it was somehow not a “real” document and can be discounted. Why would what was once considered a family-oriented organization, whose publications could be read by impressionable youths, want to discuss in their publications what was considered a gross and disgusting physical perversion by the majority of Americans at that point in history? I realize many Americans feel differently about such sex acts now, but that was clearly the opinion of most people then, and the BSA at the time would have felt no more need to discuss it in their family-oriented publications that could be read by any boy, than they would have felt the need to condemn foot fetishism or any other paraphilia in print. Scouting publications in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s were intended to teach about pioneering, woodcraft, and good citizenship, not about the peculiar sex practices of a tiny minority of the population. One would have had to read KInsey or Kraft-Ebbing to read about such things, not the Boy Scout Handbook.

          Training publications of the pre-1990 era intended for the instruction of scoutmasters DID have discussions of the dangers of homosexuals who could attempt to gain access to scouts, as even some of those who share your position on homosexuals and bisexuals in Scouting agree. So it can’t realistically be argued that homosexuality was a topic of benign indifference to the BSA in that period.

        • Bobby, you can’t confuse the issue with obvious facts. The facts will re-arranged or obfuscated to support a “He’s just a kid who loves boys” mantra that as I have been posting on these blogs since January seems to the underlying belief of most of the pro-policy people who post here. They call opponents “racist” and “bigoted” and equate boys who want sex and romance with other boys with oppression of blacks for centuries when obviously opposition to boy-on-boy sex with racist oppression is ridiculous. I grew up in the 70′s and homosexuals at the time would never have been assumed to be accepted into a Boy Scout Troop when I was a youth. I never even heard of one except in NE US cities and counterculture movies.

          The agenda that I have seen as my children grew up in the 90′s and 00′s was to sexualize children as early as possible through sex-ed elementary schools and “dances” in middle school to get the hormones mixing as early as possible. Homosexuality became one more choice for a child to achieve his sexual desires.

          The other obvious fact that the pro-policy side refuses to acknowledge is that they should be no moral instruction in Scouting even though it is in the Mission statement. Permissive adults was no sexual limits placed on their children and believe sexual relations have no moral responsibility associated with them. It is a personal moral choice not covered by BSA guidelines. Surprisingly, while promiscuous sex with girls outside Scouting seems to be frowned upon, accidental sex between boys in Scouting is an acceptable side-effect of full inclusion of homosexuality in Scouting. They say that then you can throw them out but the child who may be confused and been engaged in sexual activity as a youth may become a homosexual when he might nt have before. Its a scenario I want no part of as a leader. I cannot understand how the pro-homosexual folks see absolutely no danger and total innocence in a child that learned somewhere that sex with the same gender though in complete rejection of the way nature intended is wholesome and moral but Christianity is not unless it is fully accepting of immoral behavior.

        • One of the more bizarre elements of liberal cognitive dissonance that we see displayed in this argument is that we have been fed the idea by the Left, again and again, that teenagers are completely unable to control their hormones, and that we must adjust the way we raise our children to allow for this.

          We are told, by the media and popular culture and the government, that teenagers (and now, pre-teens) are such bundles of hormones and are so completely lacking in self-control that we must allow schools to dispense condoms or abortifacients without parental approval, that abortifacients must be sold over the counter to children of any age and that parents have no need or right to know, anymore than they have a right to know about a minor’s abortion, and that sex ed programs that focus on abstinence are useless, because ALL teens will have sex. (Think about it – have you seen any TV show or movie, especially ones aimed at young people like “Glee,” that have ever shown an abstinence-based program or club as anything but hypocritical and ineffective?)

          Yet the same people will tell us that when it comes to youths who identify themselves as homosexuals (that is, they define themselves by a predilection towards a specific sexual behavior) , they will all be completely free of any sexual desire for another boy in the close-quarters (and often unsupervised) situation of a camp-out, a shared tent, a group shower, a small group setting in the woods, etc., and so we needn’t worry our hopelessly out-of-date, unhip, homophobic, shaggy paleolithic minds about such possibilities. The problem has been defined out of existence, you see, by those who understand the sexuality of teenagers so much better than we do.

        • Bobby, you forgot “racist” and “bigot .” Scouters who disagree with the Policy are always labeled those for effect. Logic is absent from their belief where uncomfortable facts are confirmed they do not want to openly disclose. I believe after so many hours on this blog on various threads that they have no problem with sex between boys in the woods. Its as natural as rain to them. I have believed that from the beginning and it has been proven many times on this list.

