Boy Scouts Vote To Accept Gay Youth

[Daniel2]

Brian Brown just released a statement on the Boy Scouts policy change:

National Organization for Marriage Reacts to Boy Scouts of America

http://www.nomblog.com/35300

MAY 24, 2013 AT 10:05 AM

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: May 24, 2013

Contact: Elizabeth Ray or Jen Campbell (703-683-5004)

Washington, D.C. — The following statement may be attributable to Brian Brown, President of the National Organization for Marriage:

"Today is a sad day for the Boy Scouts of America. They have succumbed to political pressure and abandoned their historic roots in what will prove to be a failed attempt to appease gay activists and corporate donors. Unfortunately, what they have done is said to the world that their oath no longer means much. Their decision to admit openly gay scouts will end up sexualizing the organization. I am certain that having changed their policy on homosexuality, it's only a matter of time before courts order them to admit homosexual scout leaders. Meanwhile, countless thousands of churches will very likely pull their sponsorship rather than endorse homosexuality, and the entire organization will begin to collapse. All of this is happening not because of a true grassroots demand of gay youth to be part of the organization but by an orchestrated political effort by gay activists who want to punish any group or organization that does not embrace homosexuality. It's the beginning of the end for what once was one of America's noblest organizations."

[guerreiro9]

While I didn't start this thread, it seems to me that same-sex marriage is being debated in others.

Could we maybe transfer these comments to the other threads and stick to the Boy Scouts in this one....?

You are correct of course. This topic has been derailed, and I definitely had my hand in it.

Back on topic, I am a little unsure what the Boy Scouts of America were going for with this compromise. I think the compromise will cause more problems than it solves and will not alleviate any criticisms from outside organizations. If the organization wishes to allow self-identified gays then allow them, if it does not then do not. The best compromise appears to have been to allow each sponsoring unit to decide their own admission standards, but that would have been too logical to actually have people vote for it.

-guerreiro9

[Daniel2]

I am a little unsure what the Boy Scouts of America were going for with this compromise. I think the compromise will cause more problems than it solves and will not alleviate any criticisms from outside organizations. If the organization wishes to allow self-identified gays then allow them, if it does not then do not. The best compromise appears to have been to allow each sponsoring unit to decide their own admission standards...

-guerreiro9

I agree with all of the above comments 1000%.

Daniel

[Stone holm]

How did it prevent same-sex marriage? Did it prevent people of the same-sex from living together? Did it prevent people of the same-sex from inviting friends and family to a formal commitment ceremony where rings and vows are exchanged? Certain benefits at the federal level are withheld as you mentioned due to DOMA, but this had nothing to do with proposition 8. All applicable rights and benefits available to be granted by the state of California were already available to same-sex couples through civil unions. I am a little unsure what proposition 8 prevented except official acceptance from those outside the relationship. Can you name a single thing besides an official piece of paper that it prevented?

-guerreiro9

The official piece of paper, I assume was a marriage certificate. If a marriage certificate is of such little importance then why did we urge on Prop 8? No, the status of marriage to the gays and lesbians is of similar importance to them as it is to any heterosexual couple. We may not agree with SSM, I certainly don't condone it -- but to make the argument you are making, just doesn't have legs.

[guerreiro9]

If a marriage certificate is of such little importance then why did we urge on Prop 8?

I am uncertain why the church chose to support proposition 8 so strongly. With civil unions in place proposition 8 effectively did nothing except make a statement. Perhaps that was the reason.....?

I would enjoy continuing this debate, but as Daniel mentioned, this is not really the topic of the thread. Perhaps we will continue in another thread in the future.

-guerreiro9

[Stone holm]

You are correct of course. This topic has been derailed, and I definitely had my hand in it.

Back on topic, I am a little unsure what the Boy Scouts of America were going for with this compromise. I think the compromise will cause more problems than it solves and will not alleviate any criticisms from outside organizations. If the organization wishes to allow self-identified gays then allow them, if it does not then do not. The best compromise appears to have been to allow each sponsoring unit to decide their own admission standards, but that would have been too logical to actually have people vote for it.

-guerreiro9

I agree with this, the first compromise was the one that made sense and would have allowed BSA to exit the battlefield, this compromise only guarantees that BSA will continue to be a battlefield.

