The beginning of the end....

[Just_A_Guy]

One other thing that might be semi-germane to this discussion is that, as I have suggested previously, access to scout camps is one thing that does make BSA participation irreplaceably "worth it" to the Church from an economic standpoint, even in spite of whatever other tomfoolery comes from National:

 

The trouble with comparing the cost-to-member of Scout Camp versus Girls' Camp is that the Church typically owns the facilities used for Girls' Camp. If you assume that your average camp's costs of operation (regardless of whether it's a Girls' Camp or a Scout Camp) are $1,000 per child per week, and an LDS young woman pays $150 for girls' camp whereas an LDS scout pays $250 (plus - say - another $100 of the Friends of Scouting take and $50 from the BSA registration fee goes towards that cost)--Scout Camp, even with FoS, is still a screaming deal for the Church; because the combined church/individual member's cost for Girl's Camp is $1,000 (the Church's operating budget just subsidizes that other $850) whereas the combined church/individual member's cost for Scout Camp is only $400 with the Church subsidizing nothing above what has already been stated.

Edited May 24, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Too bad that 2.3% of the population will likely destroy the BSA as we know it. ...

 

I realize that many people dislike comparisons of gay issues to racial issues. Still, I find it interesting that the BSA discriminated against non-white boys for generations; and non-white leaders, too.  And even though the organization is integrated today, there are still Americans who don't want to participate in an integrated group. Many others still do.  And the BSA has survived. 

 

I'm sure that after it allows gay leaders and as many Americans get over their aversion, the BSA will continue and boys will continue to benefit. Certainly, some people and some churches (probably my own) will walk away from the official organization. Others will continue to participate.

[Just_A_Guy]

I realize that many people dislike comparisons of gay issues to racial issues. Still, I find it interesting that the BSA discriminated against non-white boys for generations; and non-white leaders, too. And even though the organization is integrated today, there are still Americans who don't want to participate in an integrated group. Many others still do. And the BSA has survived.

Why do you think that an apposite comparison? Are black men as likely to be sexually attracted to other males as gay men are?

Or are you just acknowledging that you think the BSA and LDS Church, if they don't change their policies, should be marginalized, ridiculed, and shunned in the same way that racist organizations like the KKK are?

Edited May 24, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Why do you think that an apposite comparison? Are black men as likely to be sexually attracted to other males as gay men are?

Or are you just acknowledging that you think the BSA and LDS Church, if they don't change their policies, should be marginalized, ridiculed, and shunned in the same way that racist organizations like the KKK are?

 

I think it is valid to compare two different episodes of discrimination against two different groups. I don't follow you on your second question. To answer your third question, I didn't intend to convey the opinion (that you seem to have concluded) that either organization should be marginalized, ridiculed, or shunned in any way. I'm glad, however, that you asked questions which suggests to me that you want to understand my viewpoint.  

 

Anyway I was responding to the assertion that the BSA as we know it would be destroyed.  I believe it will *not* be destroyed, but that it will continue serving boys as it does today. So, if I was acknowledging anything it was that some people and some other organizations may well decide to separate themselves from the BSA but that won't destroy it.

Edited May 24, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

 I don't follow you on your second question.

 

Well, it is a question with rather inconvenient implications for those who insist that the BSA should allow gay leaders.

 

My direct point was that non-white leaders are not, by virtue being non-white, automatically more likely than white leaders to be sexually attracted to boys in their late teens.  Homosexual leaders--quite bluntly--are.  So, no; the two forms of discrimination are not comparable.  Sexual orientation discrimination is based on reducing the distractions (if not outright threats) caused by sexual tension/sexual attraction between group members, which is also a primary motive in creating a sex-segregated group in the first place.  Racial discrimination, by contrast, was based on pure animus and not integral to BSA's core mission (from its inception it was the Boy Scouts of America, not the White Anglo-Saxon Protestant Scouts of America).

 

It's also worth noting that there was never an official national BSA policy requiring racial discrimination--BSA merely backed up the chartering organizations and local councils that wished to discriminate (and not all of them did).  By the standards of those who paint pre-1974 BSA as a "racially discriminatory" body, BSA will still be engaging in unacceptable discrimination against gays until it does to conservative chartering orgs what it did to the racist chartering orgs:  Warn them to quit discriminating or else face revocation of their troop charters.  That's another reason that this notion of letting each troop choose its own membership standards is just a pipe dream.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Well, it is a question with rather inconvenient implications for those who insist that the BSA should allow gay leaders.

 

My direct point was that non-white leaders are not, by virtue being non-white, automatically more likely than white leaders to be sexually attracted to boys in their late teens.  Homosexual leaders--quite bluntly--are.  So, no; the two forms of discrimination are not comparable.  

