Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are the scouts going to tell parents if the leaders are gay?.I would sure as hell want to know before i sent my kids there.Parents need to know so we can make an informed choice.
Why do you need to know the sexual orientation of your child's Scout leader?
Parents should, and often do, interview several troops before enrolling and participate in some capacity alongside their boys. There are at least half-a-dozen adults on every outing our troop takes, and most every family is represented by at least one registered adult in addition to a boy. My sons have been on maybe two campouts without their father, who has always held an official role within the organization. It's a neighborhood troop, and everybody knows everybody. Sometimes I wonder if the biggest critics found in these forums have ever participated in a Scouting organization, because the ignorance is truly astounding.
Last edited by randomparent; 07-28-2015 at 10:34 AM..
Well, the Catholic Church can create their own Boy Scout like organization if they don't like this change, and I am sure what they fear will happen right there in their own organization, if history is any guide.
Did the Catholic church say they are not supporting the BSA anymore? I couldn't find a link to this.
Why do you need to know the sexual orientation of your child's Scout leader?
Just because you have no problem with gays mingling with your children does not mean that everbody has to agree with your viewpoint.My views/opinions/actions are every bit as valid as yours.Different strokes for different folks.Or does tolerance only run one way?.
Just because you have no problem with gays mingling with your children does not mean that everbody has to agree with your viewpoint.My views/opinions/actions are every bit as valid as yours.Different strokes for different folks.Or does tolerance only run one way?.
Do you inquire about the sexuality of every person your children come in contact with? Do you ask it of all of their coaches/teachers/religious leaders/school administrators? Can you be 100% positive that those people when asked are telling the truth?
I don't personally care what your feelings are. You are allowed to dislike gay people if you choose. I feel it's rather close minded and bigoted, but whatever, different strokes for different folks. I just find it funny that you think that it actually matters what their sexual orientation is and/or that you have a right to even ask the question.
How sad and pathetic - but not surprising - that a religious organization is considering prioritizing discrimination over sponsoring youth activity.
When did being a gay scoutmaster trump the 1st Amendment rights of religions to follow traditional moral beliefs with a 2000+ year history?
How is a church choosing not to participate in a secular program that no longer reflects its religious values and beliefs about family organizations, sexual practices, and has been loosing relevance for years "prioritizing discrimination?" You seem to imply they (religions) have an obligation to continue to participate in secular youth programs, no matter how the secular organization changes, or the value it brings to the table if the "agenda" is "right" - oh, and who gets to define both the "agenda" and whether it is "right" matters a great deal.
The Boy Scouts have every right to adjust their policies as they see fit. The different churches have every right to participate (or not) as they see fit.
Most churches would say they are "prioritizing the safety of their youth," which they have every right to do, along with a responsibility to do so.
Your statement of churches "prioritizing discrimination" says more about your societal assumptions, values, and priorities than it reflects the actual intent or views of most churches dealing with these major social changes.
When did being a gay scoutmaster trump the 1st Amendment rights of religions to follow traditional moral beliefs with a 2000+ year history?
How is a church choosing not to participate in a secular program that no longer reflects its religious values and beliefs about family organizations, sexual practices, and has been loosing relevance for years "prioritizing discrimination?" You seem to imply they (religions) have an obligation to continue to participate in secular youth programs, no matter how the secular organization changes, or the value it brings to the table if the "agenda" is "right" - oh, and who gets to define both the "agenda" and whether it is "right" matters a great deal.
The Boy Scouts have every right to adjust their policies as they see fit. The different churches have every right to participate (or not) as they see fit.
Most churches would say they are "prioritizing the safety of their youth," which they have every right to do, along with a responsibility to do so.
Your statement of churches "prioritizing discrimination" says more about your societal assumptions, values, and priorities than it reflects the actual intent or views of most churches dealing with these major social changes.
Any church has every right to leave the scouting organization. Farewell.
Just because you have no problem with gays mingling with your children does not mean that everbody has to agree with your viewpoint.My views/opinions/actions are every bit as valid as yours.Different strokes for different folks.Or does tolerance only run one way?.
So to sum up, you're not going to answer NJGOAT's question as to why you have an issue with gay Scout leaders? Roger that.
But let me ask you this:
When your child is in a horrific car accident down the street and you arrive at the scene at the same time as the EMTs, who start to do all they can to stabilize your child and prevent him or her from bleeding out on the spot, do you first demand to know their sexual preferences before they proceed?
Or is your "No gays for my kids!" policy only followed when it's convenient?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
When did being a gay scoutmaster trump the 1st Amendment rights of religions to follow traditional moral beliefs with a 2000+ year history?
When did you become so ignorant of the Constitution that you think my criticism of a religious organization's behavior is a violation of that organization's Establishment Clause rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
How is a church choosing not to participate in a secular program that no longer reflects its religious values and beliefs about family organizations, sexual practices, and has been loosing relevance for years "prioritizing discrimination?" You seem to imply they (religions) have an obligation to continue to participate in secular youth programs, no matter how the secular organization changes, or the value it brings to the table if the "agenda" is "right" - oh, and who gets to define both the "agenda" and whether it is "right" matters a great deal.
Do you not understand the meaning of the words 'prioritizing' or 'discrimination'? Come on - this is a religion that, when Utah statehood hinged on Mormonism abandoning polygamy in the 1890s, suddenly got a 'revelation'... ... that polygamy was no longer acceptable, and in the 1970s when it was clear that a ban on blacks in the church hierarchy was no longer politically viable suddenly got another 'revelation'... ... that the whites-only policy had to be abandoned.
