Boy Scouts Propose Allowing Gay Scouts But Not Sure on Gay Leaders

The Boy Scouts of America has released proposed changes in its policies toward homosexuals. The new sections in its "memberships standards" include the following:

Youth membership in the Boy Scouts of America [BSA] is open to all youth who meet the specific membership requirements to join the Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Varsity Scout, Sea Scout, and Venturing programs. Membership in any program of the Boy Scouts of America requires the youth member to (a) subscribe to and abide by the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law, (b) subscribe to and abide by the precepts of the Declaration of Religious Principle (duty to God), and (c) demonstrate behavior that exemplifies the highest level of good conduct and respect for others and is consistent at all times with the values expressed in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.

When it comes to adult leaders and volunteers, there's this:

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.

Read more here.

More power to the group in kicking out people who engage in distracting behavior - an admonition that ranges far beyond sexual matters, I'm sure. While I believe the Scouts have the absolute right to create whatever membership rules the group prefers, I think the general conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia is a massive category error.

As the Washington Post notes, the proposed changes, which would take effect in 2014, still need to be approved by a majority of the 1,400 Scouting councils in a vote set for mid-May.

Earlier this year, I had a piece in the Wall Street Journal reflecting on my experiences in the Boy Scouts and why I thought the group should open its ranks up to gay members and leaders. Read that here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Another step forward. Well done BOA.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    What does Bank of America have to do with this?

  • LTC(ret) John||

    +1

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    He's talking about BOA, the legendary competitor to GiJoe's COBRA, you idiot.

    Duh.

  • db||

    *Sphinx!*

  • ||

    I thought we were talking about the k-pop star 보아 (BOA)

  • db||

    Which reminds me I need to check out Psy's new video.

  • ||

    Besides having hot dancers (as usual), it's not very good.

  • ||

    I like an older song of hers, it's a bit haunting and less pop, but she's never really blown me away.

  • Ted S.||

    People listen to k-crap?

    The male singers are a bunch of hip-hop wannabes with so much stage makeup that they look almost androgynous. The women at least look like women, but all of the ones I've heard sound interchangeable to me.

  • Copernicus||

    "What does Bank of America have to do with this?"

    It would be clearer if it were:
    BS of American

  • ||

    But... but... will flower shops be forced to sell to the Boy Scouts?

  • ||

    It is a good start, and should be welcomed as such. I doubt it will be.

  • ||

    NOT. FAR. ENOUGH.

    Until gay Boy Scout leaders are able to help young Boy Scouts earn their badges in macrame, interior decorating, and skiing, the Boy Scouts of America are DEAD TO ME!

  • Scarcity||

    Until gay Boy Scout leaders are able to help young Boy Scouts earn their badges in macrame, interior decorating, and skiing buttseks safety, the Boy Scouts of America are DEAD TO ME!
  • ||

    Wait...skiing is gay?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, duh....

  • ||

    That can't be true. Skiing with the Scouts was one of the few times I was able to pick up chicks, and I wasn't even trying. Hmmm.... that may have been part of my appeal though.

  • ||

    ...I was able to pick up chicks, and I wasn't even trying. Hmmm.... that may have been part of my appeal though.

    One of the universe's most blatant injustices.

  • ||

    No, the last sentence was in reference to Nicole's comment. I wasn't very clear about that.

  • db||

    That made me go "huh?" as well.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Go that way, really fast. If something gets in your way, turn.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I wish I'd remembered that advice when I went skiing last month.

  • db||

    +1 whole mountain of pure snow

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    Do you have any idea of the street value of that mountain?

  • KDN||

    Cross country skiing certainly is, what with its constant thigh and bun toning.

  • Tonio||

    Not an "Archer" fan, eh Nicole?

  • ||

    Skiing with poles is pretty gay. Nothing says "not straight" like two long, hard, rigid poles in your hands as you whip down the slopes.

    Also, it's slang for sitting between two guys and jerking them off.

  • prolefeed||

    Is it also gay to go down really fast on curvy, mountainous, slippery terrain, stabbing your pole down hard every time you feel your way around one of those curves?

    You got your metaphors, I got mine.

  • ||

    Could be gay... depends who you're skiing with.

  • Copernicus||

    This report makes me very happy.

    Yes, I realize this is synonymous with "gay".

    NTTAWWT

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's kind of weird, because when I was a Scout, the only people talking about who and what they had or wanted to have sex with were the Scouts themselves. And that was all about girls, though I suppose I may have missed some other conversations.

  • $park¥||

    You probably missed Jimmy over in the corner with his gaze lingering on you for just a few moments too long to be comfortable.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's possible. I didn't even know there was such a thing as homosexuality until surprisingly late in life.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I didn't understand it was a thing until junior high, which would have been late 90s so it's not like being gay was an unknown phenomenon. I attribute this to several factors:

    -There are so few people where I grew up that gay people are very far between.
    -The area is kind of socially conservative, so gays would probably be more likely to stay closeted.
    -Kids below that age don't have a ton of sexuality, and I didn't spend much time with older people.
    -It never crossed my mind that a guy would not be attracted to girls. This is actually something I still don't understand at all.

  • Tonio||

    It never crossed my mind that a guy would not be attracted to girls. This is actually something I still don't understand at all.

    Well, Goldie, then all I can ask is that you try to accept that it is so. And I tried very, very hard to like girls and dated a number of them, but when you find yourself wishing she was a guy you know it's time to give up and accept.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I certainly do. It's not like it's been easy for gays, especially in the past, so whatever the reason, it's who you are, and it's none of my damned business.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Kids were a little more sheltered in the 70s and 80s when I was a kid, so I hadn't heard or seen anything like that. I did see pornography pretty early (strictly Playboy), but that was nongay, too, of course. Nothing on TV, to speak of, and there wasn't that much about it in films, either.

    I was probably around 15 before I (vaguely) knew it was something real, and I don't recall seeing any gays that I knew were gays until I was college age.

    I have kind of the same personal reaction--I don't get it at all. The idea of sexual relations with guys strikes me as entirely yucky (no offense to those, including women, who think differently).

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I have kind of the same personal reaction--I don't get it at all. The idea of sexual relations with guys strikes me as entirely yucky (no offense to those, including women, who think differently).

    You've got to be careful with saying that though, or even people like Tonio will get upset at you. Even if you aren't saying they should be stopped from banging other dudes.

  • $park¥||

    It's something about Tonio. Even if you're on his side, once he becomes the Raging Queen from the Netherworld there's no stopping him.

  • Tonio||

    Perhaps so, but not as predictable as you seem to think. Ha!

  • Tonio||

    I blame the Viking/Scottish berserker genes, hardened in Appalachia.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Hey, I don't understand women, either, but I love my wife. And daughters, mom, et al.

    I'm hardcore libertarian about this sort of thing. Whether I like, approve, endorse, whatever a behavior, if it's consensual and doesn't hurt me or others, what business is it of mine?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm hardcore libertarian about this sort of thing. Whether I like, approve, endorse, whatever a behavior, if it's consensual and doesn't hurt me or others, what business is it of mine?