          I say sexuality has no place in Scouting and mean a youth that defines his persona by sexuality should not be admitted because of exactly the reason you say that a homosexual youth in a sex-drenched youth culture would not resist those temptations and a progressive adult leader would not expect him to resist them and would not condemn him anyway. They do not accept the possibility that the confused young Scout with no thought of sexuality could be sacrificed in the new BSA for the their idea of higher good of homosexual inclusion.

          They say sexuality has no place in Scouting and mean that there should be no mention of it from Scout to Adult leaders and vice-verse and suggest Scouts cannot be controlled out of our sight. The Scout Mission does refer to “instilling moral values” but that has nothing to do with sexuality. They say there is no morality in sexuality. The Scout Oath says “morally straight” but that is the Scouts own internal moral code and we have no business even asking except to ask if he is following his own moral code which may include homosexual sex and that is fine. Leave him alone, he answered the question! Since BSA has not defined “morally straight” since the new policy, past definitions are null and void. BSA has changed the definition of clean to mean uses good manners, good hygiene, clean clothes and eco-friendly so don’t even bring up clean in thought anymore.

          Their world was voted in by the Immortal 1,400 so get ready to be assimilated or leave.

        • The world (and this discussion) is not divided into two opposing and distant camps, who “all” believe x, who “all” say y, who “all always” call anybody opposed whatever designated name. Is that sort of approach what you really want to take to encourage discussion?

        • Karen, I think pro-policy and existing policy are two distinct Camps. The statements I made can be attributed to members of the Pro-Policy. All in the pro-policy group may not have those beliefs but they are beliefs within the group. Folks who disagree can argue they do not agree with a statement attributed to the pro-policy side but I do not believe many would disagree with my statements.

          I think I have opened the door to more discussion but I think most on the pro-policy side may not entirely agree but are comfortable with the comments. You’ve seen how many times I have been called a “racist” and a “bigot.”

        • Hi Fred- We object to you just making stuff up. For example, here’s one of your most recent statements: “I believe after so many hours on this blog on various threads that they have no problem with sex between boys in the woods. Its as natural as rain to them. I have believed that from the beginning and it has been proven many times on this list.”

          No one in favor of change has ever stated that this was even remotely close to their position. From my reading of the list, 100% of the people who have been posting believe that it is best that youth refrain from sex. As far as I’m aware, the folks in favor of the change agree with the official BSA statement that ” any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting”

          So please stop making stuff up. You might further your arguments if you were to refrain from this behavior. Otherwise, no one takes you seriously.

        • If you read the comments written, it is fairly easy to draw that conclusion. Sorry if you cannot. When there is no moral value placed on sexual behavior in youth, what conclusion would you draw db? That has been said by many posters.

        • ” intellectually dishonest to repeat the new argument/mantra that somehow, there was a Golden Age of Homosexual Acceptance in the BSA until 1991″

          I never said that. I said there was a Golden Age of leaving sexuality up to the family in BSA until 1991. Most families did not accept homosexuality as normal in 1991, so of course most families would have rejected gays in their troop in 1991. My point is, BSA left the issue up to families until 1991. 1991 was the first year BSA took a position on a matter of sexuality that applied to all Scouts, regardless of what was taught in the Scout’s family.

        • ” In 1911, all of those were not considered normal or appropriate. BSA did not involve itself because they were all obviously considered morally wrong.”

          In 1911, and even more so today, many families teach that masturbation, contraception, marriage after divorce, among sexual issues, are perfectly moral behaviors. It is not BSA’s place to tell families otherwise. BSA has wisely stayed out of matters of sexuality, at least until 1991.

  5. Has this now been repealed by BSA National?

    From the Dale Case…

    “The values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are “based on” those listed in the Scout Oath and Law. App. 184. The Boy Scouts explains that the Scout Oath and Law provide “a positive moral code for living; they are a list of ‘do’s’ rather than ‘don’ts.’ ” Brief for Petitioners 3. The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath and Law, particularly with the values represented by the terms “morally straight” and “clean.”

    Obviously, the Scout Oath and Law do not expressly mention sexuality or sexual orientation. See supra, at 6—7. And the terms “morally straight” and “clean” are by no means self-defining. Different people would attribute to those terms very different meanings. For example, some people may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is not at odds with being “morally straight” and “clean.” And others may believe that engaging in homosexual conduct is contrary to being “morally straight” and “clean.” The Boy Scouts says it falls within the latter category.”

    If not, does personal opinion trump BSA beliefs as an organization you choose to join and then violate the Group’s policies? Does anyone have a statement by BSA that says homosexuality is now compatible with Scouting? Someone said they did. Any recorded statement by anyone?

    • BSA official position is still that homosexual conduct is not morally straight.

