Boy Scouts Vote To Accept Gay Youth

[Buckeye]

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."

Ha! So why was the church opposed to homosexual unions for so long (actually, still is)? Did we block-out the memory of polygamy until just this past year?

The reality is that legalized polygamy would be a huge, huge headache for the church. So much so that I could see that possibility as one of the reasons for some church leader's desire to work against SSM.

[Stone holm]

Ha! So why was the church opposed to homosexual unions for so long (actually, still is)? Did we block-out the memory of polygamy until just this past year?

The reality is that legalized polygamy would be a huge, huge headache for the church. So much so that I could see that possibility as one of the reasons for some church leader's desire to work against SSM.

I have always felt that the headache for the church that would result from legalized polygamy played a role in both the opposition to gay marriage, but also the ERA -- just my own speculation so please nobody CFR me on that.

[blackstrap]

Please clarify why you think the Church will need a pile of aspirin should polygamy be legalized. Do you think that there will be a push for the Church to reintroduce polygamy as a doctrine? For all those ready to demonstrate against ,and twitterize the Brethren ,may I suggest that the line to leave the Church and join any one of the current groups that do accept polygamy, forms on the right.( actually , on the Left )

[Buckeye]

Please clarify why you think the Church will need a pile of aspirin should polygamy be legalized. Do you think that there will be a push for the Church to reintroduce polygamy as a doctrine? For all those ready to demonstrate against ,and twitterize the Brethren ,may I suggest that the line to leave the Church and join any one of the current groups that do accept polygamy, forms on the right.( actually , on the Left )

The official reason for ending the practice was not that God wanted to end it or that the reasons for the practice had been accomplished. The offical reason was that the law of the land was against it and society's opposition was so strong that it threatened the survival of the Church. (See OD 1).

In the event that the law of the land changes, and society accepts polygamy (at least between consulting adults), then the Church will necessarily confront the question of whether to reinstitute the practice. This pressure would come from inside the Church from members who feel a desire to enter such relationships. Whichever decision the Church makes will cause a "headache".

If the Church does not allow the practice, it will need to offer a reason why. The exist reason - the law forbids it - would no longer hold. We would need to fashion an explanation for why God does not permit polygamy even though he previously allowed (yea, commanded it) and even though the law is no longer an obstacle. This could be done, and is probably easier than the alternative, but it would be a distraction and a headache.

If the Church allows the practice, it will reinforce society's lingering belief that mormons are polygamists, possibly harming missionary work. It would also cause great concern on the part of many female members who would wonder whether their husbands will want to take up the practice. The Church would need to set up a gospel framework in which polygamous relationships are again acceptable, but that framework would likely be different from the 1800s framework. For instance, I'm 99% sure the Church would teach that polygamous unions are acceptable, but not necessary for exaltation - though that teaching is contrary to what was taught by BY and others. On the whole, this would be a lot of work and stress for fairly little return. Yes, some members would have marriage opportunities that currently do not. But many more would simply have stress and confusion. If this happened, I would promote the view my wife and I take towards polygamy; namely, that if the practice again is allowed, the only person who can raise the possibility of participating is the person who has the same gender as the person would join the marriage. In other words, I could say to Mrs. Buckeye "hey, brother Smith is lonely, would you consider taking him as a second husband." But Mrs. Buckeye cannot ask me if I would approve of her taking a second husband. Same principle in reverse for a sister Smith.

[Stargazer]

The official reason for ending the practice was not that God wanted to end it or that the reasons for the practice had been accomplished. The offical reason was that the law of the land was against it and society's opposition was so strong that it threatened the survival of the Church. (See OD 1).

In the event that the law of the land changes, and society accepts polygamy (at least between consulting adults), then the Church will necessarily confront the question of whether to reinstitute the practice. This pressure would come from inside the Church from members who feel a desire to enter such relationships. Whichever decision the Church makes will cause a "headache".

<snip />

You're wrong, at least partly. The official reason was that God wanted to end it, and for the reasons that He gave.

