Boy Scouts Lifts Ban on Gay Scout Leaders

[politicus]

The last thing my old troop needed on our camping trips was girls with us.

That's my main concern.

Why would this be so terrible?

[Classic Conservative]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

[politicus]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

So you are anti-love?

In all seriousness gender integrated scouting troops (and patrols) work just fine. Lots of countries have them.

[Classic Conservative]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

So you are anti-love?

In all seriousness gender integrated scouting troops (and patrols) work just fine. Lots of countries have them.

Not anti-love but boys and girls are stupid at our age and most boys in my troop talk about their girlfriend and how they've done it with her. It also sets a bad example on younger scouts. Bottom line they shouldn't be allowed to sleep near each other on a camp out.

[Torie]

Sadly, my own faith (the LDS Church, of course), which has a massive amount of influence on the BSA, isn't exactly happy about this, even with the religious exemption. They might even leave, which is a problem for the BSA, since the LDS Church is the biggest funder, troop sponsor, and has traditionally had a close relationship with the Scouts; we even have Scoutmaster as an approved church appointment.

What frustrates me is that the lifting of the ban is almost exactly like the LDS Church-supported anti-discrimination/religious liberty law that passed in Utah. If it works for Utah, why not the Scouts?

Is there any possibility that somehow LDS kids could be in a troop that has a gay scout leader? What I am getting at, is if the LDS remains involved, is it possible that if someone applied to be scout leader of an LDS sponsored troop, the LDS would have to consider that candidate? Is the LDS concerned about gay scout leaders of non LDS troops because LDS kids would be exposed to the gay scout leaders at Scout jamboree events or whatever, where a lot of troops meet up?

Absent the concerns above, I don't see why the LDS would consider severing its sponsorship of Scout activities, or even take a position on the matter.

Sure there can be, it's just gonna have to be under a DADT sorta situation.

And honestly that wouldn't surprise me at all if that was why.

However, there's also the fact that this whole thing happened behind their back, or at least, that's how they see it.

The odd thing is that I've been following the news on this, and the "BSA will allow gay leaders" was basically being telegraphed months ahead of it actually happening. It wasn't a surprise at all. The head of the BSA even said (paraphrasing) "yeah we're going to do this soon". I don't get how the blindsided argument works.

As for the rest of your post, yeah, it's basically a "Don't Ask Don't Tell" situation, though I imagine that the Church in particular tries to have most Scout leader be married ones (to a woman, of course), to lessen the possibility of a secretly gay Scout leader.

Who knew? That bit made me laugh. I guess my chances of being selected as a Scout leader of an LDS troop would not be very good - Godless, gay, unmarried and living in sin, pot smoking drinker. But hey, I might expand the vocabulary of some of the kids of my troop. Maybe that would be viewed with some suspicion too. Oh well.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

As an Eagle Scout, I am pleased to hear this! However, we still need to have a conversation about the restrictions on the non-religious and about dropping the B from BSA.

If they dropped the B I'm out.

Separating based on gender is an antiquated concept and one that is being abandoned internationally. Two separate scouting organizations is unnecessary, inefficient, and the BSA is all too often dragging its feel into the ground whereas the GSA is much more inline with social values and embracing change. There is not one good reason to keep the organizations separated.

If you were to leave because the resources of the BSA were to no longer be an all boy's club, the organization would be a lot better off without you.  

So what if it is an "antiquated" concept?  That doesn't mean it isn't a good one.  There is room enough in this world for both organizations which are gender specific, and those which are gender integrated.  Whether you like it or not, male and female are still important social categories with often different developmental needs.

[Simfan34]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

So you are anti-love?

In all seriousness gender integrated scouting troops (and patrols) work just fine. Lots of countries have them.

Yes. Love is bad for scouts.

And why must we have them? Just because they're fine doesn't mean they should be mandatory. It's not as if the Girl Scouts don't exist.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

So you are anti-love?

