Why would anybody condemn the Boy Scouts simply because they allow openly gay boys?

[signit]

I think the main reason is conflating sexual attraction and sexual behavior. Any inappropriate sexual behavior should not be condoned in the BSA (or anywhere else). But one should not assume that a gay boy who wants to join the boy scouts does so because he is a sexual predator. This is incorrect.

There are probably other reasons as well, such as the belief that any and all attempts at equality for gay people are part of a nefarious, anti-religious, secular gay agenda. I believe this is wrong as well.

A third reason is the perpetual fear some people have of anything relative to gayness, especially when it concerns children. People are afraid that their straight child will either be sexually molested or sexually indoctrinated by gay boys into believing that being gay is simply an alternative lifestyle. This is contrary to Church teaching. I think, however, that fear is misguided. If anything, it is most likely the gay boys who have more to fear in that if other boys perceive they are gay, they may become the target of ridicule.

Finally, there is the whole macho issue. I would bet that more men are opposed to this change in the BSA policy than women.

I think so, on all four counts.

A lot of the opposition to SSA boys in the Scouts doesn’t seem to be based on principles, or notions of fairness.

It seems to be either:

(1) SSA boys are predators, or are going to “turn other boys gay” ((1) and (3) above);

(2) “These people” and their “gay agenda,” that is, if they support something, it must be wrong ((2) above);

(3) The fact that some people just plain don’t like gays, based on their childhood or teenage experience (“See, guys, don’t make fun of me for being gay! I’m not gay! In fact I hate gays just like you do!”) ((4) above). I grew up with plenty of that.

 

[Captain_America]

Bob (and friends here). . . this really has nothing to do with chastity and chaste scouts.

It has nothing to do with “loving the sinner”.

Instead, the organization forces us to treat homosexuality as a perfect MORAL equivalent to heterosexuality.

The BSA has been co-opted to join the activists in the redefinition of values.

 

[Baelor]

The bigger issue is that posters here do not understand what the BSA is. It is not a Christian organization. It embraces Scouts who believe that homosexual behavior is permissible. It embraces faiths that believe homosexual behavior is permissible.

It basically does not dictate or teach morality in any way, except in the isolated case of homosexuality. If the BSA wishes to become an organization with specific morals, adopt an institutional religion or set of values and explain why those values are upheld. The current opposition to homosexuality is simply inconsistent with the BSA policies as a whole.

I would also mention that the BSA can still dictate how sexuality is handled by troops. Currently, Scouts do discuss their immoral (and in some cases depraved) sexual lives on campouts, backpacking trips, and the like. Is this a problem? Is it technically allowed? etc. If no mention of sexuality could be made on trips, why does it matter whether someone is gay or not?

Finally, I see no reason not to let troops decide for themselves.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The bigger issue is that posters here do not understand what the BSA is. It is not a Christian organization. It embraces Scouts who believe that homosexual behavior is permissible. It embraces faiths that believe homosexual behavior is permissible.

It basically does not dictate or teach morality in any way, except in the isolated case of homosexuality. If the BSA wishes to become an organization with specific morals, adopt an institutional religion or set of values and explain why those values are upheld. The current opposition to homosexuality is simply inconsistent with the BSA policies as a whole.

I would also mention that the BSA can still dictate how sexuality is handled by troops. Currently, Scouts do discuss their immoral (and in some cases depraved) sexual lives on campouts, backpacking trips, and the like. Is this a problem? Is it technically allowed? etc. If no mention of sexuality could be made on trips, why does it matter whether someone is gay or not?

Finally, I see no reason not to let troops decide for themselves.

I agree. We would be very surprised if Walmart decided to refuse employment to openly gay cashiers. Why? Because we recognize that the role of a cashier is not an occasion for promoting the person’s opinions on the moral issues involved. We would not interpret such tolerance by Walmart as the organization “forcing us to treat homosexuality as a perfect MORAL equivalent to heterosexuality”, as Captain America said a few posts back. Of course Walmart would be well within their rights to make rules about employees wearing slogans on their clothing or posting personal signs at their checkout lane.

The reason the BSA gets special attention is that people believe or fear that homosexual boys in the scouts will “infect” other boys with their homosexuality. This fear has yet to be substantiated. Of course, as with the Walmart example, the BSA would be well within their rights to make rules about scouts using their membership in the organization to promote their position. If the BSA must exclude homosexual scouts, the public schools should exclude homosexual students too. The risks of “contamination” seem about the same. Does anyone really want to claim that openly gay students should not be allowed to attend public school?