No, the Church will not necessarily confront the question of whether to reinstitute the practice. The revelation that Wilford Woodruff, the President of the Church, received from the Lord did indeed show what would happen if the practice were not discontinued, but note carefully that it was the Lord that directed the discontinuance. The President wrote that until the Lord withdrew His directive to practice plural marriage, he was determined to continue it, come hell or high water, because that is what he believed the Lord wanted. He wrote: "But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write."

Here is the full quote, and here is the source: http://www.lds.org/s...t/od/1?lang=eng

I have had some revelations of late, and very important ones to me, and I will tell you what the Lord has said to me. Let me bring your minds to what is termed the manifesto. …

The Lord has told me to ask the Latter-day Saints a question, and He also told me that if they would listen to what I said to them and answer the question put to them, by the Spirit and power of God, they would all answer alike, and they would all believe alike with regard to this matter.

The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?

The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice. If we had not stopped it, you would have had no use for … any of the men in this temple at Logan; for all ordinances would be stopped throughout the land of Zion. Confusion would reign throughout Israel, and many men would be made prisoners. This trouble would have come upon the whole Church, and we should have been compelled to stop the practice. Now, the question is, whether it should be stopped in this manner, or in the way the Lord has manifested to us, and leave our Prophets and Apostles and fathers free men, and the temples in the hands of the people, so that the dead may be redeemed. A large number has already been delivered from the prison house in the spirit world by this people, and shall the work go on or stop? This is the question I lay before the Latter-day Saints. You have to judge for yourselves. I want you to answer it for yourselves. I shall not answer it; but I say to you that that is exactly the condition we as a people would have been in had we not taken the course we have.

… I saw exactly what would come to pass if there was not something done. I have had this spirit upon me for a long time. But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …

I leave this with you, for you to contemplate and consider. The Lord is at work with us. (Cache Stake Conference, Logan, Utah, Sunday, November 1, 1891. Reported in Deseret Weekly, November 14, 1891.)

Now, if it comes to a question as to whether to reinstitute the practice, the question will be answered in the same manner as President Wilford answered the question of the discontinuance of the practice, i.e. a commandment by revelation from the Lord, in the same manner as it was instituted orginally by Joseph Smith.

I myself pray that the Saints will be not required to live this law again, but if the Lord commanded then I and my wife would obey, if called to do so. There will be no shirkage.

In my humble opinion, however, the Lord will probably NOT require it, simply because it would have the appearance of worldliness, and He has shown from the beginning that He wants His people to be peculiar. What better way to be peculiar than to eschew the practice of plural marriage, if it is the World that is attempting to do it. It would tend to focus attention on us, in the same way that practicing it did, way back when.

[Stone holm]

Please clarify why you think the Church will need a pile of aspirin should polygamy be legalized. Do you think that there will be a push for the Church to reintroduce polygamy as a doctrine? For all those ready to demonstrate against ,and twitterize the Brethren ,may I suggest that the line to leave the Church and join any one of the current groups that do accept polygamy, forms on the right.( actually , on the Left )

Polygamy is only for those times during which The Lord has need of it not for all times. The practice of polygamy when The Lord does not have need of it is abominable. Nevertheless, it will be difficult to get that through everyone's head, and what will the Church do if the practice were to become widespread again in the world and you have say a man with two legal wives and established families with both and they decide they want to join the Church?

[Calm]

what will the Church do if the practice were to become widespread again in the world and you have say a man with two legal wives and established families with both and they decide they want to join the Church?

Surely it will be the same as it currently done in countries where polygamy is legal.

[Stone holm]

Surely it will be the same as it currently done in countries where polygamy is legal.

Curious, what is done?

[Buckeye]

...

In my humble opinion, however, the Lord will probably NOT require it, simply because it would have the appearance of worldliness, and He has shown from the beginning that He wants His people to be peculiar. What better way to be peculiar than to eschew the practice of plural marriage, if it is the World that is attempting to do it. It would tend to focus attention on us, in the same way that practicing it did, way back when.

