Petition to the BSA

[MarginOfError]

Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout leader who was removed for being gay

I know this will produce mixed results here, but if you agree with the purpose of this petition, please take a moment to sign it. This is one of only a very few things in BSA policy that I openly oppose without reservation.

On a less serious note, my initial link wasn't working, so I tried to find the petition manually. I type into my browser change.com and was surprised that I didn't find what I expected. There really is a difference between change.com and change.org.

[rameumptom]

Sorry MOE, but not interested in signing that petition. BSA has to be very careful on who is allowed to be a leader. As it is, almost all child molestation cases between child and adult in BSA are a man and boy. Normally, heterosexuals do not molest boys, and when they do, it is a homosexual experience.

[Guest]

The BSA is a private organization (yeah, there's controversy on that because it is the largest private not-for-profit organization out there, but it IS private). If the BSA do not allow openly practicing gay people to serve as leaders they can do that. If they decide, all of a sudden, they don't want anybody with a crooked nose serving as leaders, they can do that too. Nobody is forced to join the BSA.

Now, instead of signing a petition to try to force a privately held company to change their rules, it is better to go ahead and form your own version of the BSA that do allow what you want allowed.

[carlimac]

Sorry MOE, but not interested in signing that petition. BSA has to be very careful on who is allowed to be a leader. As it is, almost all child molestation cases between child and adult in BSA are a man and boy. Normally, heterosexuals do not molest boys, and when they do, it is a homosexual experience.

I don't condone reinstating this person either- simply on principle. But actually it's a lesbian mother of a kid in the pack that was let go. I highly doubt she is threat for molestation of a boy.

[skippy740]

I would have a hard time with this.

1) Just because someone has same-sex attraction does not make them a pedophile. I get that. However, it could increase the risks of making it easier for a gay, child pedophile to join the ranks of BSA leaders? (I put a question mark only because I don't know how plausible it is... even as I typed it.) Even one boy affected is one boy too many.

2) Leaders should exemplify the BSA Scout Law. How would a SSA BSA leader explain the part in the scout law regarding "morally straight"?

3) As was mentioned before, the BSA is a private organization (just like the LDS church). Both are tax-exempt entities, yet both can choose who and when to appoint to various positions. The next step of such a petition would be to petition Congress to revoke such tax benefits for all organizations that have their own standards that discriminate against another group for whatever reason. The Church would also be affected by such legislation... not to mention the growing intervention of the Government in our personal lives. (Okay, that's another subject.)

So, while gay does not equal "child pedophile", it can equal increased risk to the boys. But then again, there are child pedophiles who are straight... and probably more of them too.

Depending on how far this petition could go, it could mean that tax-exempt entities must do things according to the Government's view, or they lose their tax-exempt status.

I'd have a hard time signing such a petition.

Edited April 25, 2012 by skippy740

[skippy740]

I don't condone reinstating this person either- simply on principle. But actually it's a lesbian mother of a kid in the pack that was let go. I highly doubt she is threat for molestation of a boy.

That may be true, but how can the BSA allow 'lesbian' den leaders and not allow gay scoutmasters?

I truly wish people's sexual orientation wasn't such a public issue.

[carlimac]

That may be true, but how can the BSA allow 'lesbian' den leaders and not allow gay scoutmasters?

I truly wish people's sexual orientation wasn't such a public issue.

I agree with you and with the BSA policy. I was just pointing out the gender of the leader in light of the comment on molestation of boys being a homosexual act. In this case, if this woman molested a boy it wouldn't be homosexual. It would be...I don't know what, but pretty weird.

[Saldrin]

I support the BSA 100% in this and I will not sign the petition.

[Gwen]

Sorry MOE, but not interested in signing that petition. BSA has to be very careful on who is allowed to be a leader. As it is, almost all child molestation cases between child and adult in BSA are a man and boy. Normally, heterosexuals do not molest boys, and when they do, it is a homosexual experience.

