Bsa Considering Ending Ban On Homosexuals

[Buckeye]

NBC News reports that BSA "is actively considering an end to its decades-long policy of banning gay scouts or scout leaders, according to scouting officials and outsiders familiar with internal discussions."

Apparently this is happening now. "The discussion of a potential change in policy is nearing its final stages, according to outside scouting supporters. If approved, the change could be announced as early as next week, after the BSA's national board holds a regularly scheduled meeting."

The LDS church will still be allowed to set its own standards (though church policies have actually been less stringent than BSA's in allowing for gay members to serve in scouts so long as they are celibate): "The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs,” he said.

Also relevant to many threads on this board, the possible change of policy is a reflection of bottom-up discourse: "... a scouting official said, local chapters have been urging a reconsideration [of the BSA policy]. "We're a grassroots organization. This is a response to what's happening at the local level," the official said"

http://usnews.nbcnew...rs-leaders?lite

[BlueDreams]

Good. I hope they do it.

With luv,

BD

[DH]

(Crossing my fingers...)

[Rob Osborn]

Being forced into a no win situation. I dont see why BSA doesnt just keep the same standard in place they have always had. Must every organization be swayed to the lack of principle that Sodom and Gomorrah had?

[Buckeye]

Sodom/Gomorrah's failings were pride, gluttony, and refusing to care for the poor and needy. Sorry, but I have not seen much of that in the BSA at all.

[Rob Osborn]

You have to have principle in society- good moral principle. Sodom and Gomorrah failed because of its lack of good moral principle. It happens one step at a time.

[Scott Lloyd]

The LDS church will still be allowed to set its own standards (though church policies have actually been less stringent than BSA's in allowing for gay members to serve in scouts so long as they are celibate): "The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization’s mission, principles or religious beliefs,” he said.

Given the slippery slope that society has been on for not a very long period of time, I think it's only a matter of time before the national BSA starts telling LDS-sponsored units that they have to allow gay volunteers to serve whether they are celibate or not.

I've felt for some time that the Church could design and run its own activity program for boys in a more efficient and cost-effective manner than Scouting as it is currently administered. It would seem now is as good a time as any for the Church to cut ties with BSA and proceed on its own.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Sodom/Gomorrah's failings were pride, gluttony, and refusing to care for the poor and needy.

And sexual depravity. Consider the etymology of the word sodomy.

[Rob Osborn]

By allowing leaders who are openly gay/ homosexual, it sends the message to the young and very impressionable boys that it is ok to be gay. Not only that issue but it wouldnt be right to have leaders who are openly gay in close contact with young boys who have raging hormones. Its all just wrong, wrong, wrong! The myriad of problems this would have. BSA would have a lot more problems to deal with and lawsuits stacking up against it. Not to mention Gods indignation for allowing such principle to take place.

I don't have a problem with people who have same sex attraction who don't act on those feelings. That is not the issue at hand with BSA's decision. Their decision is about allowing openly gay people who are not morally clean to be a part of their organization. That is wrong.

[Buzzard]

Didn't they just do a comprehensive review on this a year or two ago and decide not to make a change? I'd be surprised if they did an about face so quickly. And for the record, I hope they don't change. Doesn't make them or me a bigot.

[Buckeye]

I have three boys in scouts in our ward. I would be happy to have gay leaders or gay scouts in their unit. My boys have had gay teachers at their public school. They have made friends with children who have gay parents. And their contact with gays will only increase as they mature. This is just another way for them to gain experience in this life so that they can judge good from evil. I see no reason to keep them away from these good people.

Also, as a man, I am poignantly aware of society's tendancy to label an entire group as suspect pedophiles because of the bad actions of a few. I will not heap that injustice on gays.

EDIT: Buzzard - the BSA review you are thinking of ended 7 months ago. This is quite a quick turn around.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Buckeye

[go_utes01]

I have three boys in scouts in our ward. I would be happy to have gay leaders or gay scouts in their unit. My boys have had gay teachers at their public school. They have made friends with children who have gay parents. And their contact with gays will only increase as they mature. This is just another way for them to gain experience in this life so that they can judge good from evil. I see no reason to keep them away from these good people.