I can think of lots of ways to be more peculiar that refraining from polygamy. How about we restart animal sacrifice, live only in houses built underground, or always wear overalls? Peculiarity is not an end or even a means, it is merely a sometimes side-affect of living different standards from the world. The real test for whether we should practice something is if it is good ("we seek after these things"), not whether it is peculiar.

[Buckeye]

Curious, what is done?

I don't have a source to point you to, but I've heard that in the few instances where this happens (mostly african countries with islamic populations) the church requires the family to be broken up. We will not contenance polygamy, even if the law allows it. That feels very harsh to me, but no more so than the abandonment of secondary and tertiary wifes following the manifesto.

[Calm]

I don't have a source to point you to, but I've heard that in the few instances where this happens (mostly african countries with islamic populations) the church requires the family to be broken up. We will not contenance polygamy, even if the law allows it. That feels very harsh to me, but no more so than the abandonment of secondary and tertiary wifes following the manifesto.

Actually it is the opposite from what I've been told by people I believe are good sources. They tell them their first priority is to God, but also to their families who if he divorced them would likely end up impoverished, depending on the country if the women don't have the needed property rights or ability to get a decent job, etc. Also being divorced places the woman in a less than respectable social sphere so it is less likely someone else would marry her, especially with children I would think.

Instead of being baptized, they tell them to remain good Christians living the commandments as best as they can in the situation they are in where they must deal with the responsibilities and stewardships they took on prior to becoming believers. When the time is right, the Lord will find a way for them to be baptized, perhaps even sealed together as a family (I see no reason since we seal polygamous families now by proxy, why we couldn't do it for current polygynous marriages.

[Daniel2]

After vote allowing gay kids to become Boy Scouts, some families call it quits

Dan Koeck / for NBC News

Aaron Butler said that after he told his 8-year-old son Evan that they were leaving the Scouts, "he sat on my lap and cried for 10 minutes."

By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

The father of a Cub Scout sat his son on his lap late last week and told him news that tore up both their hearts: The family was leaving the Boy Scouts.

Aaron Butler, the leader of his 8-year-old son Evan’s Cub Scout Wolf den in Roseau, Minn., said he didn't explain to his eldest son exactly why they were walking away from an organization they loved so much, but he told NBC News that it was because of last week's controversial decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay youth to participate.

“It was a big disappointment. He cried for about 10 minutes because I told him that Boy Scouts were not honoring their own law," Butler said, referring to the BSA oath that he interpreted as barring gay people. "They say it -- 'On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep [myself] physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight,'” he said.

“If the BSA cannot honor its own law, then how can I stay with an organization that just does not care anymore?” he said.

As many Scouts and families rejoiced over the BSA's decision to partly end the membership guidelines that had drawn criticism from supporters of LGBT rights both inside and outside the organization, many others decried the move, with some BSA members making the tough choice to pull out of one of the nation's most popular youth organizations.

“I feel pretty bad about it,” Evan told NBC News, noting he liked the camp-outs, and archery and slingshot activities he enjoyed in Pack 56. He said that he understood there was a vote that led to his parents’ decision. He explained that he understood it as: “It was between honor and God, and not honoring God. And [not] honoring God got more votes.”

“It was something that we all enjoyed, we loved every week of it,” said Butler, 30, who works at a window and door manufacturer. “It's a shame that BSA had just caved like a deck of cards.”

Caved, Butler said, to pressure from activists to let gay youth join the group. The vote was approved by 61 percent of the 1,232 National Council delegates who cast a ballot at the BSA's annual meeting one week ago (another 168 delegates -- or about 12 percent of the total delegates -- were not present to cast a ballot).

“There were divisions about how to serve kids,” Tico Perez, the BSA national commissioner, said immediately after the vote. “If we have disagreement, if we have discomfort, we are going to talk through it. America needs Scouting.”

“Our singular focus moving forward is serving more kids in Scouting, and we believe this resolution is going to do that,” he added.

When asked about families saying they would leave over the decision, BSA President Wayne Perry said last week: “We think that on reflection that many of these people will decide that the best place for their kids is in Scouting.”