Of course child adult abuse in the BSA is almost always between man and boy... how many girls are allowed to join the BSA?

Yes male/male and female/female sexual interactions are homosexual experiences but that does not mean the parties involved are homosexual. Child sexual abuse is more about control than sex so opportunity has more to do with it than sexual preference.

The BSA is a private organization (yeah, there's controversy on that because it is the largest private not-for-profit organization out there, but it IS private). If the BSA do not allow openly practicing gay people to serve as leaders they can do that. If they decide, all of a sudden, they don't want anybody with a crooked nose serving as leaders, they can do that too. Nobody is forced to join the BSA.

Now, instead of signing a petition to try to force a privately held company to change their rules, it is better to go ahead and form your own version of the BSA that do allow what you want allowed.

I agree it's a private organization and they can set their rules. However, saying no one is forced to join (when speaking of the lds church) isn't entirely accurate. We've had threads here where ppl felt forced to sign their boys up. The church makes it very clear that the scouting program is part of the ym's program. It's taken very seriously in our church and little choice is out there.

My bigger concern with the direction of the BSA is the allowing of women as leaders above the cub level. I find it very frustrating when my husband goes off on camp trainings and comes home talking about the women (from our community) that were there. I'm supposed to be ok with women camping with my sons and husband? I know I'm just being silly. Women don't go to scout camp/trainings to pick up men, no one will be making passes at my husband...... but then I'm pretty sure gays don't go to scout activities for that reason either so the "risks" should be about the same.

[MarginOfError]

Sorry MOE, but not interested in signing that petition. BSA has to be very careful on who is allowed to be a leader. As it is, almost all child molestation cases between child and adult in BSA are a man and boy. Normally, heterosexuals do not molest boys, and when they do, it is a homosexual experience.

There's no need to apologize for not wanting to sign the petition.

But I do want to clarify something:

The vast majority of men who molest boys self-identify as heterosexual.

You can label the molestation a homosexual experience as much as you like*, but the fact remains, men who openly self-identify as homosexual very rarely molest young boys. The argument that the BSA can't allow homosexual leaders because it would put the youth at risk has no basis in reality.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

* Often, the argument goes that if the man molested a boy, he clearly isn't actually heterosexual even if he claims to be. The link above addresses some of the reasons heterosexual men molest boys, but that really isn't the point. The point is that regardless of how you define a person's sexual orientation by their acts, the molestations are being performed by people who claim to be straight. So selection criteria based on self-reported sexual orientation is entirely false logic.

To put it another way, it's absurd to say "The guy that said he was straight molested a boy so we have to keep all the guys that say they are gay away from the boys."

[MarginOfError]

The BSA is a private organization (yeah, there's controversy on that because it is the largest private not-for-profit organization out there, but it IS private). If the BSA do not allow openly practicing gay people to serve as leaders they can do that. If they decide, all of a sudden, they don't want anybody with a crooked nose serving as leaders, they can do that too. Nobody is forced to join the BSA.

Now, instead of signing a petition to try to force a privately held company to change their rules, it is better to go ahead and form your own version of the BSA that do allow what you want allowed.

I agree that the BSA can set it's own rules. That doesn't mean I'm not free to express my opinion to the BSA about those rules and if I think they should be different. It really isn't that much different than writing a letter to Target asking them to reconsider their policy and not allowing girl scouts to sell cookies in front of their stores.

As for forming another organization, I don't have much love for that idea, and there are a number of reasons why. Among the less important ones: it's a waste of resources (duplication of organization) to have to huge organizations committed to the same goal; helping young men to become confident and competent leaders for the future.

More importantly, I believe that forming a separate organization would do nothing to promote tolerance. In fact, it would probably create more intolerance.

I believe that the BSA program has much to offer boys regardless of sexual orientation (or religion; the exclusion of atheists and agnostics is something I firmly oppose as well). I also believe that it's possible to teach boys (and adults) to say, "I disagree with some of your morals, and I believe we can still be friends and do much good in the world." Creating separate organization would inevitably pit the groups against each other, not encourage them to work together.