 

But it is not a question with relevance to what I remarked (aside from the fact that I am not one *insisting* that the BSA should allow gay leaders). Your point goes to an argument I never made. We agree that non-white leaders are not automatically more likely than white leaders to be sexually attracted to boys in their late teens. However, our agreement has nothing to do with my comparison because I didn't make a comparison of two forms of discrimination. I compared the responses [of people to the BSA itself after it discontinued discrimination against one group of Americans] with the responses [of people to the BSA itself after it discontinued discrimination against another group of Americans]. That's all.  

 

Now, at the risk of letting some of your remarks draw me away from my point, I want to respond to your assertion that homosexual leaders--quite bluntly--are (sexually attracted to boys in their late teens).  Quite bluntly, that's just flat inaccurate. It is no more true than saying that heterosexual leaders are sexually attracted to girls in their late teens. I'm sure it isn't your intent, but it seems to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia--which again is just flat inaccurate.

Edited May 25, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

But it is not a question with relevance to what I remarked (aside from the fact that I am not one *insisting* that the BSA should allow gay leaders). Your point goes to an argument I never made. We agree that non-white leaders are not automatically more likely than white leaders to be sexually attracted to boys in their late teens. However, our agreement has nothing to do with my comparison because I didn't make a comparison of two forms of discrimination. I compared the responses [of people to the BSA itself after it discontinued discrimination against one group of Americans] with the responses [of people to the BSA itself after it discontinued discrimination against another group of Americans]. That's all. 

 

That seems to be a distinction without a difference.  The responses to the change in policy, are directly related to the reasons for the original policies in the first place.

 

 

Now, at the risk of letting some of your remarks draw me away from my point, I want to respond to your assertion that homosexual leaders--quite bluntly--are (sexually attracted to boys in their late teens).  Quite bluntly, that's just flat inaccurate. It is no more true than saying that heterosexual leaders are sexually attracted to girls in their late teens. I'm sure it isn't your intent, but it seems to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia--which again is just flat inaccurate.

 

As long as we're correcting each other's conflated terminology ( :) ), let's make one other clarification:  pedophilia is technically an attraction to pubescent or prepubescent children, and I haven't discussed that at all.  What I have stated, earlier in this thread, is:

 

 

Now, I'm not saying that gays are inherently pedophiles or anything like that.  But--gay or straight--humans are generally hard-wired to find youths in their late teens, sexually attractive to some degree.  I wouldn't send my boys to a scout camp where they'd be sharing restroom and bathing facilities with adult women who might conceivably be attracted to them, and I certainly won't do it if they may be sharing such facilities with adult men who might conceivably be attracted to them.

 

It strikes me that one can only disagree with that by arguing that 1) neither straights nor gays have a significant subset of their populations who will be be attracted to young-but-sexually-mature males or females (depending on their preference), and a (smaller) subset that will act inappropriately on those attractions; or 2) only straights--but not gays--have such subsets of their populations; either because gays are either more biologically immune to such temptations, or more inherently sexually virtuous than straights are.

Edited May 25, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

It is no more true than saying that heterosexual leaders are sexually attracted to girls in their late teens. 

 

Um....

[Guest]

That seems to be a distinction without a difference.  The responses to the change in policy, are directly related to the reasons for the original policies in the first place.

 

No.  The responses to the change in policy are directly related to deeply rooted feelings about discrimination itself.  Some people favor discrimination, and some other people oppose discrimination.  This was so in the case of discrimination against blacks, and it is so in the case of discrimination against gays.  So, you're right if you say that drawing a distinction between the two cases does so without a difference between them.  But I have not been drawing a distinction.  I have compared the two cases in order to make my point that they are similar, not different.  From there my original remarks were to point out that I believe we may expect results in the gay issue similar to the results we observed in the blacks issue.  That is simply that some people leave the BSA and other people don't.  On that basis I speculated originally that we are not (as the original OP referred to) seeing the beginning of the end of the BSA.

[Guest]

Just_A_Guy, let's talk about this.

 

... gay or straight--humans are generally hard-wired to find youths in their late teens, sexually attractive to some degree.  I wouldn't send my boys to a scout camp where they'd be sharing restroom and bathing facilities with adult women who might conceivably be attracted to them, and I certainly won't do it if they may be sharing such facilities with adult men who might conceivably be attracted to them.

 

First of all, I agree with you: humans are generally hard-wired to find youths in their late teens sexually attractive to some degree.  (If I said or gave the impression that I reject this statement out-of-hand then allow me retract or to correct the impression.)  