    That's my view too, but for some people if you don't approve or like it, you're not fully on their side. But I agree with your entire post. Especially the part about loving your wife.

  • SusanM||

    +100000000

  • Tonio||

    You've got to be careful with saying that though, or even people like Tonio will get upset at you.

    No, that doesn't upset me, especially given the context of the remark.

  • prolefeed||

    It never crossed my mind that a guy would not be attracted to girls. This is actually something I still don't understand at all.

    Can you understand why a girl would be attracted to a guy? If so, can you imagine a guy with something like a chick's brain, wanting the same thing a hetero chick wants?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm just not wired that way. If I ever get Freaky-Fridayed with a woman, I'm just going to sit around fondling my tits.

  • $park¥||

    I can imagine a trip to the grocery store to pick up some bananas, carrots, and cucumbers in there somewhere.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I'm just not wired that way. If I ever get Freaky-Fridayed with a woman, I'm just going to sit around fondling my tits.

    Totally.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Can you understand why a girl would be attracted to a guy?

    Not really. But girls don't make any sense anyway, so it kind of makes sense that their romantic desires wouldn't make any sense.

  • ||

    I might object slightly on the "something like a chick's brain" bit, although being unable to objectively compare my brain to a straight male's or a straight female's I suppose I can't really make a strong stand here.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I know enough gay guys to know this--most of them are guys. Even the effeminate ones don't usually seem to think like girls. Not really.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I know enough gay guys to know this--most of them are guys. Even the effeminate ones don't usually seem to think like girls. Not really.

    That's what makes it so confusing to me. With all the gay guys I've been around, it's just this one thing that makes no sense at all, but everything else is totally normal.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, it's just one thing I don't really get. It's not like there aren't many other views that are equally strange to me that have nothing to do with sex.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    True. Why would anyone ever want to live in DC? Makes no sense, but apparently some people do.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I know, perverted, isn't it? I'd be all for a ban of DCing. Evacuate the whole area and nuke it. The National Archives told me the Constitution is in a nuke-proof safe at night, so it's okay.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    But can we get cool looking pictures of the nuke if we do it when it's dark out?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Oh, sure. Besides, the best pictures will be the post-nuke devastation. Like in Fallout 3, though without the mutants, since we evacuated the district.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Wait, we didn't evacuate Congress, did we?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Well, yes, I meant them, too, but we'll relocate them to the Moonbase.

  • SIV||

    New Here? THE COCKTAIL PARTIEZ!!1!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Dude, of course they weren't talking about which guys they wanted to bang with you. You're ugly.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Only on the Internet.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    You need to steal better profile pictures.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I know one thing: I'm prettier than you.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Considering that I'm a guy, that is a compliment. Did you just call yourself a girl?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Man-prettier.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's not a thing. I know Kelso from that 70s Show thought it was a thing, but he's an idiot.

    If you were an attractive man you would be 'handsome'. Also not so damn old.

  • Pro Libertate||

    I'm attractive enough for my hot wife, so that's really all that matters.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Maybe she just likes your personality. I hear that women are not shallow (like evil men) at all.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Who knows? Whatever it is, I'll take it.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's the spirit. Keep on procreating.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Exactly.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I constantly need more fresh 18 year old libertarian females, and probably still will in 2031.

  • ||

    Ha, our timelines pretty nearly line up. I figure as long as there are fresh 18 year olds until I'm 65 (2048) I should be pretty happy if people keep breeding until 2030. Although I'm thirty and already find dating anyone under 26 to be pretty problematic, so it might not be all that unnecessary.

  • Copernicus||

    Coz fags weren't allowed back then. Just like the NFL, bro.

  • I Dug It||

    I think the general conflation of homosexuality and pedophilia is a massive category error.

    While I don't disagree as a general matter, I think there's an important distinction to be made between adult & teenager sex and adult & preteen sex. E.g., back in the '70s, I knew of at least one long-running affair between a married hetero male teacher and a female student. He was a lech and a statutory rapist, but I think it would be silly to call him a pedo.

  • Zeb||

    I agree with you that that is an important distinction that people often fail to make. Being sexually attracted to sexually mature teenagers is not pedophilia. It may be creepy and inappropriate in many or most cases, but it is totally normal sexuality.

  • Enough About Palin||

    There's a teen girl who rides my bus that looks very good to me. I don't see how that constitutes creepy. I'm not going to hit on her, but that doesn't change the fact that she is really hot.

  • Scarcity||

    Yeah, I would say the attraction is the natuaral sexuality part. It's being an intelligent human who acts on that attraction to someone so much younger than you that would be creepy.

  • Scarcity||

    I suspect that's what Zeb meant, but maybe not.

  • Zeb||

    Yeah, I didn't meant to say that the attraction was creepy at all. Acting on it might be.

  • Copernicus||

    "Being sexually attracted to sexually mature teenagers is not pedophilia. It may be creepy and inappropriate in many or most cases, but it is totally normal sexuality."

    Is it creepy or totally normal?
    It can't be both.
    And in anticipation of those who might say: "yes it can".
    Let me rebut:
    "No it can't"

  • Zeb||

    I left out "to act on the attraction" somewhere in there.

  • Scarcity||

    Sexually pursuing a sexually mature teenager when you're too old* is creepy.

    Being sexually attracted to a sexually mature teenager is normal.

    *Obviously this is imprecise, but that's because "creepiness" is obviously subjective, and measured on a spectrum.

  • Zeb||

    Also, the creepy factor has a lot to do with social norms. In other times and places, an older man marrying a teenaged girl has been quite normal.

  • Ayn Rand||

    Age of consent laws as they stand in many places represent a great intellectual idiocy. We allow, no encourage, teenagers to have sex with each other, but when one man older than 18 has sex with a seventeen year old girl the seventeen year old is suddenly a "child" and its suddenly "pedophilia." There is no rational objection liberal morality can have toward it. Yet another word that is being redefined.

  • robc||

    In very few places is sex with a 17 year old illegal.

    16 is the age of consent in the majority of states.

  • SIV||

  • Auric Demonocles||

    That's 12, which still leaves a significant majority not on your list.

  • ||

    From Wikipedia

    Each U.S. state (and the District of Columbia) has its own age of consent. Currently state laws set the age of consent at 16, 17 or 18. The most common age is 16.

    age of consent 16 (30): Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia

    age of consent 17 (9): Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Wyoming

    age of consent 18 (12): Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, North Dakota, Oregon, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania
  • SIV||

    In very few places is sex with a 17 year old illegal.

    Would you characterize all of NY, CA, FL as "very few places"?

  • Copernicus||

    NY, consent age: 17
    17 not illegal
    Derp much?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    When compared to the entire US? Yes. robc was right: 38 states is a majority.

  • SIV||

    24% of the states and significantly more of the populations is hardly "very few places".

  • Copernicus||

    Are you still counting NY? Just wondering since the above derp exposure.

  • Zeb||

    In most states it's not quite that bad. The age of consent is either 16, or there are exceptions for people close in age.

  • Drake||

    Which may be why currently men cannot be Girl Scout leaders - and gay men can't be Boy Scout leaders.

  • Copernicus||

    Why the lesbos always being ignored? Can't they be repressed too?