      Gay boys under age 18 are permitted to join. The logic being that all sexual activity before age 18 is prohibited, and is not morally straight. All Scouts under age 18 are expected to not be sexually active. A gay boy under 18 is considered morally straight, because he is not engaging in homosexual conduct.

      However, after age 18, a gay young man may become sexually active. Therefore, all gays are banned after age 18, because it is presumed they are engaging in homosexual conduct, and therefore are not morally straight.

      It is a quite a stretch, as far as I’m concerned. But that seems to be the logic behind the new policy.

      • CurtisG,
        It’s not really the age, it’s th position. For example, under the new policy, theoretically a member of a venturing crew could be homosexual and be up to age 22 and still participate. The policy is specific that homosexual “adult leaders” are still not allowed to participate. Note, the policy made a specific effort not to make any judgement regarding homosexuality in regards to leadership, only that adults and youth were different and that changing the adult membership requirements was not under consideration. It was obviously a compromise to try to keep those units that would find a complete reversal unacceptable.

        • The wording of the new policy is gay “youth of Scouting age” are allowed, but gay “adults” and gay “adult leaders” are banned. It does not list any specific ages. But a gay leader, like a patrol leader, could remain in Scouting as long as he were a youth. The distinction is between youth and adult, not leader vs. non-leader.

        • CurtisG – You’re going off base. A patrol leader is not an adult leader – which is what the policy states. ” A change to the current membership policy for adult leaders was not under consideration; thus, the policy for adults remains in place. Note the adult leaders – Venturing participants are considered youth if they are participants in the program and not serving as a program leaders – ie. it depends on the type of application they turn in.
          Note the application for “youth:”
          http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/524-406A.pdf
          It contains the statement “I am at least 13 years of age and have completed the eighth
          grade or am 14 years of age and not yet 21. Must have parent/guardian approval if under 18 years of age.” A member of the venturing program is not considered an adult participant just because he/she turns 18.

      • No, but a patrol leader is a Scout leader. All Scouts are required to hold a leadership position in the troop before they reach Star Rank. So BSA’s new policy does not prohibit gay leaders, it prohibits gay adults from membership.

        • CurtisG,
          Sorry, you’re incorrect (not about youth leadership – just about your reading of the policy). You are reading something into the statement that isn’t there. Scouting sees a huge difference between youth leaders – which by the way, is part of the methods of Scouting, and adult leaders, who are there to be chaperones, teachers, guides, etc. See my note from yesterday about the registration. If you are using a youth registration, you are a youth member and not subject to the ban. If you are using an adult registration, you are subject to the ban. Per the policy, as written and described, a celibate homosexual youth who is a participant in the Venturing program, even as a Crew President, the ban doesn’t apply. Likewise, per the policy, a heterosexual youth in the Venturing program needs to be celibate to comply with the membership guidelines. We’ll have to see how that happens in practice, but that is how it is written.
          This is really just another example of how this compromise wasn’t fully planned out by people who have detailed familiarity with the actual programs.

        • I think we are in agreement. You just describe it better than I do. The whole thing is a huge compromise. Compromises never please anyone, except, I suppose, the people who write them. It would be interesting to see whose hands were involved in writing this; I suppose we will never know. I can’t think of anyone who likes this new policy. Most people will hold their nose and try to continue with Scouting, hoping the whole issue doesn’t distract any more from Scouting than it already has. The thing is, the more BSA writes policies about sex, the deeper it digs itself into a hole that makes everyone unhappy.

        • Your description does reinforce my point that the new policy does not change BSA’s message that homosexual conduct is not morally straight. Gays youth are welcome to be members, as long as they remain celibate. Gay adults continue to be not welcome as members. BSA’s message that homosexual conduct is immoral has not changed.

        • CurticG,
          I think you’re reading more to the statement than is there. All language about the morality or immorality of homosexuality is gone from the discussion. If you read the Membership Standards Resolution and the Points of Clarification, it is all about avoiding any contention that might suggest there is a problem with homosexuality:

          “To be clear, the BSA makes no connection between the sexual abuse or victimization of a child and homosexuality. The BSA takes strong exception to this assertion. Some of the nation’s leading experts reinforce this position.”

          (Of course, this is playing fast and loose with the research and expert opinion – they are relying on research and opinions about pedophilia – specifically prepubescent youth – which is true, homosexuals statistically are less prone to pedophilia. It just ignores that homosexuals do have a higher incidence involving older teen boys. It also is ignoring the youth on youth aspects in this statement).

          They focus their issues purely on the distraction factor:

          “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, 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.”