 

[signit]

I agree. We would be very surprised if Walmart decided to refuse employment to openly gay cashiers. Why? Because we recognize that the role of a cashier is not an occasion for promoting the person’s opinions on the moral issues involved. We would not interpret such tolerance by Walmart as the organization “forcing us to treat homosexuality as a perfect MORAL equivalent to heterosexuality”, as Captain America said a few posts back. Of course Walmart would be well within their rights to make rules about employees wearing slogans on their clothing or posting personal signs at their checkout lane.

The reason the BSA gets special attention is that people believe or fear that homosexual boys in the scouts will “infect” other boys with their homosexuality. This fear has yet to be substantiated. Of course, as with the Walmart example, the BSA would be well within their rights to make rules about scouts using their membership in the organization to promote their position. If the BSA must exclude homosexual scouts, the public schools should exclude homosexual students too. The risks of “contamination” seem about the same. Does anyone really want to claim that openly gay students should not be allowed to attend public school?

Agreed, and even Catholic youth groups don’t have rules like that, as far as I know.

The Catholic youth basketball program at my parish didn’t have a rule that if you have SSA you get kicked out on the spot. I don’t remember parents freaking out because little Johnny or Freddie over there might “turn their kid gay.” I don’t see what’s so special about the BSA that some people are so up in arms about it.

 

[Brendan]

The bigger issue is that posters here do not understand what the BSA is. It is not a Christian organization. It embraces Scouts who believe that homosexual behavior is permissible. It embraces faiths that believe homosexual behavior is permissible.

It basically does not dictate or teach morality in any way, except in the isolated case of homosexuality. If the BSA wishes to become an organization with specific morals, adopt an institutional religion or set of values and explain why those values are upheld. The current opposition to homosexuality is simply inconsistent with the BSA policies as a whole…

Actually, no it is not. They do take moral stands on other issues. Venture Scouting is co-ed. A Crew can consist of both male and female.

The BSA has restrictions on boys and girls tenting and showering together. It does not leave that decision to the chartering organizations, but bans co-tenting and co-showering entirely at the national level.

personally, I have no objection to celebate scouts of any ‘variety’ being allowed into the BSA. But since chastity (which includes FAR more than just sexual acts) is being enforced at the National level between boys and girls, it needs to be enforced on the national level with similar restrictions between homosexual boys and other boys.

But that said, our troop is very excited about Catholic alternatives to the BSA forming up, and will be looking closely at them with an intent to charter with one of them next year.

I don’t have anything against the BSA, but, as you noted, it is generically religious. A similar Baden-Powel type experience for the boys that is completely Catholic at all levels of the organizational, would be the best solution for our Troop.

 

[Baelor]

Actually, no it is not. They do take moral stands on other issues.

With this degree of specificity? I could be wrong – what other issues receive official policies? I suppose the importance of preserving the environment.

The BSA has restrictions on boys and girls tenting and showering together. It does not leave that decision to the chartering organizations, but bans co-tenting and co-showering entirely at the national level.

The reason for banning homosexuals has nothing to do with tenting or showering together. The BSA has explicitly stated why the policy stands; safety is simply irrelevant and not at all mentioned in the policy or its explanation.

personally, I have no objection to celebate scouts of any ‘variety’ being allowed into the BSA. But since chastity (which includes FAR more than just sexual acts) is being enforced at the National level between boys and girls, it needs to be enforced on the national level with similar restrictions between homosexual boys and other boys.

Does anyone seriously think that Scouts having sex on campouts or whatever will be an issue?

 

[wavejim]

Openly gay boy comes to the Church, where if they choose to become members, study, go to RCIA and learn that to be openly gay has to be abandoned for celibacy and the best that they can hope for is to struggle with SSA knowing that there may be aid with this struggle.

Openly gay boy comes to the Boy Scouts. Openly gay boy never questions his being openly gay as the Boy Scouts accept openly gay boys.

Why would anyone start another thread about the BSA and being gay having seen what has happened with all the other threads on this topic?

That is the real question.

Yep, wondering what the motives are

 

[yellowbird]

Yep, wondering what the motives are

Because it’s a fair question. Not everyone visits this forum daily - if there have been other threads started on this topic so what? How many threads have been started on the topic of mastrubation? Hundreds? Thousands? Nobody questions their motives?

My parish dropped the Scouts. I was sad - but I support our Priest.

 

[yellowbird]

I would not allow anyone who advocates SS sex to join either my troop or my church. Therefore, there should be no policy with regards to SSA, but there should be a policy regarding persons advocating SS sex.

Jesus does not share your view. He welcomed sinners.

 

[Brendan]

Does anyone seriously think that Scouts having sex on campouts or whatever will be an issue?

Why do you think the BSA bans boys and girls from tenting and showering together?

Do you think they feel that inappropriate actions might happen and are making an effort to combat it.

Or do you think they feel that the girls might simply be androphobes and object to showering with boys?