  • SIV||

    Is anyone saying not allowing straight men to be girl scout leaders is bigotry?

    Are girl scouts denied the use of public facilities or denied corporate charitable funding for this policy?

  • Zeb||

    Maybe. I don't think that anyone has asked every corporation who hasn't given any money to the girls scouts whether they would have had they allowed male leaders.

  • SIV||

    How many have withdrawn funding stating the ban on male leaders violates their non-discrimination policy?

    I'm wagering "none"

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Does this mean the Boy Scout Neckerchief will be reversed and worn as an ascot?

  • Scarcity||

    Isn't an ascot already the more heteronormative option?

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Isn't an ascot already the more heteronormative option?

    I see, you're one of those people, huh?

  • Scarcity||

    What are you, some cisgendered bigot? Stop othering me.

  • ||

    I bet Scarcity is an otherkin.

  • Scarcity||

    Correct. I identify as the HnR comments section.

    Get out of me!!

  • ||

    Does that mean you can explain to us why we can't post less-than signs?

  • db||

    HOLO YOLO < "<"

  • ||

    That's #HOLO YOLO. Get it right.

    I thought < didn't work last time I tried? Or was it ? Whatever.

  • ||

    Aye, greater-than it was.

  • db||

    Yeah, doesn't work right.

  • Zeb||

    No, worn in the back pocket to signal what they are into.

  • Ayn Rand||

    Here's an idea, why don't non-Christians just mind their own goddamn business? Christianity is clear on the position that homosexuality is a sin against God. There is a very real, seemingly natural disgust people have toward sodomy. Aren't you an atheist, Nick? So what business is it of yours? And then, after trying to make Christians to send their kids camping with homosexuals, they cry about the other side having a "KULTUR WAR!!"

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I am sensing that you are upset about this...?

  • Ayn Rand||

    It's politics. If you aren't upset, you're doing something wrong.

  • SusanM||

    I'm assuming you're using the name of an avowed and passionate atheist in an ironic manner, amirite?

  • Drake||

    I'm confused too. I think I'll start posting pro-capitalist rants as "Karl Marx".

  • AuH20||

    What a horrible way to go through life.

  • $park¥||

    I think reason should post an article where Tony, Tulpa, and this person can have a humorlessnessfest. Everyone else would be invited to check in on the comments from time to time. Last person to commit suicide wins.

  • Ayn Rand||

    Based on his idiotic arguments I'd say this person really is too autistic to see that my comment was intended as irony. Everyone is upset in politics

  • Copernicus||

    Actually, Ayn Rand had a whiff of homophobia about her.

  • ||

    Her husband was gayer than a tree full of monkeys on nitrous oxide, I wouldn't be surprised if that wasn't a contributing factor.

  • AuH20||

    I'm to autistic?

    Oh, thanks for that. I can use that as an excuse for everything!

  • Way Of The Crane||

    There is a very real, seemingly natural disgust people have toward sodomy.

    You must be doing it wrong.

  • prolefeed||

    My GF makes some entertaining, enjoyable noises when I do her in the ass. We both enjoy it as an occasional change of pace.

    So, dunno about the real or natural part.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Actually it's not that clear at all. Some Christian sects are totes cool with gays being gay. Every denomination takes the parts of the Bible they like and ignore the rest of it.

    Thanks for stopping by though.

  • RBS||

    Yeah, isn't there a pretty big schism between the two side right now in the Episcopal Church?

  • Ayn Rand||

    It is made clear in the bible, in both the OT and the NT, some Christians choose not to ignore these passages. There are probably proportionally as many Real-life Christians who support homosexuality as there are scientists who support creationism.

  • Zeb||

    Nothing is made clear in the Bible. The OT also tells us to murder adulterers, to keep slaves and that genocide is OK.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    I have a confession to make.... I eat shellfish.

  • $park¥||

    Hope you enjoy Hell.

  • Ayn Rand||

    It is made clear in the NT that the prohibition is to no longer apply to Christians.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    So are you saying that not everything in the Bible is correct?

  • $park¥||

    Great stroke of luck for you WOTC! Go right on eating those nasty seabugs.

  • $park¥||

    And is that before or after it says no killing period?

  • Zeb||

    Pretty much right after. The genocide parts come a little later.

  • $park¥||

    I guess they had to pass it to see what was in it. Then start making amendments and carve-outs for favored groups.

  • prolefeed||

    Not just genocide ... kill all the cattle, too, just to make sure, apparently.

  • Scarcity||

    I believe field-salting was encouraged as well. Because fuck your grandchildren too, that's why.

  • Copernicus||

    "And is that before or after it says no killing period?"

    Everyone gets that part wrong. It's:

    No killing after your period.

  • $park¥||

    No killing after your period.

    Is that like the no white shoes after Labor Day rule?

  • Copernicus||

    And for the same reason. Blood stains and all on white shoes, wot wot good fellow?

  • Copernicus||

    "Nothing is made clear in the Bible. The OT also tells us to murder adulterers, to keep slaves and that genocide is OK."

    And... your point is?

  • Zeb||

    I dunno. Just killing time.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Most true Christians reject homosexuality. How do you know if someone is a true Christian? If he rejects homosexuality, of course.

  • Ayn Rand||

    There has been a lot of talk about the redefinition of words, and that is another word they are trying hard to redefine "Christian." Christians historically have read the bible passages on the subject as they were meant to be read. Now the "Christians" simply ignore them because it might hurt someone's feelings. And then the atheists get involved on the side of the "Christians."

  • $park¥||

    What is the world coming to when you can't just have a religion where everyone believes the right way anymore?

  • Zeb||

    How the fuck do you know how they were meant to be read? I'm pretty sure that historically Christians have disagreed about just about everything in the bible.

  • ||

    God told him on some golden plates.

  • Hugh Akston||

    DUM DUM DUM DUM DUM-DUM

  • AuH20||

    Oh sweet lord. You realize if you insist on this shit, I will bust out my one fucking credit shy of a religion minor out on your ass, right?

  • Ayn Rand||

    There has always been theological disagreement. Never has there been disagreement on whether "sodomy is a sin" means anything other than "sodomy is a sin."

  • Zeb||

    Too bad it doesn't say "sodomy is a sin" in the bible.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Christians have also historically translated the Bible from its original languages in different ways, and decided which books of the Bible were canon and which were apocrypha. And then there were some books that were lost and others that were found.

    Mennonites are Christians, as are Lutherans, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, Catholics, Anglicans, Adventists, etc. etc. All of whom have different interpretations of what the Bible means.

    So maybe, just maybe, Christianity is more complicated than Billy Graham teaches it to you on the TeeVee.

  • AuH20||

    One also needs to think about homosexuality in terms of culture of the time.

    The Macabees weren't fighting invaders so much as they were engaged in a fundamental civil war over the meaning of Judaism with the rise of Hellenism. The Macabees won, meaning that Jewish culture became, on some level, a rejection of Greek culture, which is probably why they kept the ban on male sodomy around for so long, as it was seen as a Greek practice.