          The previous statements by the BSA about incompatibility with the BSA standards have virtually been eradicated. As a matter of fact, based on their own statement, they have so weakened their position that I don’t see how the ban on adult leaders can continue to stand.

        • I agree CAY. Unless BSA clarifies that it has not accepted homosexuality as morally acceptable, its subtle presentation indicates it has accepted homosexuality as moral behavior. Or, like many on this list, homosexuality is not be considered in morally straight along with any other sexual habits the Scout may consider moral but even modern society would shrink from in the LGTB community.

        • “All language about the morality or immorality of homosexuality is gone from the discussion.”

          Except that the legal justification for BSA’s continued ban of gay adults is based on the fact that BSA has a message that homosexual conduct is not morally straight. If BSA message about the immorality of homosexuality is gone, BSA has no legal justification for banning gay adults.

          Read the BSA vs. Dale decision to see how that argument was made to the Supreme Court. BSA stated clearly in those proceedings that it teaches that homosexual conduct is immoral. That became the basis for BSA’s legal exclusion of gays. BSA has not said anything since BSA vs. Dale that it indents to retract any of its claims in that case. BSA has said it intends to continue banning gay adults, using the legal justification presented in BSA vs. Dale. So BSA must continue to believe that homosexuality is immoral, even if it does not “trumpet its views
          from the housetops”. If BSA’s language about the immorality of homosexuality is gone, BSA has no legal basis to ban gay adults from membership.

        • I am hoping BSA clarifies this in a public statement. I see your argument but if an adult checks a box “celibate” would then he be a moral leader of youth? Its a fine line BSA is trying to walk where age is the only determining factor in whether one day of age (17years +364day versus 18 years) determines that homosexuality is moral behavior in a person. Certainly a behavior I do not think they want to model as an ethical and moral example for youth but very difficult to enforce a ban.

  6. “I am hoping BSA clarifies this in a public statement.”

    The Supreme Court stated that BSA didn’t have to have a clear public statement regarding its beliefs, in order for its beliefs to be valid. As Rehnquist put it “The fact that the organization does not trumpet its views from the housetops, or that it tolerates dissent within its ranks, does not mean that its views receive no First Amendment protection.” In short, BSA maintains full legal rights to ban gay adults, as long as it holds the view that homosexuality is immoral, even if it does not publicly state the view that homosexuality is immoral.

    Given the flak BSA has taken for its views on homosexuality in recent years, and the fact that the Supreme Court said BSA has full legal protection for its views, even if it does not “trumpet” its views to anyone, I doubt BSA will be making any clear, public statements about homosexuality for a while. But BSA still believes homosexuality is immoral, even if it does not tell anyone. If it didn’t believe it, it would have no legal right to ban gays.

  7. I agree with you but just seeking clarification here. I also doubt BSA will be making public statements but there will have to be some guidelines on this somewhere even if some volunteers don’t care. In your opinion, BSA is saying that “a young person is still growing and maturing and has not accepted homosexuality as a way of life and through Scouting will learn ethical and moral values which will may cause him to reject that lifestyle as an adult and remain celibate” or are they saying that “after 18, we no longer have any influence as an organization on a Scout who has left the Program but do not accept a homosexual choice for life as an example for a youth to model and consider it an immoral adult behavior?

    • In my opinion, the BSA had two objectives with the new policy:
      1) Craft a softer public message with regard to homosexuality, to slow the loss of donations and membership that is increasing due to BSAs anti-gay beliefs.
      2) Please the LDS church, who is BSA single, largest funder.

      The new policy is not a statement of principles or morals. It is a pragmatic statement to try to achieve those two objectives.

  8. Let the name-calling begin…

    Boy Scouts resolution proposed to Southern Baptists; BSA leadership change advocated

    HOUSTON (BP) — A resolution on the Boy Scouts of America will be presented to the Southern Baptist Convention by its Resolutions Committee today (June 12) voicing “our continued opposition to and disappointment in” the Scouts’ action May 23 to open its membership to openly homosexual boys.

    The resolution will be voted on by messengers to the SBC annual meeting in Houston.

    Southern Baptists would call for a change in Scouting’s “executive and board leadership” who, according to the proposed resolution, intended to proceed with the change unilaterally until a news report in late January derailed their plans to open Boy Scout ranks to both openly homosexual leaders and members.

    Opening Scouting to openly homosexual youth “has the potential to complicate basic understandings of male friendships, needlessly politicize human sexuality, and heighten sexual tensions within the Boy Scouts,” the proposed resolution states.