Also, as a man, I am poignantly aware of society's tendancy to label an entire group as suspect pedophiles because of the bad actions of a few. I will not heap that injustice on gays.

EDIT: Buzzard - the BSA review you are thinking of ended 7 months ago. This is quite a quick turn around.

Just curious, would you feel comfortable with male Girl Scout leaders, especially on over-night camp outs?

[rongo]

Are we sure that this is for practicing homosexuals, or for allowing men and boys with SSA only?

[halconero]

By allowing leaders who are openly gay/ homosexual, it sends the message to the young and very impressionable boys that it is ok to be gay. Not only that issue but it wouldnt be right to have leaders who are openly gay in close contact with young boys who have raging hormones. Its all just wrong, wrong, wrong! The myriad of problems this would have. BSA would have a lot more problems to deal with and lawsuits stacking up against it. Not to mention Gods indignation for allowing such principle to take place.

I don't have a problem with people who have same sex attraction who don't act on those feelings. That is not the issue at hand with BSA's decision. Their decision is about allowing openly gay people who are not morally clean to be a part of their organization. That is wrong.

1) It is okay to be gay

2) It would be inappropriate for a heterosexual scout leader to flaunt his sex life in front of the scouts. I don't imagine the standard being any different for gay leaders.

[Buzzard]

Just curious, would you feel comfortable with male Girl Scout leaders, especially on over-night camp outs?

I know the Girl Scouts don't-When our daughter was in the GS, no leaders were male (A lot of BSA troops have female leadership, but not LDS troops), and one campout where parents could come, the three men were on an outdoor porch behind a locked door separated from the females inside the heated lodge.

BTW, BSA leaders cannot share a restroom or changing facilities with boys. Would sexually active gay Boy Scouts be separated from the others? This really would be a can of worms, and the more I think about it, the less I like it. They say that chartering organizations do not have to change their stance, but what about at BSA summer camps, where troops from LDS, other religions, and secular organizations are all grouped together? Would sexually active gay couples be allowed on staff? Would they bunk together? Noooo, I like this less and less.

[Scott Lloyd]

Are we sure that this is for practicing homosexuals, or for allowing men and boys with SSA only?

As I understand it, each individual unit would make that determination on its own.

[Buckeye]

Just curious, would you feel comfortable with male Girl Scout leaders, especially on over-night camp outs?

I'm not very familiar with girl scout procedures, but assuming they do not allow leaders to sleep in the same tent as the youth, and assuming they practice something similar to two-deep leadership, I would not be concerned (safety wise) with male leaders overseeing my daughters. When my girls join YW they will be intereviewed alone by a male priesthood holder several times a year. I have no problem with that church procedure either (safety wise), though I would also welcome interviews by female priesthood leaders should that become possible.

That said, I do see a benefit from having some gender segregated activities - provided that the same opportunities are available for both genders - and so I would prefer for girl scouts to have female leaders.

[Scott Lloyd]

They say that chartering organizations do not have to change their stance, but what about at BSA summer camps, where troops from LDS, other religions, and secular organizations are all grouped together?

Or national jamborees and the like.

[Buckeye]

Hey Scott, do you know if DN is going to run an article on this BSA policy change (assuming it happens)? It seems DN has stayed out of recent culture issues such as women/pants and women praying in conference.

[rongo]

As I understand it, each individual unit would make that determination on its own.

That wouldn't really change things much within the Church, then. I'm sure the Church would continue to maintain a low profile as far as overtly barring gay but celibate men/boys to serve in Scout callings or be in troops. Many of us know men/boys in this category, and they are allowed to serve in calliings and participate in Scouts.

I would be shocked if the Church commented on this at all, and it doesn't seem like a big deal to me UNLESS this change means sexually active gay men and boys. THAT would make the Scout oath nothing but a joke.

[Tacenda]

Just curious, would you feel comfortable with male Girl Scout leaders, especially on over-night camp outs?

No disrespect but this isn't a relative comparison, doesn't seem to even belong.

[rockpond]

As Buzzard and Buckeye noted, the BSA did just complete a lengthy internal review on their policy with respect to homosexual exclusion. And their decision was to continue as before. It does seem surprising that they would do an about face so quickly. Though, I would be in support of such an action.

