Bsa Battle Update: Corporate Support Driving The Gay Agenda

[BCSpace]

AT&T chief 'playing both sides' in Scout controversy

Century-old organization prepares for vote on its 'gay' policy

As the Boys Scouts of America prepares to release details of a controversial policy proposal on homosexuals ahead of a vote next month, some members and activist groups are urging the iconic organization to preserve its traditional values by ending a reliance on corporate donations.

Ties to a corporate world that has largely accommodated the gay-rights agenda have brought the Scouts to the point of voting on whether they should abandon their century-old policy of forbidding members who openly declare they are homosexual, argues Randy Sharp, director of special projects for the American Family Association.

Sharp’s group is mobilizing supporters to urge Boy Scouts executive board member Randall Stephenson, the CEO of AT&T, to resign.

Stephenson, who is said to be positioned to become the BSA executive board’s chairman next year, has been praised along with Ernst & Young CEO James Turley for publicly opposing the Scouts’ membership policy and vowing to work from within to change it.

“This is a man who’s trying to play both sides of the fence, and we think that he doesn’t have the best interest of the Boy Scouts in mind,” Sharp told WND.

Sharp said that at the beginning of the week, AFA counted 175,976 petition signatures urging Stephenson to resign. In addition, hundreds have followed AFA’s suggestion to post messages on AT&T’s Facebook page. Also, thousands of post cards with the same message to Stephenson have been mailed to AFA’s office. They will be delivered to AT&T headquarters in Dallas.

Sharp, a former scoutmaster himself, contends Stephenson has a conflict of interest as the head of a corporation that has fully embraced the gay-rights agenda.

“You’ve got two entities here. You’ve got an organization, and then you have a company, and their two philosophies on homosexuality are diametrically opposed to each other,” Sharp said. “One honors God and the other honors man.”

Stephenson declined WND’s request for an interview.

In a CNBC feature one year ago, Stephenson was noted for leading AT&T’s adoption of the gay-rights agenda.

“Diversity and inclusion are part of AT&T’s culture and operations,” Stephenson said at the time. “We don’t agree with every policy of every organization we support, nor would we expect them to agree with us on everything. Our belief is that change at any organization must come from within to be successful and sustainable.”

Sharp believes AT&T’s decision to cut funding to the BSA illustrates Stephenson’s personal conflict of interest, arguing board members should lead in a way that exemplifies the Scouts’ values.

On Monday, the BSA’s executive board is expected to release a proposal to change the current membership policy. The proposal will be put before the Scouts’ 1,400-member National Council for a vote May 23.

The executive board could have made the decision at its meeting in February but decided to delay it until May amid strong opposition voiced by its national membership. The board said that after “careful consideration and extensive dialogue,” it “concluded that due to the complexity of this issue, the organization needs time for a more deliberate review of its membership policy.”

Next month, it won’t be the national executive board – comprised of many prominent corporate CEOs – making the decision but rather the BSA National Council, made up of the regional and local Scout leaders.

“These are really the backbone of the BSA,” Sharp said. “These are the people from communities all across America who work hand-in-hand with the young men in scouting. They are not these CEOs and corporate board-room executives who are detached from what Boy Scouts really are.”

Sharp said the council members “are the guys that do the backpacking and pitch the tents and do the outdoor cooking and build the fires and teach the boys.”

“So they understand the danger of having open and avowed homosexuals on campouts with little boys,” he said.

Some argue that Stephenson has every right to press for change from within, because the Scouts are merely acknowledging significant changes in the way society views homosexuality.

Sharp pointed out, however, that last July, after a thorough two-year study, an 11-member committee of professional scout executives and adult volunteers unanimously concluded the policy should be maintained. The BSA executive committee announced that while not all board members “may personally agree with this policy, and may choose a different direction for their own organizations, BSA leadership agrees this is the best policy for the organization and supports it for the BSA.”

One decade ago, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of the Scout organization to exclude homosexuals, because the behavior violated the core values of the private organization.

Sharp further argued that Stephenson and Turley are the ones who helped drive the proposal.

“These two men have stated that they are working to change the policy,” he noted.

“The best thing for Mr. Stephenson to do,” Sharp said, “is just retire from the board and say, ‘You know, I don’t agree with the Boy Scouts. My company doesn’t agree with the Boy Scouts. I’m just going to resign my position.’”