 

But who are you really talking about here?  I mean you use the term "boys" in the same paragraph as the term "youths in their late teens".  If we use those terms, we must agree I should think that there must be early teens and mid-teens.  For me late teens must be 18 and 19.  I don't think you are really worried about sending 18 and 19 year-olds into a bathroom where someone (heterosexual or homosexual) might conceivably be sexually attracted to them.  To me this is apparent, but perhaps you disagree.

Edited May 25, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Vort]

I am not sexually attracted to 12-year-old girls. I am not even sexually attracted to 18-year-old girls. Any female under the age of about 30, however pretty, is unlikely to be sexually attractive to me.

 

So therefore, do you think it would be hunky-dory for me to take a group of 12- to 18-year-old girls out camping for a few days? Any, I don't know, red flags or objections? Or is everyone totally okay with that?

 

What's the difference between that scenario and a homosexual man taking a bunch of 12- to 18-year-old boys out camping?

 

I find it exceedingly difficult to believe that people have trouble understanding why this scenario is problematic.

[Just_A_Guy]

No. The responses to the change in policy are directly related to deeply rooted feelings about discrimination itself. Some people favor discrimination, and some other people oppose discrimination. This was so in the case of discrimination against blacks, and it is so in the case of discrimination against gays. So, you're right if you say that drawing a distinction between the two cases does so without a difference between them. But I have not been drawing a distinction. I have compared the two cases in order to make my point that they are similar, not different. From there my original remarks were to point out that I believe we may expect results in the gay issue similar to the results we observed in the blacks issue. That is simply that some people leave the BSA and other people don't. On that basis I speculated originally that we are not (as the original OP referred to) seeing the beginning of the end of the BSA.

Where I think you're making a distinction without a difference, is where you seem to suggest that the factors leading an organization to adopt a policy have nothing--nothing!!!--to do with whether the organization's members as individuals would support a change in that policy. BSA has chosen to exclude gays as leaders, at least in part, because of the potential for sexual attraction; and that potential will not go away merely because the BSA decrees that it must be so. Social progressives like to believe that they can fiat changes in human nature by the stroke of a pen. Real life is rarely so obliging.

The underlying factors of the BSA's race policies versus its sexual orientation policies are different and non-comparable, as I have repeatedly stated, because admitting blacks did not create an element of sexual tension that was supposed to be excluded from the organization from the get-go.

But who are you really talking about here? I mean you use the term "boys" in the same paragraph as the term "youths in their late teens". If we use those terms, we must agree I should think that there must be early teens and mid-teens. For me late teens must be 18 and 19. I don't think you are really worried about sending 18 and 19 year-olds into a bathroom where someone (heterosexual or homosexual) might conceivably be sexually attracted to them. To me this is apparent, but perhaps you disagree.

When I say "late teens" I generally think of 15-17 (18 and up is too old for BSA, which I understand recently adjusted the maximum age for Venturers down from 21). We see frequent stories about boys of this age getting mixed up with female schoolteachers, even without overnight activities and common restroom/bathing facilities; and of course BSA isn't immune from this sort of thing even with its current policy.

And, I agree with Vort in that I daresay most participants would never ask a female teenager to camping with men under such conditions. But they expect it of males because--what?--gay men have better track records of sexual restraint than straight women, or straight men, or teenaged boys of any sexual orientation?

Edited May 26, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Where I think you're making a distinction without a difference, is where you seem to suggest that the factors leading an organization to adopt a policy have nothing--nothing!!!--to do with whether the organization's members as individuals would support a change in that policy. ...

 

I think I understand that. And since you think so, allow me to say that I don't suggest it intentionally. I still think you’re identifying a fallacy where it doesn’t exist.  You’re saying that I drew a distinction (without a difference) when I didn’t draw a distinction in the first place. Your rebuttals seem to me to be directed at arguments I didn’t make in the first place.

 

My original remarks essentially observed that A (allowing black boy scouts) didn’t yield X (the end of the BSA), and B (allowing black leaders) didn’t yield X, and C (allowing gay boy scouts) didn’t yield X.  Therefore, I don't expect D (allowing gay leaders) to yield X.  None of your rebuttals seem to have addressed this observation and conclusion (at least in a way I find relevant). Instead (I perceive) they mischaracterized my observation and conclusion (and my position).

 

At least that’s how I see it, so it’s probably time for me to stop beating this dead horse and reiterate that we do agree on some things. I benefited by learning more about your viewpoint on other issues [aside from OP#1 ...2.3% of the population will likely destroy the BSA ...]; and that’s a good thing should we discuss those other issues in the future.

Edited May 26, 2015 by UT.starscoper

[Just_A_Guy]

I'm sorry we've been talking past each other.  The thrust of my arguments--trying to fit them into your most recent structural paradigm--is that A) and B) are significantly different than D) (I didn't see you saying anything at all about C).