    It wasn't until Thomas Aquinas that we had a really serious attempt to resolve Greek and Judeo-Christian philosophical origins into one coherent ideology.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I don't know if I buy this. Near eastern religion has traditionally had many restrictions on sexual practices; Zoroastrianism for example is quite polemic on the topic of homosexuality, even more so than Judaism.

    On some level it might be the case, but IMO Judaism is comparable to its regional peers.

  • AuH20||

    Eh, it's a fair point IT. Perhaps the more accurate distinction is between Hellenistic and Mesopotamian (which, yes, sticking Judea in there is a bit stretching it as it is nowhere near the Tigress or Euphrates, but it seems closer to those cultures than Egyptian culture) cultures.

    I think it is just important to note that the Jews were coming from a different culture tradition than the Hellenistic culture and actively resisted assimilation into that culture for quite a long time.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "here has been a lot of talk about the redefinition of words"

    Go get yourself a Strong's Concordance...

    Jude 1:6-8
    King James Version (KJV)
    6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

    7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

    8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

    ...and you will find that the word "strange" is a translation of the Greek word "hetero".

    And have a nice day.

  • Scarcity||

    But what will this mean for the movement to reclaim "sodomites"? Is it all a lie??

  • ||

    I think that's really only me Scarcity.

  • Copernicus||

    Christian: Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.

    Estimated zero Christians in existence today. It is believed all Christians (one) were (was) made extinct around 33AD.

  • Scarcity||

    It is also made clear that polygamy is OK.

  • ||

    Well other Christians disagree with you, AND the Boy Scouts accepts people from other religions, not all of which are against homosexuality. It's pretty hard to be all-encompassing of religions when religions that don't follow a certain religion/denomination's precepts are told some of their followers can't join.

  • Ayn Rand||

    Very few members of the BSA are from religions other than Christianity, they are the exceptions that prove the rule. And most of them are Jews and Muslims, religions which believe sodomy to be a sin. Buhdists really can't count unless they believe in one God, and their concept would be different from the Abrahamic concept. I'm not sure about the Wiccans.

  • ||

    Very few members of the BSA are from religions other than Christianity

    Apparently you have never been to Chicago

  • Ayn Rand||

    How are they supposed to have the boy scouts in Chicago? Camp under bridges? They'd get shot!

  • Scarcity||

    Aaaand, the duck and weave!

  • ||

    Listing the proportions of different religious denominations means nothing at all. Buddhists would count. Joining the Boy Scouts doesn't require a belief in an Abrahamic-style God (the term "God" not having one single meaning), nor does it require having certain types of religious beliefs. You're just making yourself look silly with your ignorance of basic rules.

    Charter and Bylaws and Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America:

    The Boy Scouts of America, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but it is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training.

    Scouting in the Buddhist Community

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Buhdists [sic] really can't count unless they believe in one God, and their concept would be different from the Abrahamic concept. I'm not sure about the Wiccans.

    This Buddhist scout now realizes you're a fucking moron. You do realize the third country to have a Scouting organization, after the UK and the US, was very Buddhist Thailand, right? And that this organization formed with the help of Lord B-P himself, right?

    No, of course not. You're just talking out of your ass.

    By the way, Wiccans and other neo-Pagans do participate in Scouting's religious emblem program.

    Now, please, please, please shut up!

  • Ayn Rand||

    You know that 'BSA' stands for Boy Scouts of America? And the exception proves the rule, the vast majority of BSA members are Christian. The homosexuals should have their own scouting organization. Why would they want to camp with Christians anyway? Blacks don't want to camp with the Ku Klux Klan.

  • ||

    The "rule" isn't an actual rule of the BSA. As I said before, simply mentioning that most members are Christian doesn't actually change the nature of their rules.

  • Scarcity||

    Why would they want to camp with Christians anyway? Blacks don't want to camp with the Ku Klux Klan.

    OK, now it's clear this was all a trolling. Good times.

  • Enough About Palin||

    I live in the ghetto and I am pretty certain a good many black youth in my neighborhood would jump at the opportunity to go camping with klanners.

  • $park¥||

    Now, please, please, please shut up!

    Help! Help! He's being repressed!

    Come see the violence inherent in the system!

    Sorry, I had to.

  • AuH20||

    The New Testament? You mean that one epistle by Paul, who never even met Jesus and who's prominent position is probably political given that in all pf his letters he is basically arguing for Christianity as a new religion and not just a new Jewish prophet (of the letters we think he himself wrote and not later writers using his name for authority)?

    You are shockingly ignorant of your own religion, huh? You keep doing this and I will start busting out the Infancy Gospels

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Shockingly ignorant =/= hewing to the traditional view of Paul's role in Christianity

    Seriously, people. The whole "Paul, like, totally corrupted the True Gnostic/Judaic/[insert bugaboo here] Christian religion" talking point is such a farce -- as if Paul was singlehandedly able to twist enough minds get the authors of the various gospels, the other epistles, and the other books in the NT to follow some party line. Jews and Christians didn't exactly have the best relationship, and it wasn't because the early Christians thought Jesus was just another in a long line of minor prophets.

    As far as the infancy gospels go, what exactly is supposed to be so impressive about a loose collection of manuscripts dated 2nd-3rd century AD?

    I hope someone brings up the Gnostic gospel of Thomas. That's always fun to talk about...

    /pedantic Christian

  • AuH20||

    The Infancy Gospels actually give Jesus a character beyond, "Impossibly good son of God". They basically show Jesus having to learn to use his power morally, which humanizes him a lot and puts a different spin on who he is as a person.

    As for the Paul thing: I don't think Paul manipulated anyone. However, when they were codifying the Bible, they chose to include Paul's letter, and his explicit message that Christianity was a new covenant and that gentile and Roman converts were not required to adhere to Jewish law, for a reason.

    I just see the writing of the Bible as a political process: What books and traditions they included and did not include said a lot about what the people doing that believed about Christianity, theologically. The Gospel of John, for example, is really the best textual evidence for the Holy Spirit with The Word stuff in the beginning, because otherwise John just reads like some guy who wandered in 200 years after Jesus' death (around when the book was actually written down, although I do respect the oral traditions that must have been behind it, and I reject the Q gospel theory) and had a frickin' cool ass drug trip about Jesus and god he decided to write down.

    Hell, the homosexuality stuff had a lot to do with internal Roman politics and morality of the time.

    Cont...

  • AuH20||

    And I also have problems with Paul's prominent position because, even by the Bible's own telling, he never met Jesus while alive, and only ever saw him in visions. Paul, though, as both a Jew, but also a Roman tax collector, perfectly straddled the line early Christianity was walking, which is why he grew so much after death. Seriously, they think that he only wrote about 5 or 6 of the epistles credited to him, so clearly Paul as political figure was much more important than Paul as a theological authority in the early Church.

    /Pedantic Deist

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The problem with the Infancy Gospels is that, while they are useful for the historiography of popular Christianity, they can't be used as a reliable account. If you have problems with Paul being prominent in Christianity due to having never met Jesus, then you should really have problems with a book written 2 centuries after Jesus' death claiming to be an accurate account of his childhood.