Do I believe that this petition will change anything right now? Not really. I believe things will change some day, but it won't happen unless the people that are active within the organization are willing to make known what they believe.

[MarginOfError]

I would have a hard time with this.

1) Just because someone has same-sex attraction does not make them a pedophile. I get that. However, it could increase the risks of making it easier for a gay, child pedophile to join the ranks of BSA leaders? (I put a question mark only because I don't know how plausible it is... even as I typed it.) Even one boy affected is one boy too many.

I addressed part of this earlier in pointing out that openly gay men very rarely commit such predatorial acts. The other thing ought to be mentioned is that protecting children from abusers is not a matter of screening. It is a matter of training adult leaders, parents, and the boys themselves how to identify situations that put youth at risk. You almost never hear of incidents of abuse when troops maintain the discipline for the two-deep leadership principle. But that discipline has to be held by everyone involved in the troop, not just the leaders.

2) Leaders should exemplify the BSA Scout Law. How would a SSA BSA leader explain the part in the scout law regarding "morally straight"?

The BSA doesn't really define "morally straight." It's an ambiguous term that is (supposedly*) open to the moral code adopted by each boy and his family, although chartering organizations may have a say as well.

Also, if we're going to hold the BSA to that kind of a standard, they probably ought to start tossing all the adulterers in their leadership ranks.

* Wiccans, however, haven't had a very open reception in the BSA.

3) As was mentioned before, the BSA is a private organization (just like the LDS church). Both are tax-exempt entities, yet both can choose who and when to appoint to various positions. The next step of such a petition would be to petition Congress to revoke such tax benefits for all organizations that have their own standards that discriminate against another group for whatever reason. The Church would also be affected by such legislation... not to mention the growing intervention of the Government in our personal lives. (Okay, that's another subject.)

This would be a tragic scenario, and one I would not support. Tax exempt status is a great thing for organizations that provide a service to the citizenry it serves and alleviate burden on society. The Church and the BSA are both organizations that do far more good than they do harm**. As such, they ought to be allowed benefits that help them to exist.

** In fact, the reason I am likely to forever remain in scouting is that, despite the policies I disagree with, I see so much good coming out of it and I want that to continue.

Edited April 26, 2012 by skippy740

[MarginOfError]

My bigger concern with the direction of the BSA is the allowing of women as leaders above the cub level. I find it very frustrating when my husband goes off on camp trainings and comes home talking about the women (from our community) that were there. I'm supposed to be ok with women camping with my sons and husband? I know I'm just being silly. Women don't go to scout camp/trainings to pick up men, no one will be making passes at my husband...... but then I'm pretty sure gays don't go to scout activities for that reason either so the "risks" should be about the same.

Oddly, in my experience, having a female leader present has been immeasurably beneficial. One anecdote from a couple of years ago:

It was Saturday morning at summer camp and we were packing up and getting ready to go home. We had one boy who was complaining of feeling ill. One of the scoutmasters pulled him aside, asked him all of his symptoms, and then sat him in the shade to rest for a bit. A few minutes later, another scoutmaster talked to him and asked him a similar battery of questions trying to identify the specific illness. After a short discussion, he encouraged him to drink some water and try to rest. A third scoutmaster repeated the process to the same results. Next, the female leader in camp approached the boy, took one look at him and said, "You miss your mom, don't you." The boy immediately broke down crying. He was only homesick.

Mom was a bit more in tune to what he needed.

The women leaders in our troop have been invaluable. However, we don't have any female direct contact leaders (scoutmasters or assistants).

Another thing you should also consider is that co-ed venturing crews require the presence of female leaders at all activities. A lot of the training overlaps. It's possible (and likely) that the women are attending to enhance their ability to fill committee positions and venture crew advisorships.