In all seriousness gender integrated scouting troops (and patrols) work just fine. Lots of countries have them.

Not anti-love but boys and girls are stupid at our age and most boys in my troop talk about their girlfriend and how they've done it with her. It also sets a bad example on younger scouts. Bottom line they shouldn't be allowed to sleep near each other on a camp out.

I don't want to sound facetious, but why does it matter? Like, who cares? Most people lose their virginity in their teens, so why does it matter if they lose it while wearing a sash with loads of badges on it?

[Simfan34]

Surely you concede there is a time and place for sex, and some times and some places may not be it?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I don't know. I'm not a Scout, but the scouts in my country are mixed and (to my knowledge) are not a place of sex-crazed hedonistic debauchery. Obviously there are some times and places that sex is not a wise act (funerals, burning buildings, Buckingham Palace etc.) but glorified camping trips seems like fair game to me.

[ElectionsGuy]

Glad they're treating gay people like everyone else.

[Simfan34]

I don't know. I'm not a Scout, but the scouts in my country are mixed and (to my knowledge) are not a place of sex-crazed hedonistic debauchery. Obviously there are some times and places that sex is not a wise act (funerals, burning buildings, Buckingham Palace etc.) but glorified camping trips seems like fair game to me.

I mean if your teenagers want to do that on their own time, sure, I just don't see why the Boy Scouts have to accommodate it. Surely they have a right to not allow such things.

I also see you neglected to mention churches.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't know. I'm not a Scout, but the scouts in my country are mixed and (to my knowledge) are not a place of sex-crazed hedonistic debauchery. Obviously there are some times and places that sex is not a wise act (funerals, burning buildings, Buckingham Palace etc.) but glorified camping trips seems like fair game to me.

I would bet the parents of most of those campers would disagree. And without their support, there is no Scouts.

Also, it should be about something else. And once something becomes about chasing skirts, it's hard for it to be about anything else.

[Türkisblau]

Well this thread has certainly demonstrated to me that most people's view on human nature is certainly f'ed up. We got gays=pedos and gender-integrated troops becoming sex parties in here. Very odd.

[Simfan34]

Well this thread has certainly demonstrated to me that most people's view on human nature is certainly f'ed up. We got gays=pedos and gender-integrated troops becoming sex parties in here. Very odd.

We're talking hormonal teenagers in the woods. What else is to be expected?

[Torie]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

So you are anti-love?

In all seriousness gender integrated scouting troops (and patrols) work just fine. Lots of countries have them.

Not anti-love but boys and girls are stupid at our age and most boys in my troop talk about their girlfriend and how they've done it with her. It also sets a bad example on younger scouts. Bottom line they shouldn't be allowed to sleep near each other on a camp out.

I don't want to sound facetious, but why does it matter? Like, who cares? Most people lose their virginity in their teens, so why does it matter if they lose it while wearing a sash with loads of badges on it?

They are minors. Lawsuits baby. Case closed. Next!

[politicus]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

So you are anti-love?

In all seriousness gender integrated scouting troops (and patrols) work just fine. Lots of countries have them.

Not anti-love but boys and girls are stupid at our age and most boys in my troop talk about their girlfriend and how they've done it with her. It also sets a bad example on younger scouts. Bottom line they shouldn't be allowed to sleep near each other on a camp out.

I don't want to sound facetious, but why does it matter? Like, who cares? Most people lose their virginity in their teens, so why does it matter if they lose it while wearing a sash with loads of badges on it?

They are minors. Lawsuits baby. Case closed. Next!

16-18 year olds are not in a large number of states.

[Classic Conservative]

13-18 year old boys 13-18 year old girls a little love might happen.

So you are anti-love?

In all seriousness gender integrated scouting troops (and patrols) work just fine. Lots of countries have them.

Not anti-love but boys and girls are stupid at our age and most boys in my troop talk about their girlfriend and how they've done it with her. It also sets a bad example on younger scouts. Bottom line they shouldn't be allowed to sleep near each other on a camp out.