    [cont]

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    As for Paul's place in the Biblical canon, again this idea that he was exalted to his current status as a result of the Council of Nicaea or the other political bullshit that the church wrapped itself in post-Constantine, that's just not in evidence. Almost every book written by Christians in the 2nd-3rd centuries regarding doctrine is a response to or criticism of either the synoptic gospels (or the Q source), or the Pauline epistles, indicating that the Pauline epistles already held a place of high importance by that time. The debate regarding canon in the 3rd-4th centuries was never about whether to include Paul or not; Paul and the synoptic gospels were going to be included no matter what, and were already part of informal canon. It was about which other books in addition should be included.

    Sorry about the rant, I just hate the "this is gonna blow your mind" series of poorly documented History Channel-type shows that substitute good history for sensationalism, and early Christianity is one of those topics that is often given that treatment.

  • AuH20||

    Oh, I admit that the Infancy Gospels are most likely crap. As are the gnostic and gospels of Mary Magdalene.

    However, I do respect the idea that at the time, oral traditions were sacred and that we, as a literate society, have a bias against them that is simply unfounded. We look at writing as immutable, unchangeable, and oral traditions as untrustworthy because, "That's just what some guy heard, haven't you ever played telephone?" not crediting the fact that oral traditions do really give a crap about accuracy and keeping the story the same.

    Are you familiar with the Q Gospel theory? It posits that because Matthew and Luke share stories, they must have come from a written document floating around at the time that had those stories. Me, I think it is a crap theory that shits on oral traditions.

    With the apocryphal gospels, I guess my problem is that, because they never got the official nod, we only have snippets, so maybe they would seem super legit if we had the whole thing.

    Also, based on time of writing, Mark is the earliest and our best look into early Christianity, and Mark is super eschatological. So, my theory is that Christianity started really as an, "The END IS NIGH!" kind of religion, and when that didn't happen the end times kind of got deemphasized/more made to seem a reference to heaven, and other parts of the message got emphasized, which you can see in Matthew and Luke.

  • AuH20||

    And I think that Paul's inclusion is political in the sense that Paul advocated a view that consistently made it much easier for non-Jew, Roman converts to come to Christianity. That's what made him important even before the Nicea stuff- his letter told new converts that they didn't have to keep kosher and get their dicks cut.

    See, without Paul, Christianity probably never grows beyond a narrow mystery cult in Rome and doesn't become a world religion. But, I guess it is irritating that we never see many epistles from the other apostles. Furthermore, when I look at it from a context divorced of religion, I can't help but make this assumption:

    Jesus was a carpenter, in Nazareth. He almost certainly had a wife, and probably children, by the age of 30. Something... happened. Disease, famine, what have you, wipes out his family. With nothing left to live for, he wanders off into the desert, where he has a vision of God. He comes back, having spent 40 days and nights in the dessert, and is suddenly full of piss and vinegar in the style of the old Jewish prophets, warning people to become holy and get their shit together because the end is nigh. (Mostly going off NSRV Mark for this, BTW, plus my own conjecture).

    Cont..

  • AuH20||

    As that doesn't happen but Christianity survives, the end times get deemphasized, the really radical stuff gets toned down (I have come to set mother against father etc.), the love/compassion/forgiveness get more emphasis and the "IT'S FOR EVERYONE!" gets more emphasis.

    Not saying it illegitamizes Christianity, but I always wonder, if you go by the theory that Jesus wasn't the son of God, if he would be shocked how his Jewish prophet-ing turned out

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    I think the main problem with your theory is that the gospels spend a lot of time talking about Jesus' family. If Jesus' close family died, wouldn't the people that he knew (mom, brothers) be like, "bullshit, I knew that guy's kids". Also, rabbis were supposed to have kids and a nice family; Jesus having kids would have helped make him more appealing to the Jews, I would think.

  • AuH20||

    Counterpoint Immaculate: Jesus had a Jewish mother. I simply do not believe in a reality where she lets him hit 30 without getting married.

    Actually, I am at the moment working on a novel wherin Jesus really is the son of God, and he has grown up his whole life with his Mom telling him that, but he doesn't believe it. He thinks his mom is crazy, but he uses the stuff he has learned about religion and such to make a living as a con artist traveling preacher/miracle worker. Then, the events of the Bible happen, and he is sort of sucked into to doing good deeds and being a religious leader, all the time fervently denying that he is a good person or the son of God or any of the responsibility that that would entail.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    That's hilarious.

    Mary: "What, the Son of God can't find a good Jewish girl to bring home every once in a while? You know, your younger brother James is getting married next month..."

    As far as the novel you're working on, there's a novel with a similar premise where a repressed Catholic homosexual travels back in time and ends up becoming the historical Jesus.

  • AuH20||

    Really? What's the novel?

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Can't remember the name. I'll post it in the PM links if I remember it.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    In some ways I think that people make the opposite mistake: both the Jews and Greco-Romans were remarkably literate and well-educated -- the fact that there's so much written crap either found or referenced wrt early Christianity, and the high level of theological debate both in Christianity and the other religions of the Roman Empire, indicates a level of sophistication that most people erroneously assume that people living way back when didn't have. Hell, we still base most of our philosophy on ancient Greeks -- yet somehow people have the strange notion that the ancients didn't have two brain cells to rub together on a given afternoon.

    You're right about the eschatology of early Christianity. Much of the epistles are basically telling early Christians to chill out and keep on truckin'. (John the Apostle didn't really help by writing a whole book of prophecy dedicated to the end times, heh.)

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Final thought on oral traditions: they are reliable in non-literate cultures, but in general once a culture hits literacy oral traditions become relaxed and undisciplined. The social importance of the orator or lawspeaker becomes minimal and he's traded in for a court scribe or whatever. (This is one reason why the oral traditions from Christianized Scandinavia are held to be less reliable than the oral traditions held prior to Christianization.)

  • AuH20||

    WRT to oral traditions: The problem with early Christianity is its persecution, so it used an oral tradition to preserve itself even in a mostly literate society (although if I ever did know it, I can't remember what the numbers were on Roman literacy. Decently high, I would guess, based on the sheer amount of writing they employed, but I never have heard an exact %). I mean, we only know about the differing traditions that got big enough for there to be a debate, like Arianism. I am sure that in very early Christianity, there were a ton of crazy oral traditions floating around.

    Still, though, I would one day love do to a comprehensive study of Christianity and Islam to figure out why they just exploded when they finally got off the ground. And I still want a historical explanation for why protestants, like the English, didn't interbreed with the natives of the New World, but the Catholics, the Spanish, had no problem sticking it into the converted native women (it may just be that Latin American women are super hot)

  • AuH20||

    Wait, John the apostle wrote the Gospel of John, and the revelation of John was some other John I thought?

    Way to be super clear on that point, Bible.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    The traditional view is that John the Apostle wrote both of them.

    It is more likely that they are two different Johns, though it's debatable.

  • Zeb||

    I always though it was a different John too.

  • AuH20||

    Because its not like any of this will be important later, Council of Nicea, so clarity is the opposite of what we should be striving for!