 

[shocktrooper]

I mean, openly gay boys are allowed in the Catholic Church and nobody complains in the least.

I think the terms SSA and “sexual orientation” need to be defined because they are not the same, in my opinion. The ruling by the BSA says nothing about SSA only, but goes further with “sexual orientation”. Webster defines “orientation” as…

2 a : a usually general or lasting direction of thought, inclination, or interest
b : a person’s self-identification as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual

and “sexual orientation” as…

Definition of SEXUAL ORIENTATION
:the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior

Then the ruling goes on to define the two “sexual orientations” allowed to be openly displayed as being heterosexual and homosexual.

My understanding is that SSA is an attraction one has but never acted on. When a person with SSA acts on it, then that person becomes a homosexual or “gay”. I think the terms should not be conflated with each other. A homosexual can seize being a homosexual but suffer with SSA once they quit identifying themselves with the sin by not acting on it.

I find it highly problematic when one claims to be a “homosexual” but then claims to live a chaste life. Having our identity defined by/with a sin is not the best course of action. The BSA policy allows for open “homosexuals” to join. This infers the boys are accepting and acting on a condition they see as normal and, at a minimum, would like others to see as normal also.

 

[Baelor]

Why do you think the BSA bans boys and girls from tenting and showering together?

The ban on gay Scouts has – according to the BSA itself – nothing to do with modesty or the like.

Do you think they feel that inappropriate actions might happen and are making an effort to combat it

The BSA, in its justification for the ban on gay Scouts did not mention any concern whatsoever over inappropriate actions in the manner you suggest.

 

[yellowbird]

I find it highly problematic when one claims to be a “homosexual” but then claims to live a chaste life. Having our identity defined by/with a sin is not the best course of action. The BSA policy allows for open “homosexuals” to join. This infers the boys are accepting and acting on a condition they see as normal and, at a minimum, would like others to see as normal also.

Do you find it problematic that a person can claim to be a heterosexual but then claim to live a chaste life? Or do you assume that everyone who identifies themselves as a heterosexual is having sex?

Same with the homosexual. Just because a person is attracted to the same sex doesn’t mean they are having sex. And isn’t that where the sin lies? Not in who they are - but what they do?

 

[Brendan]

The ban on gay Scouts has – according to the BSA itself – nothing to do with modesty or the like.

The BSA, in its justification for the ban on gay Scouts did not mention any concern whatsoever over inappropriate actions in the manner you suggest.

\

If you will note, the context of my question was in regards to your comment

Does anyone seriously think that Scouts having sex on campouts or whatever will be an issue?

So why do you feel that the BSA regulates co-tenting and co-showering?

Is it to increase tent sales as Crews would have to purchase more tents that otherwise needed ?

 

[edwest2]

I agree. I am in accordance with Church teaching and am married with 2 kids, but I find much of what people say here and the outright paranoia over the “gay agenda” to be way over the top. The amount of time alone that some of these people spend talking about homosexuality vs a million other sins that affect A far greater number of people is particularly telling.

Please do not change the subject.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Bob (and friends here). . . this really has nothing to do with chastity and chaste scouts.

It has nothing to do with “loving the sinner”.

Instead, the organization forces us to treat homosexuality as a perfect MORAL equivalent to heterosexuality.

The BSA has been co-opted to join the activists in the redefinition of values.

Exactly right.

Ed

 

[Corki]

Bob (and friends here). . . this really has nothing to do with chastity and chaste scouts.

It has nothing to do with “loving the sinner”.

Instead, the organization forces us to treat homosexuality as a perfect MORAL equivalent to heterosexuality.

The BSA has been co-opted to join the activists in the redefinition of values.

YES!! This is one of the concerns with troops that are sponsored by parishes and Churches. On the one hand, the Chuch has a constant teaching that homosexuallity is gravely disordered but then we are supposed to say “oh, that’s ok” when it’s a gay Boy Scout. It’s NOT ok. It IS disordered. We can be compassionate without having to pretend that homosexuality is just fine and dandy.

 

[edwest2]

Jesus does not share your view. He welcomed sinners.

And that is the other part of the deception. The above statement is only half true. While welcoming sinners, He was sent to call sinners to repentance, not enable or encourage them.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Tigg]

I agree. I am in accordance with Church teaching and am married with 2 kids, but I find much of what people say here and the outright paranoia over the “gay agenda” to be way over the top. The amount of time alone that some of these people spend talking about homosexuality vs a million other sins that affect A far greater number of people is particularly telling.

What I find particularly telling is the extreme naivete of those who think there is no gay agenda. They should read more what the Church has to say about it and the legislative struggle because untold amounts of money have gone to certain social justice groups who hire professional lobbyists to pass bills to normalize a deviant lifestyle.