Has the Mormon church ever demanded that Scout leaders be Mormon and not of other faiths (which, to use your phrase, do not reflect its religious values)? Has it ever demanded Scout leaders that abstain from pre-marital sex? Has it ever demanded Scout leaders that do not 'covet thy neighbor's ox'?
Give me a break on the notion that the Mormon church consistently expects Scout leaders to mirror its values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
The Boy Scouts have every right to adjust their policies as they see fit. The different churches have every right to participate (or not) as they see fit.
And I never said they did. I criticized them for their policies. Do you not comprehend the difference between criticizing something (which I did) and demanding a legal prohibition on that something (which I did not do)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
Most churches would say they are "prioritizing the safety of their youth," which they have every right to do, along with a responsibility to do so.
And any church - or person - who says that avoiding gay Scout leaders enhances youth safety is, frank, idiotic. Just so you don't go running to the First Amendment again, yes, I believe churches and persons are free to be idiotic. Are you clear that I'm not demanding that said idiocy be banned?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuck's Dad
Your statement of churches "prioritizing discrimination" says more about your societal assumptions, values, and priorities than it reflects the actual intent or views of most churches dealing with these major social changes.
My assumptions are spot-on. And I'l take my values over baseless bigotry any day, pal. These churches aren't 'dealing with change', they're digging in their heels because the institutionalized discrimination that they so treasure is slipping away. That's it. It's the same old story of conservative institutions with feet of clay that have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.
When did you become so ignorant of the Constitution that you think my criticism of a religious organization's behavior is a violation of that organization's Establishment Clause rights?
You are correct in what you stated, however it is not difficult to see the direction this is heading. I am guilty of reading into your statement, but I do believe the religious protections under the 1st Amendment are a target.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Do you not understand the meaning of the words 'prioritizing' or 'discrimination'? Come on - this is a religion that, when Utah statehood hinged on Mormonism abandoning polygamy in the 1890s, suddenly got a 'revelation'... ... that polygamy was no longer acceptable, and in the 1970s when it was clear that a ban on blacks in the church hierarchy was no longer politically viable suddenly got another 'revelation'... ... that the whites-only policy had to be abandoned.
This more properly goes in the religion section, but since you brought it up as part of the dialog, let me answer your assertions.
Polygamy abandonment was a reaction to the Federal government seizure of all church assets because it (the church) made the mistake of incorporating. The "revelation" was what would happen to the "church" if they continued the practice, vice abandoning it. It is also a religion that had women's suffrage, and had to take the vote from women to gain statehood, hence Nevada is the first state to have women's suffrage.
Blacks and the priesthood is a more interesting issue, because they (blacks) had the priesthood in the early church organization, and it became problematic when the church moved into a slave state. Blacks were asked not to use their priesthood, and were not ordained from there forward. I have heard a lot of bigoted statements and some weird explanations, but blacks not holding the priesthood was a holdover to lessen the mob violence against the church in MO.
The revelation you refer to was not related to issues in the US, but to a temple opening in South America, and the level of race intermingling making the determination of what constituted "black" impossible to determine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Has the Mormon church ever demanded that Scout leaders be Mormon and not of other faiths (which, to use your phrase, do not reflect its religious values)?
Yes, it is a calling for a member of the local congregation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Has it ever demanded Scout leaders that abstain from pre-marital sex?
Yes, and demand they abstain from adultery once married.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Has it ever demanded Scout leaders that do not 'covet thy neighbor's ox'?
Yes, again, that is the standard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
Give me a break on the notion that the Mormon church consistently expects Scout leaders to mirror its values.
See above. They really do expect their Scout leaders to mirror their values. I suspect the Baptists and Catholics have similar standards and expectations for their respective Scout leaders and Scout programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
And I never said they did. I criticized them for their policies. Do you not comprehend the difference between criticizing something (which I did) and demanding a legal prohibition on that something (which I did not do)?
I give it a year before the first lawsuit aimed at compelling religions to bow to the god of equality over all, but no, you did not demand legal prohibition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
And any church - or person - who says that avoiding gay Scout leaders enhances youth safety is, frank, idiotic. Just so you don't go running to the First Amendment again, yes, I believe churches and persons are free to be idiotic. Are you clear that I'm not demanding that said idiocy be banned?
Yeah, we have differing opinions here, and I believe human sexuality is incredibly complex, and not particularly uniform, with strong biological drives that frequently trump logic, so to say their is no danger with gay Scout master is just as idiotic as to say it is always a danger. There is some level of risk, and as it stands, that risk has not been quantified, and the churches, not the Scout masters are where the money is, and that is the entity that will be sued and held accountable when something goes wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati
My assumptions are spot-on. And I'l take my values over baseless bigotry any day, pal. These churches aren't 'dealing with change', they're digging in their heels because the institutionalized discrimination that they so treasure is slipping away. That's it. It's the same old story of conservative institutions with feet of clay that have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the present.
Your assumptions are spot on in your opinion. Isn't that really the issue? Who gets to define which assumptions are the correct ones?
Parents should, and often do, interview several troops before enrolling and participate in some capacity alongside their boys. There are at least half-a-dozen adults on every outing our troop takes, and most every family is represented by at least one registered adult in addition to a boy. My sons have been on maybe two campouts without their father, who has always held an official role within the organization. It's a neighborhood troop, and everybody knows everybody. Sometimes I wonder if the biggest critics found in these forums have ever participated in a Scouting organization, because the ignorance is truly astounding.
If the kids are in scouting, then you know which parents just drop the kids off and never volunteer to help with anything.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... that polygamy was no longer acceptable, and in the 1970s when it was clear that a ban on blacks in the church hierarchy was no longer politically viable suddenly got another 'revelation'... 