[MarginOfError]

If you've read this far, you deserve a big thanks for listening to me get up on my soap box.

Let me just say one more thing

I understand that this is a controversial and largely emotional issue. I don't think anyone is an awful person or bigoted or anything like that for not agreeing with me. I certainly won't begrudge anyone for not wanting to sign. As a sum of your parts, I find you all much more "good" than "bad" (I'm really not sure how that's going to come across, but I only intend good things by it) and this isn't really an issue on which I'd want to define us by our differences.

</rant>

[Suzie]

I will sign it. I will sign it because I don't believe sexual orientation should be an issue. It is actually very sad that it is. The BSA have the right to decide who they want in their organization, at the same time, people have the freedom to disagree and peacefully request a change in policy.

And to be fairly honest, I am very tired of the stereotypes about homosexuality and about homosexuals that I read often. From the idea that homosexuals are a bunch of mentally unstable folks whose favorite hobby is literally jump on women or men because they cannot control their sexual urges to think that most cases of rape against boys are committed by homosexuals. If people should take the time to just read the newspapers and see all the horrible cases of abuse, torture and rape against children, they would realize that in its majority, they have being committed by those who identify themselves as heterosexual.

There are lots of sickos out there folks and they come in all shapes and forms....

[carlimac]

I will sign it. I will sign it because I don't believe sexual orientation should be an issue. It is actually very sad that it is. The BSA have the right to decide who they want in their organization, at the same time, people have the freedom to disagree and peacefully request a change in policy.

And to be fairly honest, I am very tired of the stereotypes about homosexuality and about homosexuals that I read often. From the idea that homosexuals are a bunch of mentally unstable folks whose favorite hobby is literally jump on women or men because they cannot control their sexual urges to think that most cases of rape against boys are committed by homosexuals. If people should take the time to just read the newspapers and see all the horrible cases of abuse, torture and rape against children, they would realize that in its majority, they have being committed by those who identify themselves as heterosexual.

There are lots of sickos out there folks and they come in all shapes and forms....

Where'd you read this one?

[PeterVenkman]

WOW.

Here's an interesting thought experiment regarding cognitive dissonance:

Compare the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to reinstate a gay Boy Scout leader in this thread with the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to boycott Groupon for offering a coupon to tour an armory that is also used to film porn in the next thread over.

Just wow.

[Tyler90AZ]

My initial reaction was off course I will sign. Then I thought about it a little more and feel they have influence over impressionable children. Not that gay people are all bad, simply not true. It comes from the fact that I have have seen where a kid hangs around a gay person and grows up to be one himself.

[Dravin]

WOW.

Here's an interesting thought experiment regarding cognitive dissonance:

Compare the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to reinstate a gay Boy Scout leader in this thread with the responses to the proposal to sign a petition to boycott Groupon for offering a coupon to tour an armory that is also used to film porn in the next thread over.

Just wow.

I suspect you're referencing Skippy's and Anatess' comments, more specifically the opposition to the idea of a petition. Neither of them have participated in the Groupon thread. If person A maintains a petition for the Groupon situation is fine and dandy and also that a petition for BSA is not fine and dandy I could see the case for cognitive dissonance. When it's person A maintaining a petition for the Groupon situation is good and dandy and person B maintaining a petition for the BSA is not fine and dandy, calling it cognitive dissonance is a bit tenuous. I like to think we're a decently tight knit community here at .net but I don't think we're close enough for members holding contradictory beliefs to each other to qualify as cognitive dissonance. :)

Actually as of this moment the only people to have participated in both threads is me and you.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Dravin

[skippy740]

Don't you know? We're trying to take over the world!!!

But there is a problem in trying to take over the world to "remake it in OUR image".

I follow Brian Tracy on Facebook. He recently posed an interesting question: Which would you rather end: Hunger or Hatred?