A week on, BSA spokesman Deron Smith said the group couldn't yet quantify the impact of the amended policy. Most organizations that charter Scouting units were continuing with the program, but some had decided not to renew – in which case BSA executives would work with troop leadership to identify a suitable partner and ensure a smooth transition, he said.

“Our local council professionals and volunteers are reaching out to our all chartered partners to review the policy and answer questions they have,” he wrote in an email. “We are finding that when people read the new policy they see it is reflective of the beliefs of most of Scouting’s major religious chartered organizations.”

Not so for Mike A. Miller, a union electrician in Mount Holly, N.C., who said he was pulling his 9-year-old son, Cody, out of the Cub Scouts and would step down as assistant den leader of Pack 45. Monday will be his son's advancement ceremony to Webelos – as far as he will go with the organization.

He said he talked to Cody before the vote – after it was announced in February – so it wouldn't be a one-time conversation.

“It was hard to explain to a 9-year-old the complexities of why I was telling him that we had to quit,” Miller said. “He told me, 'Daddy, it should be like church. Everybody should be welcome.'”

Miller said he then told Cody that the point of going to church is to seek forgiveness — not for being all-inclusive.

“I said, 'These people aren’t asking for your forgiveness,'” Miller, 51, told NBC News in a telephone interview. “What they're doing is saying, 'this is what I am and you have to accept me like I am. I'm not coming to try to change.'

"Be it right, wrong or indifferent, the Bible that I read says [homosexuality is] a sin,” he said.

Miller said he and other families that would leave were talking about continuing some kind of program for the boys. He said he was going to look into an alternative faith-based group being put together by On My Honor — an organization started by a Florida dad and Scout volunteer, and composed of families and outside groups that oppose allowing gay youths and adults in the Boy Scouts.

As for adult leaders and volunteers, Boy Scouts officials last week said there would be no change to the adult membership policy, which excludes gays.

That means that after a boy turns 18, he would graduate from the Boy Scouts and have to apply to become an adult leader – when the membership policy barring gays would apply.

Gay rights activists pledged to continue their campaign to include adults even as they applauded the vote. They acknowledged there could be some attrition, but said the decision was the first step in the right direction for the organization.

“Even though I think that there will probably still be a few folks who choose to walk away … I think this is the beginning of the rebound of Scouting in America,” Zach Wahls, founder of Scouts for Equality, said after the vote.

Back in Roseau, Aaron Butler lamented that his sons – he has a younger boy, 6-year-old Emmett – would not achieve the Boy Scouts' highest honor of being an Eagle Scout and all of the recognition that comes with it.

He said he had prayed weekly that the BSA “would stay straight.” Now that the vote has come and gone, he and another den leader would plot the next activity for the boys, “because we have to fill that vacuum with something good.”

“The Boy Scouts gave us a sense of pride. They have done so much for all these kids … they have made a lot of these kids full of integrity and that’s what they teach – they did teach,” he said.

[Stone holm]

After vote allowing gay kids to become Boy Scouts, some families call it quits

Dan Koeck / for NBC News

Aaron Butler said that after he told his 8-year-old son Evan that they were leaving the Scouts, "he sat on my lap and cried for 10 minutes."

By Miranda Leitsinger, Staff Writer, NBC News

The father of a Cub Scout sat his son on his lap late last week and told him news that tore up both their hearts: The family was leaving the Boy Scouts.

Aaron Butler, the leader of his 8-year-old son Evan’s Cub Scout Wolf den in Roseau, Minn., said he didn't explain to his eldest son exactly why they were walking away from an organization they loved so much, but he told NBC News that it was because of last week's controversial decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay youth to participate.

“It was a big disappointment. He cried for about 10 minutes because I told him that Boy Scouts were not honoring their own law," Butler said, referring to the BSA oath that he interpreted as barring gay people. "They say it -- 'On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep [myself] physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight,'” he said.

“If the BSA cannot honor its own law, then how can I stay with an organization that just does not care anymore?” he said.

As many Scouts and families rejoiced over the BSA's decision to partly end the membership guidelines that had drawn criticism from supporters of LGBT rights both inside and outside the organization, many others decried the move, with some BSA members making the tough choice to pull out of one of the nation's most popular youth organizations.