    /Annoyed that the Bible is such a pain in the ass to debate for the linguistics and personages alone

  • prolefeed||

    It is made clear in the bible, in both the OT and the NT, some Christians choose not to ignore these passages.

    Show me the passage where Jesus made this clear.

  • KDN||

    Fun fact: the BSA is not a Christian organization.

  • Ayn Rand||

    It was always intended as Christian organization, it is now officially a "religious organization" to placate Jewish groups, though the vast majority of local BSA groups are avowedly Christian.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wow. You know absolutely nothing about the BSA.

    This Eagle Scout and current Cubmaster is asking you to please shut your mouth before you embarrass us further.

  • ||

    Cubmaster

    Are you sure you're not a homo?

  • Pro Libertate||

    I always thought the Webelos were the gay arm of the Scouts.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    I always thought the Webelos were the gay arm of the Scouts.

    They're popular with bears.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I'd never make the mistake of wearing a tuxedo with a notched lapel.

    So, no. I'm not sure.

  • Scarcity||

    I'd never make the mistake of wearing a tuxedo with a notched lapel.

    So, no I'm not sure.

    God man, there is breathing room between homo and completely uncivilized.

  • ||

    Don't worry, he only mounts the betas, so it's all kosher.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Don't worry, he only mounts the betas, so it's all kosher.

    623 years of Ottoman history agrees.

  • ||

    This Eagle Scout and former adult leader agrees with you.

  • KDN||

    This Eagle Scout agrees.

    Besides, if you're going take his tact wouldn't it be more accurate to term them a Mormon organization, anyway? And couldn't it be argued that Mormons aren't really Christians, theologically speaking? So wouldn't this just blow up his entire argument? And shouldn't I stop speaking in questions? Or maybe get off the internet and get some work done?

  • Ayn Rand||

    Mormons call themselves Christians, and also are against sodomy.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    And? What does that have to do with the fact that while Lord B-P was a devout Anglican, he specifically set up the Scouting movement to be a religiously ecumenical organization?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    ^That's a response to Annie Rosenbaum^

  • prolefeed||

    Funny, this lapsed Mormon -- you know, one with an FN expired Temple Recommend -- can't recall a single instance of any Church leader saying hetero members of the Church can't engage in sodomy. Can't find any explicit prohibitions when I googled it, either.

    Maybe it was just modestly understood that good Mormons don't do such stuff, but I remember a LOT of lectures on the evils of masturbation and sex outside marriage and homosexual acts -- so why the complete silence on this?

  • AuH20||

    prole, your a lapsed Mormon?

    I grew up around a shit ton of them. Nice people, but sort of creepily nice, and they had a nasty reputation for ostracizing family members who left the church, at least near where I grew up.

    What made you lapse? I'm a lapsed Catholic, so, believe me I understand the impulse.

  • prolefeed||

    I joined later in life, was a member for a few years, then the batshit craziness and cognitive dissonance made me have the epiphany that I didn't actually believe this stuff, however nice and friendly the individual members were.

    Shorter: I got better.

    I say "lapsed" Mormon, because my bishop talked me out of having my name formally removed as a Church member, and thus when you hear about the 14 million or so Mormons, they're counting me. I don't consider myself a Mormon, but the Church does.

    As I understand the theology, there is a huge diff between lapsed and quitting the Church -- the former can still get to the second-best heaven, the latter is one of the rare few who go to their hell -- so I can understand why my bishop was so nicely persistent about wanting to do some VERY sloppy record-keeping.

  • prolefeed||

    Nice people, but sort of creepily nice, and they had a nasty reputation for ostracizing family members who left the church, at least near where I grew up.

    My experience is the members, at least in Hawaii, were about three-quarters nice-nice and about one-quarter creepily nice. And I didn't hear anyone in Hawaii talking about ostracizing their family members, just some sad-eyed or wistful acknowledgement that they hadn't yet managed to get the lost sheep back on track to get in the best heaven, but gosh darn it, they weren't giving up on them.

    Utah is, from what I hear, not so forgiving a place. Had a gay Mormon friend, deeply in the closet and in denial, who said he moved to Hawaii from Utah because they weren't accepting him.

  • AuH20||

    Connecticut mormons were who I grew up with, but I have heard somewhere that we are number 2 behind Utah, so that may explain the ostracizing thing.

  • prolefeed||

    Idaho is the second-most Mormon state, followed by all the other states surrounding Utah.

    Unless you mean something else by "number 2 behind Utah", and I'm having a reading comprehension fail.

  • AuH20||

    Okay, then we were just a really Mormon town then.

  • ||

    Intended by whom?

  • ||

    This ex-Cubmaster and current Scoutmaster and (sorta) Hindu agree with HM.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Too bad the Boy Scouts isn't a "Christian" organization, but an "Ecumanical" one.

  • ||

    Christianity is clear on the position that homosexuality is a sin against God.

    So, if you don't like it, don't do it. I don't think anyone is asking you to participate in homosexuality.

    The Scouts are a private organization. They may do anything they please concerning membership. Just as I may call a bigot a bigot.

    If your religion dictates you be a bigot, good for you. You be a bigot all you want. No one is stopping you. But don't tell me I can't call you a bigot.

  • Ayn Rand||

    So don't say "SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE KULTUR WAR" whenever someone who is not a libertine brings up issues of culture.

  • ||

    "libertine"

    /DRINK!

    well, I actually don't drink, but I think you all get the idea...

  • Way Of The Crane||

    well, I actually don't drink, but I think you all get the idea...

    Freakin' Mormons!

  • ||

    I'm not a Mormon.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    someone who is not a libertine brings up issues of culture

    Guess who's back!

    Eat shit and die, Murkin.

  • ||

    So don't say "SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT THE KULTUR WAR" whenever someone who is not a libertine brings up issues of culture.

    I'll say, "SHUT THE FUCK UP" to whomever I please.

  • Enough About Palin||

    " I don't think anyone is asking you to participate in homosexuality."

    I've got a fiver that says the voices in his head are screaming at him to do teh gay.

  • Tony||

    I know lots of straight Christians who engage in sodomy. Go bother them.

  • Ayn Rand||

    Ignorant Tony argument is ignorant. You obviously have no knowledge of the bible.

  • AuH20||

    Here is how bad you are: I am going to have to side with Tony on an argument. Tony!

  • KDN||

    CRIPPLE FIGHT!

  • Tony||

    I know quite a bit. It's no Homer or Beowulf, but it's got its charms. The plot gets unforgivably contradictory in places, and those endless lists of people's descendants don't really serve the advance the story. But I shouldn't be a critic; I've never really been into fantasy.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Needs more dragons!

  • ||

    You clearly didn't read the director's cut of Daniel

    Bel and the Dragon

  • Ayn Rand||

    Tell me Tony, what "sodomy" means to you.

  • Tony||

    sodomy |ˈsädəmē|
    noun
    sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation.

  • Copernicus||

    Remarkably, Tony has scored a point.

    Unremarkably, it is against an idiot.

    sorry Tony, that's the most credit I am able to give you at this time.

  • AuH20||

    Tony, one quibble: Even if you don't accept the Bible as truth (and no judgement attaching there, just saying), I think it classifies more accurately as mythology than as fantasy.

