jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (32 posts)

Insisting that one private group accept gayness in their membership.

  1. Ericdierker profile image79
    Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago

    Boy Scouts. Why are people forcing them to accept gay members and leaders? I get gay rights. I wish we could get along on the issues of gay marriage or something equivalent. I became a Life Scout and loved the experience. I was in Order of the Arrow and JLTC. But I do not get why the two need to be together. I do not even get how it works. Boy Scouts and anything to do with sex just seems wrong. If a young man were to flaunt his sexual prowess, desires and preferences within the scouting activities, it don't matter if he is gay or not, it would be wrong.

    I would like to have a broader perspective on this.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image62
      prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It will work as long as they embody the obj of the group and they are not there to flaunt their sexual preferences.  Gay or not, you have the capacity to help. smile

      1. Ericdierker profile image79
        Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is the way it seems to me. As I think back on it, Mike from my troop is gay. It sure as heck never came up in scouts. I hope nobody tells me it is a question that is asked of a twelve year old. How would you even begin with little Johnny in cub scouts?

      2. Ericdierker profile image79
        Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        prettydarkhorse, we have been learning a lot here but seem to be coming back to your TRUTH premise. It just is a truth. As long as the sexual preference is not -- IN Your Face, it really is irrelevant.
        But if I got up and proclaimed my preference of missionary style that would be wrong. Likewise that I prefer -- say,, Blondes, that is weird, or maybe not. So I guess sexual preference should be irrelevant unless someone makes it so, and they should be "goned"

    2. Josak profile image60
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Obviously no one should be flaunting their sexuality to children but gay people are no more likely to do so than straight people and so there is no reason to ban people for their sexuality, I don't think we should force them to accept gay members but public pressure should definitely be excersized and people should let them know that discriminating against people on the basis of their sexuality is a disgusting thing to do and it will be a black mark on their good name the longer they keep going down that dumb path.

    3. profile image0
      Justsilvieposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is a very confusing subject. I am not sure what sexual orientation has to do with the ability to follow the scouting tradition?

      Also wondering if there were any danger from allowing gay membership why would boys be more in danger than girls since this whole outcry is only about boys not all our children?

      Last but not least addressing the limitation of allowing gays to be scout leaders plays in to the old and uneducated belief that gay men are more prone to molest boys than straight men something that has been proven to be untrue.  Maybe they should work harder on screening and keeping an eye on all people that work with our children and spend less time on trying to persecute people who just want to live their lives like everyone else is allowed to.

      1. mike102771 profile image85
        mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        There is a misconception that gay people are pedophiles or will indoctrinate the kids gay . I would say this is an out od date idea, but just watch congress.

  2. relache profile image88
    relacheposted 4 years ago

    Here's how you have to look at it:  should you be able to ban people from participating in a group for the color of their eyes?  If the answer is "no" then it's not appropriate to ban people on the basis of what their sexual preferences are either.

    Scouts and troop leaders who are found to be gay are being kicked out just because they have been discovered to be homosexually-oriented people, not because they were flaunting their sexual prowess. 

    If people conduct themselves inappropriately, no matter what their sexual orientation, that is a problem that needs to be addressed.  But saying that people of a specific sexual orientation can't participate in a group "just because" needs to stop.

    1. SimeyC profile image89
      SimeyCposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

      Sadly this is prevalent in society - look at how many golf clubs or other clubs are still 'men only' - some people refuse to leave the 19th century!

      1. Ericdierker profile image79
        Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Ok now I get it. I needed that history. That is shameful. Very funny note here. When I was just a little guy my mommy was a Brownie Scout Leader. Since I hung out with mommy, I went to Brownies and they gave me an honorary pin and all. Wow those girls were nice to me. I did get teased for it, but it taught me the silliness involved -- all to the good.

    2. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Yes, you should be able to. You should also be able to ban people from your group because:

      You don't like their perfume
      You don't like them
      You're bored and feel like it
      You don't like their religion
      They are too old/young
      You don't like their race
      Or any other reason

      Freedom of association, it's a sad thing when we allow it to be taken away.

      1. Josak profile image60
        Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I believe the "should' was being used morally not legally, morally it's abominable IMO.

  3. Curiad profile image82
    Curiadposted 4 years ago

    I agree that discrimination of any group or orientation is wrong. However I also feel that there is no justification for any government or power to try to force a private group or organization to behave morally in a certain way. Morality can not be legislated.

    Great question Eric!


    Mark

  4. mike102771 profile image85
    mike102771posted 4 years ago

    The problem is that the Boy Scouts gets both public funding and support. Even though it is a private organization it receives public support (tax exemptions and other supports that other groups do not get). When you receive either one you are held to the same standards as the government is. Morals aside if you want public funds/support then you need to be open to the public.

    1. Mitch Alan profile image85
      Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And to that point I am against all federally confiscated dollars going to business. The Federal government should be run within the confines of it's enumerated powers an the further limitations of the 10th Amendment. Many, if not all of the problems with Washington (both parties) would be solved with this action (or better, inaction).