I don't want to sound facetious, but why does it matter? Like, who cares? Most people lose their virginity in their teens, so why does it matter if they lose it while wearing a sash with loads of badges on it?

They are minors. Lawsuits baby. Case closed. Next!

16-18 year olds are not in a large number of states.

What about ages 12-15 and yes boys get girls pregnant at that age.

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

As an Eagle Scout, I am pleased to hear this! However, we still need to have a conversation about the restrictions on the non-religious and about dropping the B from BSA.

If they dropped the B I'm out.

Separating based on gender is an antiquated concept and one that is being abandoned internationally. Two separate scouting organizations is unnecessary, inefficient, and the BSA is all too often dragging its feel into the ground whereas the GSA is much more inline with social values and embracing change. There is not one good reason to keep the organizations separated.

If you were to leave because the resources of the BSA were to no longer be an all boy's club, the organization would be a lot better off without you.  

So what if it is an "antiquated" concept?  That doesn't mean it isn't a good one.  There is room enough in this world for both organizations which are gender specific, and those which are gender integrated.  Whether you like it or not, male and female are still important social categories with often different developmental needs.

Developmental needs are relatively minimal, and can be easily dealt with outside the program.

There are two main issues with keeping the organizations separate. The first is that doing so reinforces traditional gender roles and the gender binary (never mind the rampant trans phobia present in the BSA). Keeping a separation based on gender also leads to problematic group think; an all male troop is unlikely to have a serious check on internal misogyny. The main criticism voiced by Classic Conservative seems to be that boys and girls will want to just sleep with each other; I guess we'll just have to separate boys and girls on church retreats or in schools because they might hook up? International scouting organizations don't have a problem with this, neither does Venture Scouting, nor did the national jamboree when they allowed female scouts to come for the first time.

The second issue is one of institutional capability. The two organizations are separate but unequal. BSA has a disproportionate amount of money, assets, and political capital whereas the GSA does not, and suffers for it. Conversely, the GSA is much better at dealing with the social reality of a changing America wrt LBGT and non-Christian scouts, whereas the BSA, despite recent movements, is still rampantly homophobic and Christian. Merging the organizations helps correct for the unique issues of each while creating greater opportunities for all scouts.

Well this thread has certainly demonstrated to me that most people's view on human nature is certainly f'ed up. We got gays=pedos and gender-integrated troops becoming sex parties in here. Very odd.

Indeed, the views expressed against gender-integration here are quite off the mark compared to what actually occurs.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Developmental needs are relatively minimal, and can be easily dealt with outside the program.

Uh, what?  Boy Scouts is all about boy's development.  The needs of boys to learn how to be boys and men in successful and healthy ways are not "minimal."   If they don't get it at Boy Scouts, they will try to find it somewhere else.  Because it is a basic social need.

Interaction with girls will happen outside the program, won't it? 

[Negusa Nagast 🚀]

Developmental needs are relatively minimal, and can be easily dealt with outside the program.

Uh, what?  Boy Scouts is all about boy's development.  The needs of boys to learn how to be boys and men in successful and healthy ways are not "minimal."   If they don't get it at Boy Scouts, they will try to find it somewhere else.  Because it is a basic social need.

Interaction with girls will happen outside the program, won't it? 

Thanks for proving my first point: the development a Boy Scout undergoes and the skills learned are not unique to males in the slightest. That we should be inculcating boys and girls into mutually exclusive gender roles is fundamentally wrong. Creating an all male echo chamber that is far less likely to check on misogyny or homophobia (both large problems in the SQ) than an integrated program is not how we make boys be better men.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The second issue is one of institutional capability. The two organizations are separate but unequal. BSA has a disproportionate amount of money, assets, and political capital whereas the GSA does not, and suffers for it. Conversely, the GSA is much better at dealing with the social reality of a changing America wrt LBGT and non-Christian scouts, whereas the BSA, despite recent movements, is still rampantly homophobic and Christian. Merging the organizations helps correct for the unique issues of each while creating greater opportunities for all scouts.