[CV75]

Of course the Church had taken a neutral position consistent with (unchanged) doctrine and was ready to roll with which ever way it went.

From http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/results.aspx

"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."

and

"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."

I take the "resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone" (from the BSA media release) to be a more accurate description of what is going on than allowing "openly gay boys to be accepted into the nation's leading youth organization" (from the AP article).

[Stone holm]

From http://www.scouting....on/results.aspx

"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."

and

"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."

I take the "resolution to remove the restriction denying membership to youth on the basis of sexual orientation alone" (from the BSA media release) to be a more accurate description of what is going on than allowing "openly gay boys to be accepted into the nation's leading youth organization" (from the AP article).

Absolutely correct. Exactly what is an "openly gay boy" as opposed to an "openly heterosexual boy" ... been trying to figure that out.

[Daniel2]

Church Responds to Boy Scouts Policy Vote

From mormonnewsroom.org

24 MAY 2013

The Church’s statement reiterates that “willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.”

Print

Share

“Young men … who agree to abide by Church standards [are] welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate.” —Handbook 2: Administering the Church

RELATED LINKS

See the news story “Church Leader Addresses BSA on ‘Duty to God.’”

SALT LAKE CITY —

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints responded today to the Boy Scouts of America vote on its membership policy with the following statement:

For the past 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong relationship with Boy Scouts of America, based on our mutual interest in helping boys and young men understand and live their duty to God and develop upright moral behavior. As the Church moves forward in its association with the Boy Scouts of America, Church leaders will continue to seek the most effective ways to address the diverse needs of young people in the United States and throughout the world.

The Church’s long-established policy for participation in activities is stated in the basic instructional handbook used by lay leaders of the Church: “Young men … who agree to abide by Church standards [are] welcomed warmly and encouraged to participate” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 8.17.3). This policy applies to Church-sponsored Scout units. Sexual orientation has not previously been—and is not now—a disqualifying factor for boys who want to join Latter-day Saint Scout troops. Willingness to abide by standards of behavior continues to be our compelling interest.

These standards are outlined in the booklet For the Strength of Youth and include abstinence from sexual relationships. We remain firmly committed to upholding these standards and to protecting and strengthening boys and young men.

The Church appreciates BSA’s reaffirmation of its commitment to “duty to God,” which includes service to others and moral behavior—central principles of our teaching to young men. As in the past, the Church will work with BSA to harmonize what Scouting has to offer with the varying needs of our young men. We trust that BSA will implement and administer the approved policy in an appropriate and effective manner.

A letter signed by the First Presidency of the Church is being sent to all Latter-day Saint congregation leaders throughout the United States. The letter will include the reaffirmation of Church policies and standards referenced in today’s public statement.

http://www.lds.org/church/news/church-responds-to-boy-scouts-policy-vote?lang=eng

[Daniel2]

Obama praises Boy Scouts, but hopes for more change

By Chris Johnson on May 24, 2013

President Obama praised the Boy Scouts of America’s decision to lift its ban on openly gay youth, but added he hopes the organization will take further action to allow openly gay Scout leaders, according to the White House.

Shin Inouye, a White House spokesperson, issued the response to the 103-year-old organization’s decision to end its ban on gay youth on Friday in response to an inquiry from the Washington Blade.

“The President welcomes the decision by the Boy Scouts of America to open its membership to all, regardless of sexual orientation,” Inouye said. “He has long believed that the Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century.”

Inouye continued, “He continues to believe that leadership positions in the Scouts should be open to all, regardless of sexual orientation.”

On Thursday, the 1,400 members of the Boy Scouts National Council approved a resolution to end its ban on gay youth from participating by a margin of 61-38 percent. But the measure leaves in place the ban on openly gay leaders.

Obama’s views on the Boy Scouts’ policy on gay members is particularly significant because, as president of the United States, he also serves as honorary president of the Boy Scouts.

Deron Smith, a Boy Scouts spokesperson, responded to the White House by saying the organization continues to appreciate Obama’s support for the organization.

“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,” Smith said. “We are thankful President Obama recognizes the value of the organization.”

GLAAD praised Obama’s statement.

“As the Honorary President of the Boy Scouts of America, this statement on President Obama’s support is significant,” said Rich Ferraro, a GLAAD spokesperson. “Gay parents and adults should be accepted into Scouting and our campaign for change will continue until that happens. As openly gay youth begin participating in Scouting and earn Eagle Rank, the Boy Scouts will come to realize that gay Americans and our families only strengthen Scouting as an institution.”