      1. mike102771 profile image85
        mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I have to disagree with you. When a group such as the Boy/Girl Scouts serves the public interests then I don't have any trouble spending a little money on it. I would rather such groups as the Scouts in place to educate today's children on self-reliance than sitting around learning dependence. It quote an ex-con "it's a good thing." We shouldn't sell our kids future to save a very small amount in taxes.

        1. Mitch Alan profile image85
          Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I would half agree, on the person level of being a fan of the Scouts. But, if confiscated funds are used for the Scouts, then why not any and every other organization...can't play favorites. There is also no Constitutional authority given to the federal government to do this. States could adopt such a program on a State by State case.

        2. someonewhoknows profile image34
          someonewhoknowsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Charity starts at home as a private contribution not as an across the board - weather you like it or not sort of thing. Make it tax deductible if you  want but make it voluntary on an individual basis like public radio.

          1. mike102771 profile image85
            mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Not all the support given to the Scouts is direct funds. some of it is in such things as really cheap leases on public land. We also fund (4.6%) of NPR national Public Radio. we will pay for these kids either way. a little now with such programs as the Scouts or in the court system and Jails later.

    2. relache profile image88
      relacheposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      This.

    3. Ericdierker profile image79
      Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A senior center gets money but excludes 30 year olds

      1. mike102771 profile image85
        mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You should go right down there and say "I'm under 30 and I want in."
        From what I can see age discrimination only counts one way. We don't care about the rights of the young.

        1. Ericdierker profile image79
          Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I guess that was my point in the first place, why would I want to? I think that if I was gay I would not go to Catholic church or a marriage counselor or to the Boy Scouts. On the other hand I might, so I would not say I was gay or hetero and I should be allowed in. But this is different and light hearted.
          Certainly outing someone and kicking them out is wrong. I wonder if 20 years ago Obama could have golfed Augusta?

          1. mike102771 profile image85
            mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I can't speak for the church aspect (except what makes a priest an expert on marriage?) The Boy Scout ban is more of a modern political thing. Like the military there have always been gay members. I just don't understand why it is an issue. I know that one side thinks gays are pedophiles. My party (yes my party) uses issues like this to push an extreme right-wing agenda with no reconnection to the real world. Punishing children to suit an agenda is also wrong. And no unless he was the caddy.

          2. LauraGT profile image87
            LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I find your comment about the things that you say you would not want puzzling, especially re: marriage counseling - why wouldn't married gay couples want marriage counseling (or couples counseling if not married)?

            1. mike102771 profile image85
              mike102771posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Not wanting counseling being a marriage counselor.

            2. Ericdierker profile image79
              Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Because I would assume they would not want a traditonal marriage counselor. I do not know of a degree or certification for gay marriage counseling. But if there are then more power to them. Maybe a standard relationship counselor or as you say a couples counselor. And maybe in 5-10 years there will not be a difference or maybe a bigger difference. Hmm?? Thanks for mentioning the issue.

              1. LauraGT profile image87
                LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I suppose there might be some differences, but I suspect there are more similarities in the issues gay and straight couples face when seeking out counseling - communication, honesty, faithfulness, parenting, financial strain, etc.  I think most well-trained marriage counselors can handle a range of issues, be they from straight or gay couples.

                1. Ericdierker profile image79
                  Ericdierkerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  For sure for sure,    ... but if you got in the hands of a wrong one it could set you back plenty with guilt and trust issues ---- then again that could be fun bonding for the happy gay couple.  I think if I was gay I would want an openly gay counselor.  Wait I am hetero and would not mind a gay. Let us rethink that.

  5. Mitch Alan profile image85
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    A private business, organization or club should be able to decide who it hires, fires and serves. If an organization wants to raise money for Americans of African decent to go to college and not offer the money to Americans of Asian or European decent...FINE. If a club wants to only admit Asian women over the age of 65...FINE. If a restaurant wants to only hire bald headed, one legged midget Mexican's (here legally), then they should be allowed to do so. There are Girl Scouts for girls. They are the Royal Rangers that are a Christian organization similar to Boy Scouts. If members of the gay population want to start an organization that allows gay and straight leaders...or only gay leaders, they are free to do so. The market will decide if it is a good model.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Agreed.   People and private organizations, any group that isn't Government-run and uses their own funding, should be able to set up and run their organization however they want to,  as long as it's legal.
      It's unusual to hear someone else have the guts to say so,  so I applaud you!


      I will go further and say (abiding by the thread topic), that the Boy Scouts should never have caved in to pressure from the gay agenda.   Not even halfway   (I hear they're gonna accept "gay" kids but not gay leaders).   That's still messed-up, and puts pressure on kids, who should've never ever been used as pawns in a game.   The Scouts should re-think even that, instead of cleaning up after the bullying of the liberal agenda.    It's liberal shoving that ever even caused kids to be labeled as "gay" or not, when they should be allowed to be just kids.

  6. relache profile image88
    relacheposted 4 years ago

    If you are a completely private group (not one that receives federal favors and funding) and you explicitly state all your rules clearly and upfront, you are allowed to have your membership be whatever you want.

    Here's a video that shows how much this issue is about irrational fear,

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJpWbN2hanw

 
working