The fact that the two are unequal is actually an argument against a merger. It may also be well and good in theory, but in practice such mergers rarely go well. The Unitarian Universalist merger is a prime example. I am not a Unitarian dammit! I'm a Universalist who is a member of a UU church.

[Simfan34]

Developmental needs are relatively minimal, and can be easily dealt with outside the program.

Uh, what?  Boy Scouts is all about boy's development.  The needs of boys to learn how to be boys and men in successful and healthy ways are not "minimal."   If they don't get it at Boy Scouts, they will try to find it somewhere else.  Because it is a basic social need.

Interaction with girls will happen outside the program, won't it? 

Thanks for proving my first point: the development a Boy Scout undergoes and the skills learned are not unique to males in the slightest. That we should be inculcating boys and girls into mutually exclusive gender roles is fundamentally wrong. Creating an all male echo chamber that is far less likely to check on misogyny or homophobia (both large problems in the SQ) than an integrated program is not how we make boys be better men.

My confusion as to how an all-male organisation is any more likely to be homophobic than a mixed-gender one aside, I can only respond by again pointing out the existence of the Girl Scouts, which has a substantial programmatic overlap with the Boy Scouts. The point about funding is superfluous; the idea of treating the two groups as if they were segregated education systems that need to be consolidated to ensure some kind of equality borders on the absurd. The two are separate organisations, talk of "proportionality" is a nonsequitur, as if one's prosperity (a word I don't think many would throw around in reference to the BSA in the first place) was coming at the expense of the other.

Let me say it again: Scouting does not exclude women. If you were to insist on a mixed-gender group, there even is Venturing. If that does not satisfy you still, there are a whole bevy of breakaway and Scouting-like groups for you to choose from. Perhaps the Unitarian Universalist scouts, whatever they are called, might suit you.

As for the religious requirement, the development of spirituality is part of Scouting's mission, as laid out by Baden-Powell. It is part of its purpose. To take that out would be to change the nature of Scouting.

The purpose of the Boy Scouts is not to act as some "social justice" pressure group. Again, if that is what one is looking for, there are options. There seems to be a tendency amongst "social justice" types to assume that when a potential platform exists, there is an obligation of sorts to use that platform to advance "social justice" (as they define it), regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with why that platform is there in the first place.

This is what I'm mildly getting from some of the comments here: since the Boy Scouts could allow girls to join, or it could openly allow non-religious people as members, or it could fight "misogyny or homophobia", it should or even must do those things. It reminds me of when someone asked what the College Republicans were doing to "fight rape culture" at one of our meetings. While we gave them some kind answer, after the meeting we were all quick to observe that we weren't really doing anything because that was not the point of the group. The Boy Scouts obviously should not spread misogyny or homophobia, but it doesn't exist to combat them in particular, either, beyond aiming instilling a moral compass in its members.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Let me say it again: Scouting does not exclude women. If you were to insist on a mixed-gender group, there even is Venturing. If that does not satisfy you still, there are a whole bevy of breakaway and Scouting-like groups for you to choose from. Perhaps the Unitarian Universalist scouts, whatever they are called, might suit you.

As for the religious requirement, the development of spirituality is part of Scouting's mission, as laid out by Baden-Powell. It is part of its purpose. To take that out would be to change the nature of Scouting.

There's the Unitarian Universalist Scouting Organization, but it's not a breakaway group. It exists to administer the UU's religious award for the BSA and to encourage and assist UU congregations in sponsoring troops.

[7,052,770]

It needs to be pointed out that the Scouts are NOT a Christian organization. There are troops affiliated with synagogues, mosques, Hindu temples, etc.

One of the badges you can earn is a religious knot, which you get by completing a bunch of requirements based on your religion and denomination. I got parvuli dei, which is for Catholics. Here is the complete list. It includes Judaism, Islam, Bahai, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, etc.