Here was my response:

To "end" something FOR EVERYONE assumes you have the power to control it. I can only control myself. I can influence others, but I can only control me. To 'end hunger' may be a very worthy goal... but it requires controlling more of the world. To 'end hatred' is to take away the freedom of thoughts in another. I am not God, nor am I looking to take over the world. For me, I can only do the best I can do... so if I can do that, I can help end hunger and hatred on behalf of a few. Let all that influence continue to grow in the world, and the world will voluntarily choose to end hatred and hunger at the same time.

We cannot 'force' anyone into submission. We cannot force the gospel (or any other good intention) upon another. That's using Satan's methods to spread the gospel (or other moral issue).

All we can do is share an opinion and hope to influence others. That is part of the free marketplace. If you don't like a company, don't buy their goods or support their organization. The problem is if that doesn't feel like 'enough'. If it's not enough, where would it stop? Then the Government has to step in and 'regulate morals' within business, charities, etc.

I'm all for voicing an opinion. But when the 'powers that be' decide not to act on it (or hasn't in the past)... would the issue be dropped? Or will they cause it to become an issue for the Supreme Court?

And I'm not saying that ANY poster here would be trying to take anything that far. But some of these issues have such passion (yeah, maybe that's it) behind them that "they won't rest until it goes to the Supreme Court".

So with some issues, I bow out. I don't sign petitions and I don't add fuel to the fire.

But that's just me.

This life is not meant to be a 'sterile' environment. We all need to be able to make choices. If the choices are removed from being a choice, then all that's left is to make good choices. But that wouldn't be Christ's plan, would it?

Edited April 26, 2012 by skippy740

[Wingnut]

It comes from the fact that I have have seen where a kid hangs around a gay person and grows up to be one himself.

Do you suppose that perhaps the young person was already gay, but too scared to "come out" yet, and instead kept company with an older gay person who may have been an inspiration or role model for the younger person?

Gay isn't contagious, and it's ridiculous to imply otherwise.

[carlimac]

Do you suppose that perhaps the young person was already gay, but too scared to "come out" yet, and instead kept company with an older gay person who may have been an inspiration or role model for the younger person?

Gay isn't contagious, and it's ridiculous to imply otherwise.

That's a nice thought, but not 100% correct. There is plenty of recruiting whether direct or indirect that goes on. Google "Crafting Gay Children". Scary business.

[Guest]

I agree it's a private organization and they can set their rules. However, saying no one is forced to join (when speaking of the lds church) isn't entirely accurate. We've had threads here where ppl felt forced to sign their boys up. The church makes it very clear that the scouting program is part of the ym's program. It's taken very seriously in our church and little choice is out there.

It is entirely accurate. Just because you felt compelled to join doesn't mean you were forced to join. Your membership in the Church and your priesthood ordination as well as your path to Celestial glory do not hinge on your membership in the BSA.

I don't know if this is true in other wards, but in our ward, even our Stake, the scouting program is a joke. If the Church takes it very seriously, our ward didn't get the memo. Scouting is only one of the many tools used to train Aaronic priests.

Edited April 26, 2012 by anatess

[Tyler90AZ]

Do you suppose that perhaps the young person was already gay, but too scared to "come out" yet, and instead kept company with an older gay person who may have been an inspiration or role model for the younger person?

Gay isn't contagious, and it's ridiculous to imply otherwise.

Well of course that is a possibility....

The situation I am referring to is a toddler being watched by a gay uncle. The child is older now, but acts homosexual(feminin). If you act a certain way your going to naturally gravitate to a like group of people. In this case he learned feminin traits from his gay uncle, therefore, it is likely he will gravitate to those who already have feminin traits. It is just interesting how he picked it up from his uncle.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Tyler90AZ

[Vort]

My second son just received his Eagle Scout award at his court of honor last night. He and his younger brother sold flag subscriptions last week, where at least one person had no compunctions about telling them off because of how "homophobic" the program is.

The use alone of that false, dishonest term prods me to support the BSA in actively preventing homosexuals from holding Scouting positions.