    The Southern Baptist Convention’s statement of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message 2000, meanwhile, states that “Christians should oppose … all forms of sexual immorality, including adultery, homosexuality, and pornography.” Southern Baptists “consistently have expressed their opposition to the normalization of homosexual behavior in American culture through more than a dozen resolutions over the past thirty years,” the proposed resolution states.

    The proposed resolution states that Southern Baptists “declare our love in Christ for all young people regardless of their perceived sexual orientation, praying that God will bring all youth into a saving knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

    Churches that discontinue their sponsorship of Scout troops are encouraged in the proposed resolution “not to abandon their ministry to boys but consider expanding their Royal Ambassadors ministry [www.wmu.com/ra], a distinctively Southern Baptist missions organization to develop godly young men.”

    Churches that remain involved with Scouting, meanwhile, are encouraged in the proposed resolution “to work toward the reversal of this new membership policy and to advocate against any future change in leadership and membership policy that normalizes sexual conduct opposed to the biblical standard.”

  9. What’s important?
    I feel that the whole point of Boy Scouts is to develop the boys mentally, emotionally, physically, etc. In order to do that, the boys have to attend and participate. How does shutting down a troop help the boys?

    For the Charter Organizations
    For my part, I don’t understand when churches drop Boy Scouts over the homosexual issue. My understanding is that these organizations see homosexuality as a life style choice and as a sin.
    One of the primary purposes of the churches is to teach/lead people into proper relationship & behavior towards God. So if homosexuals are wrongly choosing to be homosexual and they are isolated from the churches teaching proper behaviors, how are they to learn proper behavior? I would think that churches would want to reach out to boys as young as possible to model and teach the behavior the church believes is right. Isn’t that why every troop has a Chaplain & a Chaplain’s Aide? Isn’t that why the Chaplain’s Aide qualifies for leadership requirements just like the Senior Patrol Leader? Don’t the Scoutmaster & ASMs require CO approval?
    Churches send out missionaries to foreign lands & people of other religions, among prostitutes and drug users, into prisons and hospitals. Why are homosexuals seen as different from any other group that needs the church’s guidance? Are divorced, remarried, or never married couples sent away from the church? What about sexually active heterosexual teens and adults? Abusive spouses? Mentally ill?
    I would think that churches opposed to homosexuality would be encouraging Boy Scouts at their church in order to reach out to the lost.

    Is this that big an issue compared to other problems?
    Given the ages of boys in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts, how many are going to identify themselves as homosexuals? I think our Troop has maybe 20% of the scouts old enough to care about sexuality (I picked high school age). Homosexuality is something like 3% among adults. That puts us at about 0.5% of Boy Scouts. People want to dump all that scouting does for the boys because of 1 out of 200 scouts? What about helping the other 199? So among the 50 or so scouts that joined our Troop in the last 4 years, maybe we have one scout that will eventually be homosexual. Likely we don’t have any. Meanwhile we are working with a good group of scouts for those 4 years.
    For my troop I have a number of things I’m concerned about that I think are more likely to harm the scouts:
    Is there hazing and bullying among the scouts? Is there drug use?
    Are they being stupid? At one point a scout (who later grew into SPL) lit a campfire with a match & a spray can of flammable deodorant.
    Among the many Scouts with medication, has any medication been recently changed? Is he stable with the new meds? Is he taking too little or too much of his meds? I wonder if some scouts should be on medication but aren’t.
    How is a Scout’s home life impacting his behavior? We have single moms, single dads, unemployed parents, and divorcing parents. A frequent discussion in our Troop on behavior is if a Scout’s behavior means his non-attendance for the good of the Troop. Or does it mean that he definitely needs the guidance of Boy Scouts for his own good.
    Are any of the adults abusive? Have anger management issues? Is that parent I recruited to drive an alcoholic or other drug user? Does the parent drive recklessly? A parent in my troop is a great guy, outdoorsy, low key, etc. but he is also diabetic & won’t risk a blood sugar crisis far from home. Which of the adults on any given outing have a medical condition and will collapse any time?

    Homosexuality has never been mentioned in our Pack & Troop for the 8 years I have been active as Den Leader, Cub Master, and Troop Committee. To me, both sides are creating a crisis for their own agendas rather than the good of the scouts.

    • The Churches believe that homosexual behavior is immoral and a sin. And by acting as a Chartering Organization for the new BSA troop that they are condoning this immoral behavior.

      • The new BSA policy denies membership to anyone, youth or adult, engaging in homosexual behavior. “any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting.”

      • “The Churches believe that homosexual behavior is immoral and a sin. And by acting as a Chartering Organization for the new BSA troop that they are condoning this immoral behavior.” – Ron

        So if said church sponsors a softball team, they need to ensure that the team has a policy on banning gays?
        The point is we’d never be having this discussion had the BSA left things alone and not enacted a ban in the early 1990s.