  • Copernicus||

    It's fantasy on a personal level, mythology when 2 or more are gathered in his name.

  • prolefeed||

    Ignorant Tony argument is ignorant. You obviously have no knowledge of the bible.

    Tony wasn't talking about what the Bible does or does not say. He was saying he knows actual people who call themselves Christians and who consider themselves straight who engage in sexual acts known as sodomy.

    If you include blowjobs as sodomy, I'd say the vast majority of younger Christians engage in this.

    Try reading comprehension, AR.

  • prolefeed||

    Christianity is clear on the position that homosexuality is a sin against God.

    The god of the Old Testament is exceedingly clear that homosexuality is a sin ... and eating shellfish and pork ... and wearing clothes made of more than one material ... and being disobedient to one's parents ... and on and on ...

    He is a mighty sociopathic bastard.

    His kid, in the New Testament, is considerably less ruthless.

  • Ayn Rand||

    Except it is made clear in the New Testament.

  • Enough About Palin||

    Look up, dipshit.

  • Tonio||

    This is richly humorous since AR was an atheist.

    Also, you don't speak for all christians. There are several christian denominations which are just fine with the gays. It is of course your right to claim that those denominations aren't (true) Christians, but since those denominations represent a significant and numerically increasing number of US Christians you have

    Also, also, BSA is not an exclusively Christian organization. They accept Jewish, Muslim, Mormon, Buddhist and Hindu members; anyone who believes in any sort of a god (or gods in the case of the Hindus and Buddhists).

    Your other contentions are similarly light on factuality.

  • Tonio||

    ...those denominations represent a significant and numerically increasing number of US Christians.

  • Ayn Rand||

    I addressed these points in my responses to similar comments.

  • KDN||

    You left out Zoroastrians. But the only reason any of those heathen faiths are allowed in is because JOOS.

  • ||

    You mean an organization can evolve for the better without the threat of government persecution?

    Also I'm disappointed that Nick has confirmed he was a Boy Scout but, to my knowledge, has not yet included a picture of himself in any of his Boy Scout articles. Come on Nick, we're going to mock you either way, might as well get it over with.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "without the threat of government persecution?"

    I'm afraid that's not quite the case, there have been lots of local governments making threatening noises about the BSA's discrimination against gays and atheists.

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, and the only persecution has been to deny the BSA the special privilege of free use of certain facilities for which other groups were charged fees, and the ending of some sponsorships. I thought it was only liberals who decried lack of free stuff from the government as persecution.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm pretty sure I've heard similar sentiments here re nondiscrimination.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Also I'm disappointed that Nick has confirmed he was a Boy Scout but, to my knowledge, has not yet included a picture of himself in any of his Boy Scout articles.

    It's probably just pictures of him wearing a leather jacket with Boy Scout badges.

  • db||

    He earned the Leatherworking badge when he handcrafted the Jacket.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    He earned the Leatherworking badge when he handcrafted the Jacket.

    I thought that was handed to him on Mount Olympus by the Fonze himself.

  • db||

    No, the Jacket, made of human flesh, and signed by the Fonz in blood, was crafted by ancient Sumerians for the purpose of dark rituals--demonic summonings and resurrections. Nick is but the latest incarnation of the ancient creator and guardian of the Jacket.

  • $park¥||

    *gasp* The Jacket is the first transcription of the Necronomicon?

  • Tonio||

    Ixnay on the ecronomiconay.

  • robc||

    You mean an organization can evolve for the better without the threat of government persecution?

    Augusta National probably would have had a female member about 10 years sooner if it hadnt been for Martha Burk.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    To be honest, I have few complaints about the new policy as it stands. A scout's sexual orientation should never come into the picture. A scoutmaster's sexual orientation is somewhat more relevant when it becomes an issue, since the scout is an adult who will be supervising teens and pre-teens for extended periods. The reason for avoiding same-sex troop leaders is essentially the same as the reason that the BSA doesn't have female scoutmasters: inappropriate relationships between scoutmasters and scouts discredit the integrity of the organization.

  • KDN||

    We had a female assistant scoutmaster when I was in. Everyone hated her, especially her stepson.

  • ||

    The BSA has no rule against female Scoutmasters. My troop never had a female scout-master, but we regularly had female leaders on campouts, and never had any problems. You'd be surprised how fun middle-aged women can be in the wilderness. No innuendo is meant by that statement.

  • Tonio||

    Was this at boy scout level or cub scout level? When I was a yoot, the moms could be involved in cub scouts but once you graduated to boy scouts it was all men, only men.

  • Heedless||

    Manly men? Perhaps in tights?

  • ||

    It's national policy:

    Q. Can women be Boy Scout leaders?

    Yes. Every leadership position is open to women. In fact, more than one-third of Scout volunteers are women.

    Apparently it's been this way since 1988. So my entire life.

  • Tonio||

    And I was well out of scouting by 1988.

    I heard recently that a FOAF was trying to volunteer for the BSA troop that her son was moving to, having reached the age limit for CSA, and that she was rebuffed. Perhaps a local rule, even if not strictly in accordance with national policy?

  • ||

    It might be. Local troops tend to set their own internal policies. I doubt the national policy would allow it, but it's possible that some troops have done so and no one has complained where we've seen it.

    There can, of course, also be informal pressures against such things. So even without a solid rule females might be dissuaded in much the same way males might be dissuaded from being Girl Scout leaders.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Why did that change? Never was a scoutmaster, but I was in scouts before the policy change.

  • Tonio||

    the same as the reason that the BSA doesn't have female scoutmasters

    No, there are other reasons for that, too.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Well, I suppose there are some homo-haters who would want the ban in place no matter what.

  • Tonio||

    I was talking about the ban on women scout leaders, and that the reason for that is other than to prevent sexual relations.

  • Tonio||

    is other than to has many facets in addition to preventing sexual relations between leaders and scouts.

  • ||

    As I've shown above, there hasn't been a ban on female scoutleaders since 1988.

  • Tonio||

    See reply above.

  • ||

    IIRC when the Elmo puppeteer story came out a number of commentators came out saying that his sexual behavior with a teen was normal in the gay community and was thus OK.

    I really don't have a well-formulated opinion on that, and certainly don't think it suggests gay scout leaders would be predatory or unable to control themselves, but it seems like it could pose a messaging problem when it comes to these kinds of discussions.

  • Zeb||

    I can only imagine that the scouts will have a policy that under no circumstances is a leader to have a sexual relationship with one of his scouts.

  • ||

    They already do.

  • Tonio||

    I was not a member of that group of commentators. That sort of behavior has the same normalcy, prevalence and respectability as does adult (ie, significantly post-teen) men pursuing teenage girls.

  • AuH20||

    So, clearly a market for it, although looked down on?

    Wait... so does gay porn have that whole, "I just turned 18, and now I'm going to have sex for the first time ever on camera!" I assume it must, but I guess I just find it weird that there is an 18 year old dude out there somewhere who knows he is gay, and knows his first act upon hitting that age is going to be getting butt fucked on camera. I mean, its weird that girls do that, but I guess its the steps that it entails. I just here so many people who go, "I didn't know I was gay until I was 20!" that I find it weird there is a large crop of well built 18 year olds who know they are gay and want to get blown on camera.