“I feel pretty bad about it,” Evan told NBC News, noting he liked the camp-outs, and archery and slingshot activities he enjoyed in Pack 56. He said that he understood there was a vote that led to his parents’ decision. He explained that he understood it as: “It was between honor and God, and not honoring God. And [not] honoring God got more votes.”

“It was something that we all enjoyed, we loved every week of it,” said Butler, 30, who works at a window and door manufacturer. “It's a shame that BSA had just caved like a deck of cards.”

Caved, Butler said, to pressure from activists to let gay youth join the group. The vote was approved by 61 percent of the 1,232 National Council delegates who cast a ballot at the BSA's annual meeting one week ago (another 168 delegates -- or about 12 percent of the total delegates -- were not present to cast a ballot).

“There were divisions about how to serve kids,” Tico Perez, the BSA national commissioner, said immediately after the vote. “If we have disagreement, if we have discomfort, we are going to talk through it. America needs Scouting.”

“Our singular focus moving forward is serving more kids in Scouting, and we believe this resolution is going to do that,” he added.

When asked about families saying they would leave over the decision, BSA President Wayne Perry said last week: “We think that on reflection that many of these people will decide that the best place for their kids is in Scouting.”

A week on, BSA spokesman Deron Smith said the group couldn't yet quantify the impact of the amended policy. Most organizations that charter Scouting units were continuing with the program, but some had decided not to renew – in which case BSA executives would work with troop leadership to identify a suitable partner and ensure a smooth transition, he said.

“Our local council professionals and volunteers are reaching out to our all chartered partners to review the policy and answer questions they have,” he wrote in an email. “We are finding that when people read the new policy they see it is reflective of the beliefs of most of Scouting’s major religious chartered organizations.”

Not so for Mike A. Miller, a union electrician in Mount Holly, N.C., who said he was pulling his 9-year-old son, Cody, out of the Cub Scouts and would step down as assistant den leader of Pack 45. Monday will be his son's advancement ceremony to Webelos – as far as he will go with the organization.

He said he talked to Cody before the vote – after it was announced in February – so it wouldn't be a one-time conversation.

“It was hard to explain to a 9-year-old the complexities of why I was telling him that we had to quit,” Miller said. “He told me, 'Daddy, it should be like church. Everybody should be welcome.'”

Miller said he then told Cody that the point of going to church is to seek forgiveness — not for being all-inclusive.

“I said, 'These people aren’t asking for your forgiveness,'” Miller, 51, told NBC News in a telephone interview. “What they're doing is saying, 'this is what I am and you have to accept me like I am. I'm not coming to try to change.'

"Be it right, wrong or indifferent, the Bible that I read says [homosexuality is] a sin,” he said.

Miller said he and other families that would leave were talking about continuing some kind of program for the boys. He said he was going to look into an alternative faith-based group being put together by On My Honor — an organization started by a Florida dad and Scout volunteer, and composed of families and outside groups that oppose allowing gay youths and adults in the Boy Scouts.

As for adult leaders and volunteers, Boy Scouts officials last week said there would be no change to the adult membership policy, which excludes gays.

That means that after a boy turns 18, he would graduate from the Boy Scouts and have to apply to become an adult leader – when the membership policy barring gays would apply.

Gay rights activists pledged to continue their campaign to include adults even as they applauded the vote. They acknowledged there could be some attrition, but said the decision was the first step in the right direction for the organization.

“Even though I think that there will probably still be a few folks who choose to walk away … I think this is the beginning of the rebound of Scouting in America,” Zach Wahls, founder of Scouts for Equality, said after the vote.

Back in Roseau, Aaron Butler lamented that his sons – he has a younger boy, 6-year-old Emmett – would not achieve the Boy Scouts' highest honor of being an Eagle Scout and all of the recognition that comes with it.

He said he had prayed weekly that the BSA “would stay straight.” Now that the vote has come and gone, he and another den leader would plot the next activity for the boys, “because we have to fill that vacuum with something good.”