        • “The point is we’d never be having this discussion had the BSA left things alone and not enacted a ban in the early 1990s.”
          OK, Todd, keep saying that if t makes you feel better. It’s completely disingenuous – look up historians fallacy.

        • There is no debate about the date when BSA first publicly stated a policy that disqualifies gays from membership. It is not like it is a secret or anything.

          It is true many troops may have prohibited gays throughout the history of BSA, just like many troops banned blacks or women in the past. But the existence of a national, public statement from BSA national that disqualifies gays from membership can not be debated.

        • CAY, you didn’t answer the question.
          Do churches that support the ban require all other organizations that they support to also have a ban?

        • “CAY, you didn’t answer the question.
          Do churches that support the ban require all other organizations that they support to also have a ban?”

          Todd,
          I don’t know. I guess it depends on the organization, the Church and the nature of the relationship. I don’t know of too many groups that have a charter-type relationship. The charter is pretty unique. In the churches I know about (LDS and Catholic), I don’t know of too many non-church organizations where they support/use as a part of their ministry. Scouting is virtually the only organization I know of that works that way. The LDS Church does not support Girl Scouting, and the Catholic Church is pretty seriously questioning any involvement due to their support of principles the Church disagrees with. Many of the other churches are really hard to evaluate as they don’t have a simiilar top down hierarchal structure.
          I can tell you the LDS Church is pretty specific about who or what it officially exposes to its membership. Even a DJ playing for a local youth dance is required to have a contract which includes adherence to Church standards.

        • “Even a DJ playing for a local youth dance is required to have a contract which includes adherence to Church standards.”

          But those standards would be the same as the new BSA policy for boys, right? That folks who experience same-sex attraction can lead an honorable life in accordance with Church standards (LDS or Catholic) if they remain celibate and don’t glorify homosexuality or get political about it.

        • “OK, Todd, keep saying that if t makes you feel better. It’s completely disingenuous – look up historians fallacy.”

          The fallacy is these organizations supported BSA long before there was a ban and continue to support other things now that do not have a ban.

        • “The fallacy is these organizations supported BSA long before there was a ban and continue to support other things now that do not have a ban.”
          No, Todd. The fallacy is that because there was no ban that supposedly it was considered acceptable. There is no specific ban on murderers either. Of course, if an organization of murderers decided to fight the BSA in court, we might get a specific ban.

    • “Homosexuality has never been mentioned in our Pack & Troop for the 8 years I have been active”

      But homosexuality has been clearly and publicly mentioned by BSA, the organization in which you have been active for 8 years.

    • David,
      In response to your what’s important questin /comment, it’s about more than the personal behaviour of those invovled. It’s about the right to manage your own youth ministry. In the Churches invovled, Scouting is generally a part of the youth ministry – yet it is still a separate organization. The concern is that homosexual activists have been very agressive legally in trying to get into Scouting. If BSA undermines the Supreme Court’s past decision as they are now in the process of doing, then individual Churches, as COs will be in the position of legally defending themselves to determine who they put in leadership of their youth ministry. No one would exepct the Catholic Church to allow an LDS person to come in and teach their youth. But with Scouting, there is a potential for a CO to be forced to allow leaders that are in direct opposition to the principles the CHO believes. That is exactly what is causing the ruckus. For example, the case that led to the Supreme Court ruling, James Dale, sued for the right to participate in Scouting – ie his troop.
      The concenr is that Churches will loose the right to determine who can lead it’s youth program.

      • Has BSA ever forced a unit to place a woman in a position that was inconsistent with the CO’s position on authority? Yes — units go to camp and have to deal with women as camp directors and program directors, etc., but have any units been forced to accept female unit leadership after the BSA began to endorse female Scoutmasters?

        • I agree Karen. The issues of homosexuality should have been a local option issue, like having woman leaders, or offering worship during camping trips. I’m sure there are COs that will never admit a black youth, yet BSA national does not feel compelled to implement a national policy with regard to membership of blacks. BSA national should not be forcing matters of religious conscious onto local troops.

        • Karen,
          I’m not really too worried about BSA forcing the CO to do anything. They never have that I know of – not unless it was helping to remove a member. I’m concerned about individuals suing to get placed in a unit inconsistent with their poisition. Organizations like GLAAD and Scouting For All have identified that specifically in various blogs, public comments and speeches.

        • “I’m sure there are COs that will never admit a black youth, yet BSA national does not feel compelled to implement a national policy with regard to membership of blacks.”
          OK, CurtisG, you can come clean now. It’s been pretty obvious, but not there is no question. You’re trolling. You obviously have no association with Scouting beyond your participation in this discussion group.
          There are certainly national policies about racial discrimination.