As long as Stephenson is within the Boy Scouts, Sharp said, “it’s going to cause a disruption within the organization.”

Diane Gramley, president of the AFA of Pennsylvania, said corporations and heads of corporations need to decide if it is more important “to make less than 5 percent of the U.S. population happy by bowing to the bullying of organizations such as the (gay-rights) Human Rights Campaign or to listen to the voices of the majority of Americans.”

The Family Research Council is also wielding its considerable influence, working directly with scouting parents, scoutmasters and leaders of the faith-based organizations that charter over two-thirds of the packs to help maintain the policy.

Corporate influence

Sharp believes the Scouts would be wise to wean themselves from a financial dependency on corporate donations that has led to putting corporate officers on the board.

“That was well and fine in the ’50s, 60s, 70s and 80s, because these CEOs were men of great moral character,” Sharp explained. “They espoused the values of the Boy Scouts of America. But we’re seeing a climate change in corporate America to where these officers no longer always align with the values of the Boy Scouting.”

Corporate donations largely go to the National Council, which uses the money to provide materials and support for local councils.

Now, he said, is the opportune time to say, “We’re not going to be influenced by corporate America. We need to continue with our value system and stand on our own two feet.”

Sharp said he would be willing to pay a higher fee for membership if it would help the Scouts “get away from these big corporate donations” and become more independent.

“Self-reliance is a value in itself that the Boy Scouts can espouse,” he said.

Homosexuals already in Scouting

As WND reported, a coalition of Eagle Scouts, Scoutmasters and parents have launched a new organization to maintain the current policy and “keep sex and politics out of the BSA.”

The OnMyHonor.Net coalition argues the BSA already “allows anyone to participate, regardless of sexual orientation,” though it forbids “open and aggressive promotion of homosexuality and political agendas.”

John Stemberger, Eagle Scout, former scoutmaster and founder of the coalition contends the current policy is “time-tested and fair, allowing anyone to participate irrespective of sexual orientation.”

“There are currently scouts, Eagle Scouts and scout leaders in uniform with same-sex attractions yet who are in good standing with the program,” he explained.

“This change in policy would transform the BSA into yet another battle ground for the gay agenda.”

He said “sex and politics have no place in scouting.”

“When it comes to sexual behavior modeled before young boys, some as young as 6 and 7 years of age, parents have the final say, not agenda-driven activists.”

As WND reported, some Scout leaders have said a decision to change the policy will prompt many at all levels of the organization to quit. A fourth-generation Scout leader – a recipient of an award for distinguished leadership and a member of the Southern Region committee as well as an ad hoc member of the national committee – said he’s one of many Scout leaders who will not continue with the organization if the policy is changed.

The BSA’s new policy proposal, as WND reported, coincides with a sudden drop in major corporate funding that began last summer after a “gay”-rights blogger for the Huffington Post published a collaborative report that named the donors and chastised them for violating their own policy of not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Scouts count more than 2.7 million members and more than 1 million volunteers. The Scout troops, which are hosted by churches and other organizations, are organized into districts, based on geographic boundaries, which in turn are grouped into councils. The councils form 26 areas nationwide, which are further grouped into four regions. The BSA national council sets policy, offers national awards and organizes national jamborees.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/att-chief-playing-both-sides-in-scout-controversy/

[Calm]

Corporate Support Driving The Gay Agenda

Don't you mean the reverse? "The Gay Agenda Driving Corporate Support"?

[BCSpace]

Don't you mean the reverse? "The Gay Agenda Driving Corporate Support"?

No, I didn't mean that. But sure, I think that would also be a fair description depending on how you look at it.

[Calm]

No, I didn't mean that. But sure, I think that would also be a fair description depending on how you look at it.

So you think the "gay agenda" would be different if they didn't have the corporate support?

[rockpond]

I feel like I'm missing a piece of the story here... What has or is AT&T doing to drive the gay agenda under Stephenson's leadership? (Aside from Stephenson's role on the BSA board.)

Also, did I understand the article correctly that when the National Executive Board pushed the decision from February to May that it also moved it to the National Council? Because it seems like letting them make the decision certainly changes the dynamics of the situation.

[Daniel2]

Reuter's reports today:

Boy Scouts propose lifting ban on gays, but only for youth

By Atossa Araxia Abrahamian

NEW YORK | Fri Apr 19, 2013 1:03pm EDT

By Atossa Araxia Abrahamian

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Boy Scouts of America on Friday moved to partially lift its long-standing ban on gays, with a decision that would allow openly gay youth members but continue to bar gay adults in one of the largest youth serving organizations in America.