“The Boy Scouts gave us a sense of pride. They have done so much for all these kids … they have made a lot of these kids full of integrity and that’s what they teach – they did teach,” he said.

I disagree that this compromise will spark the beginning of a rebound. It was a flawed compromise as far as BSA is concerned. It will alienate the very far right social conservatives like the Den Leader interviewed, but it will maintain BSA as a cultural battlefield. The original compromise would have neutralised the issue as far as BSA was concerned and allowed the conservative chartered Organizations to maintain their own moral viewpoints. This is a battle that should be fought out within the Chartered Organizations themselves not in National BSA policy.

[blueadept]

IMHO, know one should be too surprised by the eventual exodus of the SBC chartered BSA units http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/southern-baptists-to-urge-churches-and-members-to-cut-boy-scout-ties/?hpt=hp_c3

[Stone holm]

IMHO, know one should be too surprised by the eventual exodus of the SBC chartered BSA units http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/31/southern-baptists-to-urge-churches-and-members-to-cut-boy-scout-ties/?hpt=hp_c3

The Southern Baptist were already running a competitive program. The big question is what will the Catholics do. This is all so unnecessary, the first compromise would not have impinged on any Chartered Organizations policy.

[blueadept]

The Southern Baptist were already running a competitive program. The big question is what will the Catholics do. This is all so unnecessary, the first compromise would not have impinged on any Chartered Organizations policy.

At this point, Catholics seem to be doing the same approach as the LDS.

But most Catholics appear to be supportive of the move, and church leaders seem willing to find an accommodation given that Scouting is such a popular way of keeping boys connected to church.

Bishop Robert Guglielmone of Charleston, S.C., who is the hierarchy’s official adviser to the NCCS, attended the May 23 meeting of the BSA and said afterward that while he was “not particularly encouraged” by the vote “we can live with it.”

Since most boys are going to stay no matter what happens, Guglielmone told the National Catholic Register, “We have a real obligation to stay in dialogue and to stay connected to the program.”

But he warned the BSA that “if it gets to the point where some of our basic issues are threatened – such as being able to pick leaders for Catholic chartered groups or in diminishing the role of religion and God – then we will have to re-evaluate our participation in the program at that time.”

Each bishop can decide whether the new membership policy is acceptable. Guglielmone has written to every U.S. bishop, and Martin said the NCCS would develop a plan to ensure “a consistent message is delivered to dioceses, parishes, Catholic Scouters and the media” on the church’s views about allowing gay Scouts.

IMO, it's a pipedream. This decision will not end here and I predict that the organization will eventually have openly gay leaders. This issue will be revisited by our respective church leaders at that time. JMO.

[Stone holm]

At this point, Catholics seem to be doing the same approach as the LDS. IMO, it's a pipedream. This decision will not end here and I predict that the organization will eventually have openly gay leaders. This issue will be revisited by our respective church leaders at that time. JMO.

It clearly won't end here, not with so many Organizations having policies which prohibit discrimination based on gender orientation. Their best hope was a policy that left both the policy as to Scouts and Scout leaders up to the local Chartered Organization. But the Great Salt Lake Council derailed that compromise and in doing so they very well may have sealed the doom of BSA. The Southern conservative Baptists had already set. Up an alternative Organization, those opposing the discrimination have set up an alternative Baden Powell Organization which is open to straights, gays, and allows girls to join. If either the Catholics or the Mormons bolt in the future, it will mortally cripple BSA...and by the time that happens the Organization will have become so riven by cultural politics that I don't see it being able to rebound.