 

But, yeah, if you want to move on, I'm good.  :)

[Guest]

I'm sorry we've been talking past each other.  The thrust of my arguments--trying to fit them into your most recent structural paradigm--is that A) and B) are significantly different than D) (I didn't see you saying anything at all about C).

 

But, yeah, if you want to move on, I'm good.  :)

 

Good. And I'm sorry, too.  I see that I was vague in the post I made which started our dialogue. But as I said, I benefited (and I'll try to assume less often that others automatically perceive comprehensively what I'm thinking when I post).   :)​ 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Anyway I was responding to the assertion that the BSA as we know it would be destroyed.  I believe it will *not* be destroyed, but that it will continue serving boys as it does today. So, if I was acknowledging anything it was that some people and some other organizations may well decide to separate themselves from the BSA but that won't destroy it.

 

If by "destroyed" you mean cease to exist as an organization then I agree with you. 

However, the BSA WILL be "destroyed" as far as being a moral force for good in the world, and a training ground for turning young boys into men. As I've said in the past, if you like what the Girl Scouts HAVE become, you’ll love what the Boy Scouts WILL become. 

Along with the new "Sustainability" merit badge (nothing but a climate change primer), you'll have merit badges for "sexual identity", "diversity", "tolerance", and of course, "water balloon safety". 

The word "God" will be removed from the Scout Oath just as the British scouts have done, and atheists along with transgendered girls will be welcomed with open arms.

As more and more conservative groups leave the BSA, more and more leftist groups will fill the vacuum. The militant homosexuals, environmentalists, animal rights advocates, anti-second amendment stooges, etc. will permeate the organization and ultimately change the very nature of scouting. While the BSA will continue to exist, it will only superficially resemble the original. 

You may think this is all hyperbole, but (perhaps) with the exception of a couple of those merit badges, you will see what I have said come to pass.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Capitalist_Oinker

[David13]

C O

I see no exaggeration there at all.

That is exactly what will happen, and in fact is happening right now in many, far too many other aspects of society.

dc

[bytor2112]

They will probably have a really sweet rainbow knot you can earn and a LGBT merit badge too!!

[Guest MormonGator]

They will probably have a really sweet rainbow knot you can earn and a LGBT merit badge too!!

I have no problem with their policy changes but this was great! Lol! 

Edited May 27, 2015 by MormonGator

[Guest]

... You may think this is all hyperbole, but (perhaps) with the exception of a couple of those merit badges, you will see what I have said come to pass.

 

Only time will tell whether your prophesy (and I'm not being sarcastic) is true or not.  If we both plan to remain on this forum (and if this forum continues for a number of years) it would be interesting if we could compare notes when the future arrives.  

[unixknight]

They will probably have a really sweet rainbow knot you can earn and a LGBT merit badge too!!

 

Some ideas on how to earn one:

 

• Come out as gay.  After all, in the 21st Century, you're never too young to explore sexual identity issues!
• Interview a family member who has been persecuted by those nasty religious zealots and draw a poster!
• Write a witty skit on why being gay is just better (Make sure it's a musical)
• Lecture a Christian of any denomination on why being gay is just as good IN EVERY WAY as being straight
• Draw a poster of at least 10 historical figures who were probably gay (even if they weren't)
• Help a Cub Scout build a FABULOUS rainbow pinewood derby car with all the gay marriage equality emblems on it
• Pretend to be gay for a week.  (Especially effective if done in teams of 2)
• Boycott Chik-Fil-A for a month
• Show up to the award ceremony in drag
• Attend a gay wedding
• Attend a gay pride event
• Join a pro-gay marriage demonstration
• Make signs for the demonstration
• Punch a Westboro Baptist in the face (To be fair, that one should get its own badge, IMHO)

[Just_A_Guy]

Actually, there already is an (unofficial) rainbow knot.  It's sort of a protest thing:

 

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Only time will tell whether your prophesy (and I'm not being sarcastic) is true or not.  If we both plan to remain on this forum (and if this forum continues for a number of years) it would be interesting if we could compare notes when the future arrives.  

 

I'll do my best to stick around. 

And believe it or not, I hope I end up being wrong.

[Palerider]

I too think the BSA is going to be hurting if not already so. I know and I am sure many of you know this as well ....the Church has a program already  to go in place of the Scouting program. I also know from seving on my local Eagle Board of Review that other churches ( I use the term other in place of which denominations ) have scouting programs going in order to replace their involvement in the local Scouting program. One of the individuals on the board with me showed me the pamphlet and I can't remember the name of it.