If the resolution is approved in a nationwide vote in May, "no youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone," Deron Smith, the organization's spokesman, told Reuters.

The report found religious groups linked to the Scouts were concerned with homosexual adult leaders not with youth and concluded "a change in the membership policy specific to youth only would be consistent with the religious beliefs of the BSA's major chartered organizations."

Gay rights groups want the ban lifted for youth and adults and the proposal immediately drew criticism.

"By refusing to consider an end to its ban on gay and lesbian parents, the Boy Scouts have missed an opportunity to exercise leadership and usher the organization back to relevancy," said Rich Ferraro, Vice President of Communications at GLAAD, which promotes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights.

The resolution is the result of a study Smith called "the most comprehensive listening exercise in the history of Scouting" that found parents in three of four U.S. regions opposed the current membership policy.

While the issue remains divisive, "parents, adults in the Scouting community, and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting," concluded the study, which surveyed members, parents, religious groups and local councils.

"The Boy Scouts did not have an easy task and they decided that it does not make business sense to go forward with a policy that's being left in the dustbin of history," said Patrick Boyle, whose 1994 book "Scout's Honor" examined sexual abuse in the Boy Scouts of America.

"It wasn't very long ago that these guys stood before the Supreme Court and said that denying gays membership was a fundamental cornerstone belief of their organization," Boyle added, citing a 2000 Supreme Court ruling that granted the Boy Scouts the right to uphold their membership policy.

The BSA's decision comes amidst larger shifts in gay rights legislation in the United States. In the coming months, the Supreme Court will rule on whether to strike down parts of a federal law that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman, and in 2011, a law that barred openly gay individuals from serving in the military was repealed.

Though it is unlikely to put the debate to rest, the BSA's vote in May will conclude months of public and internal debates that divided the youth group's organizers, polarized its corporate and religious sponsors, and placed the organization at the center of a nationwide debate over gay rights.

Chuck Small, a BSA adult leader and the parent of 10- and 12-year-old scouts in South Carolina, welcomed the latest change.

"It's a hard and divisive issue, but what it comes down to is that we learn more from people who are different from us than people who are like us," Small said.

"I want my boys to have that opportunity to learn from as many people as possible."

(Reporting By Atossa Araxia Abrahamian; Additional reporting by Chris Francescani; Editing by Vicki Allen and Andrew Hay)

This compromise appears to send mixed messages all around, and doesn't seem to me like a solution for the scouts that could last long. It creates a lot of problems.

For example, what happens when gay scouts get achieve the rank of Eagle, and want to continue to serve in their troops...? Are they automatically dis-enfranchised from their troops? One day they prove their dedication by achieving the highest rank possible and they're "in," and the next day they're "out"...?

Daniel2

[RobertAC]

At this point, I think the BSA is getting the message that controversy is harming more than helping the organization, regardless of who is sponsoring the troops:

"We believe the BSA can no longer sacrifice its mission, or the youth served by the movement, by allowing the organization to be consumed by a single, controversial, and unresolved societal issue," national president Wayne Perry said in a statement announcing the proposal.

[BCSpace]

Aside from Stephenson's role on the BSA board.

That's exactly the point. Corporate capitulation is the atmosphere that is driving this, both in Stephenson and Turley agitating on the inside as well as reliance on corporate funding from the outside.

[rockpond]

That's exactly the point. Corporate capitulation is the atmosphere that is driving this, both in Stephenson and Turley agitating on the inside as well as reliance on corporate funding from the outside.

Corporate capitulation?

The article you quote in your OP said "...Stephenson has a conflict of interest as the head of a corporation that has fully embraced the gay-rights agenda."

How has Stephenson and/or the corporation he heads "embraced the gay-rights agenda"?

[Daniel2]

That's exactly the point. Corporate capitulation is the atmosphere that is driving this, both in Stephenson and Turley agitating on the inside as well as reliance on corporate funding from the outside.

The recently-released summary of the Boy Scout Executive Council's own internal investigation and membership polling doesn't support your theory that "corporate capitulation" is responsible for the current BSA situation.