I wonder if the LDS leadership put some pressure on the BSA. Our church policy of allowing openly homosexual (and celibate) individuals full fellowship within the church stood in contrast to the BSA policy (which, to the best of my knowledge, did not make a distinction between being "out" and not being celibate).

We were, in essence, breaking BSA rules each year when we registered gay young men as scouts (something I know that my ward did).

Given the slippery slope that society has been on for not a very long period of time, I think it's only a matter of time before the national BSA starts telling LDS-sponsored units that they have to allow gay volunteers to serve whether they are celibate or not.

I've felt for some time that the Church could design and run its own activity program for boys in a more efficient and cost-effective manner than Scouting as it is currently administered. It would seem now is as good a time as any for the Church to cut ties with BSA and proceed on its own.

National BSA could conceivably tell the church that they have to allow non-celibate gay volunteers within our ranks but I'm not sure how they'd enforce that since we "call" all of our leaders. We don't necessarily request volunteers and take whoever comes along.

But, I completely agree with your second sentiment: I'd love to see the church strike out on their own. Use the Faith in God and Duty to God programs and build around those. As much as I love scouting (and have loved all my scout related callings) I think the attention-dividing effect of pushing our young men through both the faith-based programs and the scout-based programs is tough on parents & leaders.

Edited January 28, 2013 by rockpond

[Tacenda]

By allowing leaders who are openly gay/ homosexual, it sends the message to the young and very impressionable boys that it is ok to be gay. Not only that issue but it wouldnt be right to have leaders who are openly gay in close contact with young boys who have raging hormones. Its all just wrong, wrong, wrong! The myriad of problems this would have. BSA would have a lot more problems to deal with and lawsuits stacking up against it. Not to mention Gods indignation for allowing such principle to take place.

I don't have a problem with people who have same sex attraction who don't act on those feelings. That is not the issue at hand with BSA's decision. Their decision is about allowing openly gay people who are not morally clean to be a part of their organization. That is wrong.

Wrong, wrong, wrong It is ok if they were born that way they just can't act on it or they will face church discipline. Oops, I see where you added that at the bottom. But who's to say a staight person is morally clean? Edited January 28, 2013 by Tacenda

[rongo]

But, I completely agree with your second sentiment: I'd love to see the church strike out on their own. Use the Faith in God and Duty to God programs and build around those.

I don't think this will ever happen while President Monson is alive. I don't think he can bring himself to be "the one who pulled the plug on BSA." Can you imagine what would happen to BSA financially without the FOS and chartering money from the LDS units (not to mention the leadership and influence from within LDS Scouters ---- way disproportionate to our numbers)?

My father-in-law and mother-in-law were both Silver Beavers with a lifetime of dedication to Scouting (this caused heavy resentment for my wife, who never had her dad on daddy/daughter nights, or many other things because he was doing Scouting). He held the highest position you can hold without being paid (he was over several stakes in the Salt Lake area), and he told me that the Church already has a contingency plan for the Untergang of Scouting: the Catholic, Methodist, and LDS churches would sever ties and have their own program, which would closely resemble Scouting but would have no ties whatsoever to BSA. This is a little disappointing to me (if true), because I'm also in favor of doing our own Church program and not a knock-off.

Or no Scouting-esque program at all, and we simply do young men's activities with clear purposes in mind and the ingenuity and creativity of our leaders.

[Buckeye]

We were, in essence, breaking BSA rules each year when we registered gay young men as scouts (something I know that my ward did).

Technically, this would depend on the council. Many councils, including mine, have a "dont ask don't tell" policy. This allows LDS units to register celibate gay youth and even leaders, provided that we don't inform the council. I never liked this policy because it feels contrary to the scouting spirit (and the real spirit), but it means we were never in violation of BSA policy.

FWIW, I once asked my council rep what would happen if the council somehow found out about a gay scout or leader in our unit and they replied "if it's ok with the unit, we will never take an action against the indiviual." The policy change discussed in today's article seems to be an extension of that thinking. Let the local units decide what is "morally straight". Get the national program - which is mostly fundraising - out of the picture.