      • “It’s about the right to manage your own youth ministry.”

        That is why the local option, where each CO decides for itself what it wants to teach regarding gays, would have been the best option. I’m sure there are COs that don’t allow bacon, or coffee, at Scout events, because such food violates the CO’s core principles. BSA allows this kind of local option for issues that are not central to Scouting. Homosexuality should be treated the same way. Each CO should decide the best way to handle the topic, in accordance with the specific teachings of the CO’s religious or family traditions.

        • CurtisG.
          “That is why the local option, where each CO decides for itself what it wants to teach regarding gays, would have been the best option.”
          Except that due to the activist nature of GLAAD, Scouting for All and other LGBT groups would never allow that. If BSA made it a local option, that would nullify the Supreme Court decision, and these groups have stated their mission is to get BSA to change it’s policy, and then get the individual units to change theirs.
          Ultimately, in the end, there’s no way this works with a complete removal of the homosexual ban. Removing the ban on leadership is all about catering to homosexual adults and completely ignores the young men. For Cub Scouts it would make little difference, but for older Scouting there is no way to make it work and protect the youth. As it is, I’m waiting to see the guidelines the BSA develops. I just don’t believe there’s a solution to the youth protection issue, and boys will be put in risk.

        • As I have observed the pro-homosexual side CAY, I have come to the conclusion that they really do not see ANY risk putting youth with same-gender attraction alongside heterosexual youth at an early age. Either they have homosexual kids or know someone with homosexual kids or know practicing homosexual couples. If something happens “hey, its natural,” and “move on, nothing to see here.” I truly believe that they are so invested in empowering homosexuals they will put your kid, my kids and even their own kids at risk of unwanted same-gender sexual advances or topics many are too young to understand and have nothing to do with Scouting. How many times have I read “discuss their partners the same as girlfriends” or “be understood for who they are.” You know what, some youth want nothing to do with a homosexual thought much less action by accepting homosexual youth in Scouting. But, now adults will be trained to silence that youth with.those beliefs and empower that homosexual youth to be “out” and about in Scouting. Want to wager this scenario will be true one year from today?

        • Fred,
          I think you are correct. I just don’t think we’ll hear about it. I’m sure it will be similar to the military where same sex harassment is no charged. Soldiers who complain now of harassment are ignored, or worse slandered for being homophobic. Worse yet, they explain youth on youth as just expressing themselves. At a time when young men are struggling with hormones, they are ripe for experimentation they would not otherwise try.
          I’m waiting for some parents to sue the BSA because their son came home having had a same sex experience. Will it be heard by the courts? Will thay be branded as homophobic and not respecting their son? Will it be prosecuted and then treated like Kaitlyn Hunt from Florida – an 18 year old girl who started a sexual relationship with a 14 year old – the LGBT community is up in arms about her defense. Somehow, those homosexual experiences are sacred while a heterosexual would be target with hate.

        • Seems like no one is disagreeing with my analysis. I was also surprised that the rape of a 14 year old girl by an 18 year old girl did not raise an eyebrow in the LGTB/Progressive/Liberal community but the rape of a 14 year old girl by an 18 year old boy still causes at least consternation in their crowd. If a youth is raped in Scouting, it will never leave the Council office and the parties involved. Of that, I am sure. Doesn’t match the template.

        • Oh, Fred. You mistook our silence for agreement. But its not agreement. We were silent because “your analysis” is bat guano insane.

        • Always love your intelligent analysis db. Looks like the guano slinging is from the left side. Y’all have fun in the woods now

          Take my bet guano boy, $50 bucks says your tenting with homosexual adults in 18 months or less. What is your name anyway db? db has so many possibilities

        • Actually, db, it is not.You can try to ignore it, but there will be an increase in youth sexual harassment, there will be confused young men who get introduced to sex by a male troop member, and you can be sure the LGBT community will suggest it is just fine.
          Currently the Kaitlyn Hunt should open up many eyes to the LGBT community. They are actively lobbying to leave her alone because she’s gay, while the same folks are all for persecuting young men in the same situation. Somehow a 14 year old can consent, as long as she is homosexual. Do a little research. In Kaitlyn Hunt’s county alone there are numerous 18 year olds who are permanently branded because their girlfriend was underage.
          Likewise, in the military today, male on male harassment is ignored. Soldiers who make a complaint are challenged with homophobia and cases are being ignored.