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2013/05/24/white-house-wants-more-from-boy-scouts-for-gay-membership/

[Storm Rider]

The pandering of politicians is a long held practice; regardless of who does it, it demonstrates the complete loss of any personal moral standard in the venal search for votes. Would that politicians would actually stand for something even when it costs them votes or support. Bowing to political pressure such as that by gay activists does nothing but encourage them. It would be far better for the BSA to collapse because they stand for something rather than to devolve into a spineless organization that fears the loss of money. We either believe in being morally pure or not; it is simple and easy to determine. We either can identify perversion or we cannot. It does not matter how cute Hollywood tries to make the gay lifestyle reality is a much stronger argument. To date, the gay agenda is to obfuscate, to misdirect, to do anything but shine the harsh light of reality on the dark, unwholesome, underbelly of a lifestyle that only leads to unhappiness and eternal damnation.

[Stone holm]

The pandering of politicians is a long held practice; regardless of who does it, it demonstrates the complete loss of any personal moral standard in the venal search for votes. Would that politicians would actually stand for something even when it costs them votes or support. Bowing to political pressure such as that by gay activists does nothing but encourage them. It would be far better for the BSA to collapse because they stand for something rather than to devolve into a spineless organization that fears the loss of money. We either believe in being morally pure or not; it is simple and easy to determine. We either can identify perversion or we cannot. It does not matter how cute Hollywood tries to make the gay lifestyle reality is a much stronger argument. To date, the gay agenda is to obfuscate, to misdirect, to do anything but shine the harsh light of reality on the dark, unwholesome, underbelly of a lifestyle that only leads to unhappiness and eternal damnation.

Boy Scouts have moved past this issue in other countries. It unfortunately has allowed itself to become a cultural battlefield here in the US.

[Senator]

The pandering of politicians is a long held practice; regardless of who does it, it demonstrates the complete loss of any personal moral standard in the venal search for votes. Would that politicians would actually stand for something even when it costs them votes or support. Bowing to political pressure such as that by gay activists does nothing but encourage them. It would be far better for the BSA to collapse because they stand for something rather than to devolve into a spineless organization that fears the loss of money. We either believe in being morally pure or not; it is simple and easy to determine. We either can identify perversion or we cannot. It does not matter how cute Hollywood tries to make the gay lifestyle reality is a much stronger argument. To date, the gay agenda is to obfuscate, to misdirect, to do anything but shine the harsh light of reality on the dark, unwholesome, underbelly of a lifestyle that only leads to unhappiness and eternal damnation.

Man!!! IF only the church had known about you, they could have taken a far better position and made a far better statement than they did.

[Stone holm]

Man!!! IF only the church had known about you, they could have taken a far better position and made a far better statement than they did.

So you think the Church was wrong?

[bluebell]

So you think the Church was wrong?

I'm pretty sure senator was being sarcastic.

As to the OP, it makes sense the church would support the new guidelines about youth. It matches the church's policies on allowing openly gay members to participate even lead in the ward as long as they maintain certain standards.

[Stone holm]

I'm pretty sure senator was being sarcastic.

As to the OP, it makes sense the church would support the new guidelines about youth. It matches the church's policies on allowing openly gay members to participate even lead in the ward as long as they maintain certain standards.

Oh. I agree.

[Senator]

I'm pretty sure senator was being sarcastic.

[Damien the Leper]

I've caught some news reports about this on different stations. This just another issue people are going to have to get over and quit whining about. I am in absolute agreement with what others have said here. The new policy is in harmony with the church's position. Unfortunately, we have ignoramuses who see this as "legitimizing sin" when it couldn't be further from the truth.

[california boy]

The pandering of politicians is a long held practice; regardless of who does it, it demonstrates the complete loss of any personal moral standard in the venal search for votes. Would that politicians would actually stand for something even when it costs them votes or support. Bowing to political pressure such as that by gay activists does nothing but encourage them. It would be far better for the BSA to collapse because they stand for something rather than to devolve into a spineless organization that fears the loss of money. We either believe in being morally pure or not; it is simple and easy to determine. We either can identify perversion or we cannot. It does not matter how cute Hollywood tries to make the gay lifestyle reality is a much stronger argument. To date, the gay agenda is to obfuscate, to misdirect, to do anything but shine the harsh light of reality on the dark, unwholesome, underbelly of a lifestyle that only leads to unhappiness and eternal damnation.