Rather, it shows a cultural shift that's reflective of society's changed attitude towards gays and lesbians:

http://1.bp.blogspot...600/bsadoc2.jpg

As the BSA's own results show, when it comes to gay scouts, the world is a more tolerant place today than it was just three years ago.

Daniel2

[california boy]

Don't most countries allow gay boys and leaders to be involved in scouting? Has there been big problems in scoutng over this in Calada or the UK on this issue? Why is it so much different in the U.S. other than the religious right have made it an issue.

[RobertAC]

Don't most countries allow gay boys and leaders to be involved in scouting? Has there been big problems in scoutng over this in Calada or the UK on this issue? Why is it so much different in the U.S. other than the religious right have made it an issue.

It's different because the BSA has never done it before. It painted itself into a corner three decades ago, and now it is trying to change itself. A number of youth organizations, including Girl Scouts, have no prohibitions based on sexual orientation -- and they never have.

Of course, you never know what those girls are going to do all alone inside of a tent with each other.

[Scott Lloyd]

It would probably help shield BSA from political pressure on this and other matters if they could wean themselves away from corporate sponsorship.

However, the organization has grown so expensive and top-heavy, with highly-paid executives and costly infrastructure, I'm not persuaded they could make up for lost funding and continue on without drastic changes in how they do things.

[Storm Rider]

I don't see the benefit of the organization forfeiting their moral stance to win the support of donors. Individuals will either support the BSA or not. If they don't believe in the organization and what it stands for, then take their money and spend it elsewhere as they see fit. Those who support the standards of the BSA should continue to support it. That is pretty much end of the story and there is not a lot to discuss. If someone wants to join they BSA, they should do so with the full understanding of its standards. If they demand that the BSA change to accommodate their own standard, they should be encouraged to found their own organization with their own standards and shown the door with a good pat on the back for standing up for their own standards while at the same time standing firm on their own standards.

[rockpond]

I don't see the benefit of the organization forfeiting their moral stance to win the support of donors. Individuals will either support the BSA or not. If they don't believe in the organization and what it stands for, then take their money and spend it elsewhere as they see fit. Those who support the standards of the BSA should continue to support it. That is pretty much end of the story and there is not a lot to discuss. If someone wants to join they BSA, they should do so with the full understanding of its standards. If they demand that the BSA change to accommodate their own standard, they should be encouraged to found their own organization with their own standards and shown the door with a good pat on the back for standing up for their own standards while at the same time standing firm on their own standards.

I agree that the BSA has every right to choose it's standards and stick to them. I would hate to see them forced to change this or any other policy through judicial or legislative means.

But, the problem I see with your argument is that you seemingly make the case that the BSA organization exists separate and apart from the donors & members. In my opinion, the donors & members ARE the organization. If those donors & members are asking for a change in policy than it is incumbent upon the organization to evaluate the request.

Then again, it seemed like they had done that with their study that concluded in the summer of 2012. At that point, it appeared that they were "showing the door" to the donors/members who wanted a reversal of the policy. They surprised me earlier this year when they started talking about changing the policy again... it may be that they saw their organization falling apart as too many donors headed for the exit.

[Storm Rider]

I agree that the BSA has every right to choose it's standards and stick to them. I would hate to see them forced to change this or any other policy through judicial or legislative means.

But, the problem I see with your argument is that you seemingly make the case that the BSA organization exists separate and apart from the donors & members. In my opinion, the donors & members ARE the organization. If those donors & members are asking for a change in policy than it is incumbent upon the organization to evaluate the request.

Then again, it seemed like they had done that with their study that concluded in the summer of 2012. At that point, it appeared that they were "showing the door" to the donors/members who wanted a reversal of the policy. They surprised me earlier this year when they started talking about changing the policy again... it may be that they saw their organization falling apart as too many donors headed for the exit.

That is not accurate. A standard exists separate from those who follow. The standard leads, guides, directs, and inspires those who follow. Simply because a previous follower wants to raise another standard does not mean the standard should be changed. What it means is that this new, conflicting standard should stand on its own two feet. If people want a gay scout troop, then form it, create it, hold that standard high so that everyone that is attracted to that will come to it. Invite everyone that no longer is interested in the Standard raised by the BSA to follow their new standard. Should the BSA change their policy I suspect that those who refuse to follow the change will simply remain committed to the original standard and continue to follow what always has been. The organization may not be as large, it may not be as wealthy, BUT it will meets the standards of those who follow. It will fulfill its purpose; it will remain faithful to standards that have meaning and not blown about by every new whim that a social elite claim is an important fad.