  10. Scouters like many things in todays world the many changes are something that we all will have to endure even though some changes are against the very principals that have long been a staple your particular cause or belief. Scouting has always had a form of God in its program even though some have tried to dismiss it when it did not suit their agenda. All homosexuals that cheated their way in to the BSA rather it be a scout or a scout leader were against the very core of the BSA and were under deserving of any Scout advancement or Scout leader achievement prior to January 1st. 2014. We now have a have a new change in allowing new youth homosexuals in to scouting it is now the course of the BSA and regardless of the reasons why, it is the new BSA and only the future will be able to justify this change. For those who defended Timeless Values God will bless you always. For those who threw Timeless Values out of Scouting you are on your own with God and I will pray for you. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

      • I don’t follow this logic… If my worship of God includes accepting girls as being normal, though in Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts girls aren’t accepted, would this mean my God is not welcome in the BSA?

        • BSA does not exclude girls as a matter of moral principle. However, the exclusion of gays in BSA is based on BSA’s moral position that gay behavior is immoral.

          Trenton is arguing that accepting gays is a violation of his religious beliefs. I am pointing out that, for me, rejecting gays is a violation of my religious beliefs. There are religious people on both sides of the issue.

          Historically, BSA has left issues that are a matter of religious doctrine out of Scouting. It is unfortunate that, regarding gays, BSA has chosen to bring a sectarian issue into the core of Scouting.

        • CurtisG –
          “If BSA had been this stubborn about religious doctrine when it was founded, Catholics, Mormons and Jews would never had been alCurtisG –
          “If BSA had been this stubborn about religious doctrine when it was founded, Catholics, Mormons and Jews would never had been allowed to join Scouting.”
          You really ought to do a little more research before you assert yourself. For example, the LDS Church has been a part of BSA virtually since its inception. In 1910, the BSA was incorporated by William Boyce. The first LDS ward to charter with the BSA took place in October, with the entire LDS Church joining with Scouting in 1913. That same year, the Catholic Church adopted Scouting (actually several months before the LDS Church). In 1916 Hewish Institutions started chartering Scouting.
          From the beginning, all used Scouting with their own leadership allowing Scouting to be part of it’s youth ministry. So I don’t know where your comment is coming from. Maybe there’s an alternate history we’re all not aware of.
          BTW, Trenton is not arguing that accepting gays is a violation of his religious beliefs. He argues that gay behavior is a violation of his religious beliefs. Until fairly recently, homosexuality was illegal and chargeable throughout the US. By it’s very nature, it was not allowed in BSA – just like other criminal offenses. And by that virtue, are not compatible with the membership in BSA as it has always been defined. Your allegation that it was always perfectly acceptable until BSA went to court is completely unencumbered by truth.

        • “Your allegation that [homosexuality] was always perfectly acceptable until BSA went to court is completely unencumbered by truth.”

          I never said that, and you know it.

        • OK CurtisG, you keep saying that there was no problem until BSA made it’s political statement. I sure don’t know your point in keep bringing it up. In any case, I’m not going to worry about it. You are either uninvolved with Scouting and trying to have your say here, or you invent your own history.
          Have a nice day.

        • I said letting families and churches decide for themselves, whether and how to address homosexuality, is how thing were until BSA made its political statement and imposed one teaching about homosexuality on all Scouts. I think everyone would agree that letting families and churches decide is how it should be.

      • CurtisG if you have a worship of a different God that supports homosexuality that is your business and your constitutional right to believe anything that you choose to do.
        I believe in the God who has given through his Prophets his word on sin which is the King James version of the Bible. I will never follow the whims and deceit of men and their version of what is considered sin. I have written proof that homosexuality is a sin the Bible. I have never read anything in the Bible that says homosexuality is not a sin nor have I seen any revelation that authorizes man to change Gods laws. It is entirely possible that God could reveal a new and everlasting commandment on the subject of Homosexuality and its consequence’s but till that happens no man can convince me that homosexuality is not a sin and has a normal place in society even in the BSA. Sincerely, Trenton Spears

        • If BSA had been this stubborn about religious doctrine when it was founded, Catholics, Mormons and Jews would never had been allowed to join Scouting.

        • CurtisG your confusing stubbornness with commitment and faith. Please read the history of the BSA and why it was founded. If the BSA was open to homosexuals why did they go to court and spend millions of dollars to defend their exclusion policy for example the 2000 Supreme Court decision to exclude homosexual’s from being members in the BSA. I believe that men like me were the foundation of Scouting for over 103 years of Timeless Values and history has proven this. Sorry CurtisG you are in the minority of scouters whom support homosexuals in your beliefs and in scouting. Check the facts. Trenton Spears

Join the conversation

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s