Since the church agrees with the BSA position, is it your opinion that the church also is:

The pandering of politicians (the church) is a long held practice; regardless of who does it, it demonstrates the complete loss of any personal moral standard in the venal search for votes (members). Would that politicians (the church) would actually stand for something even when it costs them votes (members) or support. Bowing to political pressure such as that by gay activists does nothing but encourage them. It would be far better for the BSA (church) to collapse because they stand for something rather than to devolve into a spineless organization that fears the loss of money.

You might want to rethink your position.

[Stone holm]

Since the church agrees with the BSA position, is it your opinion that the church also is:

You might want to rethink your position.

Interesting except he was saying that it would have been far better for the Church to have destroyed BSA over this issue. The thing is, the LDS members may still destroy the BSA over this issue since the compromise is designed to keep it alive.

[Daniel2]

Bryan Fischer: Mormons Supported Lifting Boy Scouts Gay Ban Because They Want Polygamy - VIDEO

Even though he has "no evidence that this is the case," American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer has figured out why the Mormon church ended up supporting the 'Boy Sodomizers of America' decision to lift the ban on gay scouts, Right Wing Watch reports, and it fits neatly into the longtime right-wing talking points that gay marriage will lead to polygamy.

Says Fischer:

"The LDS leadership, these people are smart, they're sharp, they're thinking all the time and I believe one of the reasons they may have gone soft on the homosexual agenda is that they believe that the homosexual agenda may be the secret to restoring polygamy to America and this would vindicate Mormon doctrine from the very beginning."

[media=]

[Stone holm]

Bryan Fischer: Mormons Supported Lifting Boy Scouts Gay Ban Because They Want Polygamy - VIDEO

Even though he has "no evidence that this is the case," American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer has figured out why the Mormon church ended up supporting the 'Boy Sodomizers of America' decision to lift the ban on gay scouts, Right Wing Watch reports, and it fits neatly into the longtime right-wing talking points that gay marriage will lead to polygamy.

Says Fischer:

"The LDS leadership, these people are smart, they're sharp, they're thinking all the time and I believe one of the reasons they may have gone soft on the homosexual agenda is that they believe that the homosexual agenda may be the secret to restoring polygamy to America and this would vindicate Mormon doctrine from the very beginning."

[media=]

He regularly shows up as an extremist along with certain other right-wingers. Don't try and confuse these people with facts.

[thesometimesaint]

Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer.

[Daniel2]

He regularly shows up as an extremist along with certain other right-wingers. Don't try and confuse these people with facts.

I agree, Stoneholm--I believe Bryan Fischer is a total shock jock (He'll say anything to attempt to rally ultra-conservatives and to boost his ratings). Little he says can be taken seriously--unfortunately, I still think even his ultra-fringe comments find an audience and are influential to an unfortunate (though likely never fully mainstream) degree. I didn't like him when his inflammatory rhetoric was directed at gays, and I don't like him with these inflammatory (and in accurate) comments directed at Latter-day Saints. It's very sad to see him turn on former LDS "allies" in this manner, and I think it just shows his true colors.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

BOY SCOUTS-CHURCH

Louisville church drops Boy Scouts, says organization too polarizing after gay youth vote

Reported by: Associated Press

Reported: Monday, May 27, 2013 4:03 PM EDT

LOUISVILLE, Ky.

A Louisville church is breaking ties with a Boy Scout troop in the wake of the national organization's decision to allow gay youth.

Southeast Christian Church Executive Pastor Tim Hester says the youth organization's consideration of that issue started a discussion that led to the church's board of elders to decide against renewing the church's charter with Troop 2012.

Hester told The Courier-Journal the direction of the Boy Scouts and the church's desire not to get caught up in it prompted the change.

The Scouts have until the end of the year to relocate.

Barry Oxley, CEO of the Boy Scouts' Lincoln Heritage Council, said the Boy Scouts are working to identify a new organization to charter Troop 212 and Cub Scout Pack 212.

Information from: The Courier-Journal, http://www.courier-journal.com