[rockpond]

That is not accurate. A standard exists separate from those who follow.

This membership policy was not put in place by Lord Baden Powell. It was put in place by those who followed.

The standard leads, guides, directs, and inspires those who follow.

Are we talking about the same thing? Because I believe that all that is being considered is the removal of the policy prohibiting open homosexuals. Is that membership policy what leads, guides, directs, and inspires because that was never my impression when I was in scouts.

Simply because a previous follower wants to raise another standard does not mean the standard should be changed. What it means is that this new, conflicting standard should stand on its own two feet. If people want a gay scout troop, then form it, create it, hold that standard high so that everyone that is attracted to that will come to it. Invite everyone that no longer is interested in the Standard raised by the BSA to follow their new standard. Should the BSA change their policy I suspect that those who refuse to follow the change will simply remain committed to the original standard and continue to follow what always has been. The organization may not be as large, it may not be as wealthy, BUT it will meets the standards of those who follow. It will fulfill its purpose; it will remain faithful to standards that have meaning and not blown about by every new whim that a social elite claim is an important fad.

Is someone demanding a "gay scout troop"? Or just a scout troop that doesn't prohibit gays? I think there's a difference.

To be clear, I agree with you that no outside entity should force the BSA to change their membership policy. Where I think that you and I differ is that I see this change as being driven from the inside. Members, councils, donors, executive board members are asking for the change. Those members, councils, donors *are* the BSA and are following the system by which the BSA determines its policies.

I agree with you that a schism is likely to result after the May vote. Whichever way that vote goes, I hope that the BSA remains as strong as ever.

[KevinG]

Easy fix: The BSA forbids “open and aggressive promotion of homosexuality and political agendas.”

In 25 years as a Scout Leader I have never had cause to promote a particular political view or sexual preference to my boys. Even during discussions of chastity with priesthood boys. It just doesn't belong. If you want to be in, out or beside the closet of any sexual preference do it outside of your duties as a Scout leader including your public image. If that is more important to you then have the decency not to put yourself forward as a role model for Boy Scouts.

[rockpond]

Easy fix: The BSA forbids “open and aggressive promotion of homosexuality and political agendas.”

In 25 years as a Scout Leader I have never had cause to promote a particular political view or sexual preference to my boys. Even during discussions of chastity with priesthood boys. It just doesn't belong. If you want to be in, out or beside the closet of any sexual preference do it outside of your duties as a Scout leader including your public image. If that is more important to you then have the decency not to put yourself forward as a role model for Boy Scouts.

Interestingly, that is what some councils did in the early 2000's... They created local membership policies that allowed open homosexuals but they prohibited any discussion of sexual orientation.

[Daniel2]

Easy fix: The BSA forbids “open and aggressive promotion of homosexuality and political agendas.”

In 25 years as a Scout Leader I have never had cause to promote a particular political view or sexual preference to my boys. Even during discussions of chastity with priesthood boys. It just doesn't belong. If you want to be in, out or beside the closet of any sexual preference do it outside of your duties as a Scout leader including your public image. If that is more important to you then have the decency not to put yourself forward as a role model for Boy Scouts.

Saying "I'm gay" or "my husband and I went to the movies last week" or "I think it's important to communicate well with your spouse... My husband and I work hard to communicate really well together" or "I took my boyfriend to the best restaurant on our anniversary" or even wearing a wedding ring and reminiscing about your wedding/honeymoon/marriage don't promote "sexuality" or "politics," yet they acknowledge sexual orientation in the same normal, non-sexual, and emotionally healthy ways that heterosexuals unassumingly do, every day.

See the difference between "promoting/discussing sex/politics" vs. "being openly gay/straight"?

Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

Easy fix: The BSA forbids “open and aggressive promotion of homosexuality and political agendas.”

In 25 years as a Scout Leader I have never had cause to promote a particular political view or sexual preference to my boys. Even during discussions of chastity with priesthood boys. It just doesn't belong. If you want to be in, out or beside the closet of any sexual preference do it outside of your duties as a Scout leader including your public image. If that is more important to you then have the decency not to put yourself forward as a role model for Boy Scouts.

That neutral position is unacceptable to those seeking the change. It is unacceptable for the whole world to know exactly who is and who is not gay. More importantly, they demand that we accept them, their actions, their behaviors, everything because they are "normal". I reject this entire façade that is presented that this is just about civil rights and everyone is innocent and none of these poor people have done anything wrong and never will do anything wrong. Society just needs to grow up, become enlightened and understand that gay people, gay culture, and gay lifestyles are wonderful, healthy colors of the social rainbow of peace and love. It is farce and it is dishonest. Not a single one of these advocates wants to talk about the meaning of gay culture and what it does and does not support; all of that is swept under the rug and not civil person should discuss it; certainly not on this forum with some of our activists with the ability to ban participants. I wish it was simple enough to just say keep your sexuality to yourself, but that is rejected. They have a completely different agenda.

[Avatar4321]

Considering the Scout oath and law include promises to keep oneself moral & clean, how can the Scouts have people blatantly violate those promises in their rank? That's the one thing that's never made sense. We want to take an organization that is designed to teach young men values and instead teach to lie about ever following their promises or completely do away with those values.

It doesn't make sense. What's going to be the point of scoutting if it loses it's values? If the young men & leaders are willing to follow the values and keep the Scout law and the Scout Oath, then who cares who they are attracted to? If they are going to blatantly ignore those values, live contrary to them and openly encourage others to do likewise regardless of who they are attracted to, then why the heck should they be allowed in the Scouting program?

[KevinG]

Saying "I'm gay" or "my husband and I went to the movies last week" or "I think it's important to communicate well with your spouse... My husband and I work hard to communicate really well together" or "I took my boyfriend to the best restaurant on our anniversary" or even wearing a wedding ring and reminiscing about your wedding/honeymoon/marriage don't promote "sexuality" or "politics," yet they acknowledge sexual orientation in the same normal, non-sexual, and emotionally healthy ways that heterosexuals unassumingly do, every day.

See the difference between "promoting/discussing sex/politics" vs. "being openly gay/straight"?

Daniel2

Too many assumptions on your part. I absolutely know the difference.

It has nothing to do with wanting to keep discussions about sexuality with "parents, doctors and religious leaders" (as the 1960's handbook directed).

Yes you can make observations and assumptions about someone based on passing discussions and symbols like wedding rings, but that does not qualify as "openly" anything in my book. Bottom line discussion of sexuality does not belong in Scouts - it belongs in families, doctors offices and with ecclesiastical leaders.

Here is the new proposal from the BSA...

The resolution, if passed, would become effective Jan. 1, 2014.

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

[KevinG]

That neutral position is unacceptable to those seeking the change. It is unacceptable for the whole world to know exactly who is and who is not gay. More importantly, they demand that we accept them, their actions, their behaviors, everything because they are "normal". I reject this entire façade that is presented that this is just about civil rights and everyone is innocent and none of these poor people have done anything wrong and never will do anything wrong. Society just needs to grow up, become enlightened and understand that gay people, gay culture, and gay lifestyles are wonderful, healthy colors of the social rainbow of peace and love. It is farce and it is dishonest. Not a single one of these advocates wants to talk about the meaning of gay culture and what it does and does not support; all of that is swept under the rug and not civil person should discuss it; certainly not on this forum with some of our activists with the ability to ban participants. I wish it was simple enough to just say keep your sexuality to yourself, but that is rejected. They have a completely different agenda.

That agenda should not be promoted. Keep discussions of sexuality private and your behavior towards other Scouts chaste is already covered in the youth protection materials. The new policy statement seems to reinforce that.

I'm still scratching my head at who in the world thinks a youth openly discussing sexuality at a Scout event is a positive thing?

[california boy]

That agenda should not be promoted. Keep discussions of sexuality private and your behavior towards other Scouts chaste is already covered in the youth protection materials. The new policy statement seems to reinforce that.

I'm still scratching my head at who in the world thinks a youth openly discussing sexuality at a Scout event is a positive thing?

I don't think that there will be open discussions on sexuality in scouting with or without the changes. It is just not a venue that sexuality is a part of. What the fear of with some parents is that their boy will actually know an adult who is gay if they find out that their scout leader is gay. That may be an issue for some parents. Kids are not dumb. I would be surprised if they couldn't figure out their scout leader is straight or gay. It shouldn't matter, but it does to some parents. I actually don't think most kids care one way or another. Most kids grow up knowing someone in school is gay. And I am sure they reailze that there are gay adults as well.