[Storm Rider]

^{In reality I don't see a problem with admitting youth regardless of where they come from or their family situation. I do have an issue with a youth that thinks it is absolutely necessary to tell everyone else their sexual proclivities. The moment an individual feels it is necessary to share these personal issues he moves beyond acceptable behavior. I also see no problem with groups leaving the BSA if they feel that it no longer supports what they perceive as its moral principles. The Gay agenda demands that they be present in all organizations without exception. They don't have a desire per se to join any of them, but all of them must bend the knee to their agenda or be branded as discriminatory and bigoted. The battle will go on and the BSA will either take a stand and become an organization needing far less money and persecuted by the government or it will surrender to the Gay activists' agenda and at that point all participants with any type of moral standard will leave en masse. This will leave a skeleton of an organization that will die for lack of participants; it surely will not be supported by Gays because they are not interested in participating. The issue will come where churches will be pressured to accept the Gay agenda fully and completely or lose their tax-free status with the government. This is just the beginning of complete moral decay and cultural rot. Eat, drink, and be merry....}

[california boy]

^{The Gay agenda demands that they be present in all organizations without exception. They don't have a desire per se to join any of them, but all of them must bend the knee to their agenda or be branded as discriminatory and bigoted. The battle will go on and the BSA will either take a stand and become an organization needing far less money and persecuted by the government or it will surrender to the Gay activists' agenda and at that point all participants with any type of moral standard will leave en masse. This will leave a skeleton of an organization that will die for lack of participants; it surely will not be supported by Gays because they are not interested in participating. The issue will come where churches will be pressured to accept the Gay agenda fully and completely or lose their tax-free status with the government. This is just the beginning of complete moral decay and cultural rot. Eat, drink, and be merry....}

I guess it is convenient for you to vilify gays as the cause of all of the BSA problems. But the truth of the matter is, Americans are not that into discrimination. The gay population is only about 3-5%. But the problem the BSA is dealing with is that the majority of Americans and almost all corporations really can't stand BSA's policies of discrimination.

If you want to turn the tide around, you have to convince the public that it is ok to discriminate against a group because you think their behavior doesn't conform to your moral beliefs. So far, those that take your position have been unable to do that. It is not gays that are winning, it is discrimination that is loosing. The public is pretty much over discrimination. They have moved on to be more inclusive.

You are right. The gay population is so small that even if every one of them joined the scouts it wouldn't make much difference. But the real numbers come when the majority of straight Americans refused to join and support an organization that discriminates.

[jwhitlock]

I guess it is convenient for you to vilify gays as the cause of all of the BSA problems. But the truth of the matter is, Americans are not that into discrimination. The gay population is only about 3-5%. But the problem the BSA is dealing with is that the majority of Americans and almost all corporations really can't stand BSA's policies of discrimination.

I guess it is convenient for you to vilify anyone who disagrees with gay agendas as guilty of discrimination.

[california boy]

I guess it is convenient for you to vilify anyone who disagrees with gay agendas as guilty of discrimination.

And just who did I vilify?

[jwhitlock]

And just who did I vilify?

Anyone who disagrees with gay agendas.

[california boy]

^{In reality I don't see a problem with admitting youth regardless of where they come from or their family situation. I do have an issue with a youth that thinks it is absolutely necessary to tell everyone else their sexual proclivities. The moment an individual feels it is necessary to share these personal issues he moves beyond acceptable behavior.}

I would like to address this assertion separately because I think they are entirely different issues. When you were in high school, did you ever ask your buddy, "Don't you think she is hot?" It is a common activity that young adolescents do. Just how is a gay teen suppose to answer that question. Is he suppose to pretend that he is attracted to her as well? Would he be crossing your line by responding "She doesn't do much for me, but the guy next to her is pretty cute" Maybe you could expound on just how gay teens are "suppose" to respond so that their behavior would be acceptable to you.

[california boy]

Anyone who disagrees with gay agendas.

I assume by "gay agenda" as those that disapprove of discrimination? Because that is what my post was about. In fact that was the whole point of my post. Fighting discrimination is not a gay agenda issue, it is a core American value.

[jwhitlock]

I assume by "gay agenda" as those that disapprove of discrimination? Because that is what my post was about. In fact that was the whole point of my post. Fighting discrimination is not a gay agenda issue, it is a core American value.

If the BSA policy of excluding gay leaders was simply discrimination and nothing else, you might have a point. Unfortunately for your side, that's not the case.Hence the simplistic accusation of "discrimination" whenever someone disagrees with what gays are demanding with regards to BSA policy is simply vilification on your part.