  • Scarcity||

    Goldie, this may hurt, you might want to sit down.

    Most of the time those girls are neither "just turned 18" nor virgins.

    You may weep, it's OK.

  • ||

    Eh, I don't think you get it so much with losing ones virginity, but there's the whole gay4pay story arc where a straight guy, gets and then gives his first blowjob with a guy, or the ever popular Bait Bus where they "trick" guys into putting on a blindfold by showing them a woman and switching it out for man. It's all theater though.

  • SusanM||

    Rule 34 and 35 pretty much guarantee that.

  • Tonio||

    My tastes do not run in that direction (Bears, Represent!), so I have only limited familiarity with that segment of the market.

    But, yeah, pretty much so.

  • ||

    "Well, you know what I say about kids: They're all pink on the inside."

  • ||

    So, with whom are you associating who says that?

  • Scarcity||

    They, man. They.

  • Tonio||

    Larry Flynt?

  • db||

    WTF? You know the Boy Scouts are in trouble when they have to buy cheap counterfeit American flags from China.

  • ||

    How does one go about "counterfeiting" an American flag?

  • ||

    It doesn't have the Obama for America logo on it.

  • db||

    Hint: <57 stars.

  • Scarcity||

    Make it at a lower cost than it can be made in the US due to comparative advantage and then sell it to exploit the US by selling it at a profit.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Dude, I hate paying less for my stuff. It just seems so lower class.

  • $park¥||

    It's like using coupons at a five star restaurant.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Or going to a lowly five star restaurant in the first place.

  • $park¥||

    Make it out of nusilk, carefully stitch "Made in China" into the stripes in a thread color that is one shade off the correct color.

  • ||

    wed white and brue?

  • Scarcity||

    LACIST!

  • ||

    ZZZZZ. I don't really give a shit that a voluntary group(s) of stupid homophobic prudes want to exclude class(es) of people of based on the stupidiest of pretext. I don't understand this obession with this story.

  • ||

    For those who think BSA is being a bunch of assholes, start your own competing young- kids- learning- camping- self- reliance- go- play-in-the-woods group. Call them the Tweenage Mutant Ninja Scouts. In stead of a fagget ascot, you get a cool hardshell backpack and a mask.

  • ||

    And DONE. Sorry, it's a MoJo article.

  • mr simple||

    I was really expecting some turtle shell backpacks and ninja masks, jesse. I am disappoint.

  • Tonio||

    There are several competing, merit badge awarding yoot groups, such as the Royal Rangers (pentacostals). Everyone seems to like the BSA brand, and they (BSA) do get a number of special privileges including their own special congressional charter, so there's that.

    Also, many people within scouting (current scouts, parents of current scouts, former scouts now ineligible for leadership) are behind this, not just outsiders.

  • Enough About Palin||

    "And sometimes a bugle is just a bugle"

  • ||

    Can whoever silently bans the racists get rid of Ayn Rand? It isn't even mildly interesting as parody.

  • Ayn Rand||

    What did I say that was "racist?"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The inability to parse a sentence is racist.

  • Ayn Rand||

    Question. How many of you would send your daughter(or sister or other female relative) camping alone with a male scoutmaster?

  • Tony||

    What's your point?

  • Tonio||

    Oh, I can speak to this. In both BSA and GSA you are always supposed to have two or more adult leaders on activities such as camping.

    So, begone, inflammatory, factually-challenged troll.

  • Ayn Rand||

    "Oh, I can speak to this. In both BSA and GSA you are always supposed to have two or more adult leaders on activities such as camping.

    I denied this where?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    You implicitly denied it when you posed your nonsensical question above. If it's a scouting event, they need two-deep leadership. If it's not a scouting event, their status as a scoutmaster is irrelevant.

    Hypothesis: this is an incarnation of the Derider.

  • Copernicus||

    "Question. How many of you would send your daughter(or sister or other female relative) camping alone with a male scoutmaster?"

    Answer: Bears, Beets, Battlestar Gallactica.

    Question: Do scoutmasters often take any kid out alone on a camping trip?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Not legally, if it's a BSA expedition, unless it's their son.

  • Ayn Rand||

    These people are like the kids on the playground back in elementary school who whine to the teacher that "they won't play with me."

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I don't know about you, but I preferred playing alone or with one or two friends (at most) in elementary school.

    I kind of identify with Kira on that point.

  • Tonio||

    I have always maintained that private organizations have a right to exclude whoever they want from membership. However, BSA is not a private organization. If they give up their Title 36 USC charter from the US Congress they become a truly private organization; until that time they are receiving special government privileges and hence subject to nondiscrimination.

    Having said that, I applaud BSA's decision to not kick out gay scouts for the mere reason of being gay.

    I'm taking no position on the organization's decision to exclude gays from scout leadership, other than the they need to give up their charter if they wish to continue to do this. While I and many other gay former scouts I know are saddened to be excluded, we honestly don't want the hassle (or damage to the organization) of being that guy that nobody wants but you have to have (the hated integrator). Also, BSA has spewed enough bullshit about gays that they can do very well without me, thanks.

  • Pro Libertate||

    If only private were private and public were public. It's bad enough having to deal with the government without its nastiness bleeding into supposedly private organizations and activities.

  • AuH20||

    It's really weird, because, as I recall, the founder of Scouting, in England, was kind of super gay.

  • forestgombosi39||

    If you think Richard`s story is nice, , four weaks-ago my mom basically also made $4739 grafting a 20 hour week in their apartment and they're best friend's mom`s neighbour done this for 8-months and got a cheque for over $4739 part-time on their computer. the instructions from this site http://www.wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Nice of Reason to carry the Left's water yet again on all gaycentric issues. Better hurry up with them buckets, boys, the totalitarians over at GLAAD are getting mighty thirsty. I hear they just had their way with a bunch of True Libertarian dipshits....again.

    Instead of berating and bullying the BSA, let's ask a question, shall we? Why the fuck would an openly gay, unmarried man want to be a scoutmaster in the first place? Seriously, why? Where in his fabulous lifestyle does taking a bunch of uncoordinated, pudgy dorks out to a lake to teach them how to find grub worms fit in?

    Very very few Americans outside of political circles gives a shit about any of these gay 'rights' issues. If you asked the average scoutmaster and scouts about the national org's stance on homosexuality, their answer would most likely be "who cares?"

    Furthermore, isn't a scoutmaster usually known to the scouts already? I assume these scout troops are culled from local communities and all those involved are at least somewhat previously known to one another? What nitwit parent is letting their 10yo son camp overnight in the woods with a bunch of kids and adult strangers (gay or straight)?

    It's yet another manufactured issue that allows the Left to bash Christians and traditional America.

    Anyway, what's the BSA's stance on scoutmasters who pleasure themselves with old Ron Paul bumper stickers?

  • Otis B. Driftwood||

    This is precisely the kind of troll that Reason deserves. Tony, PB, and The Derider don't have shit on this asshole.

    I sincerely hope you return.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement