The Bigot Scouts

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Boy Scouts reaffirm ban on gays

"After a confidential two-year review, the Boy Scouts of America on Tuesday emphatically reaffirmed its policy of excluding gays, ruling out any changes despite relentless protest campaigns by some critics.

An 11-member special committee, formed discreetly by top Scout leaders in 2010, "came to the conclusion that this policy is absolutely the best policy for the Boy Scouts," the organization' national spokesman, Deron Smith, told The Associated Press.

Smith said the committee, comprised of professional scout executives and adult volunteers, was unanimous in its conclusion — preserving a long-standing policy that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and has remained controversial ever since.

As a result of the committee's decision, the Scouts' national executive board will take no further action on a recently submitted resolution asking for reconsideration of the membership policy."
---

I know, first thing many would think of as a response would be that the Boy Scouts, being a private club, should feel free to do as they please. On the other hand though, it's beyond me why the federal government would continue to fund an organization like this, in light of their outright discriminatory policies.

Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winkler_v._Rumsfeld
"Every four years, the Boy Scouts of America holds a National Scout jamboree ... The US Government spends an average of $2 million a year towards hosting of the jamboree.

"Winkler v. Rumsfeld was a case regarding the United States Armed Forces and their support of the Boy Scouts of America's National Scout jamborees."

Based on all this, Winkler and other plaintiffs (with the assistance of the American Civil Liberties Union), sued. Their argument was that the Department of Defense's use of taxpayer money for funding jamborees of what they called "a private religious organization", is a violation of the 1st Amendment, which prohibits Congress from establishing a religion.

The DOD's spending for those jamborees was ruled a violation of the Constitution. Then the decision was reversed after an appeal (the argument being that the plaintiffs lacked legal standing as taxpayers to bring the suit in the first place). So the jamboree was allowed to continue.

Then the location for the future national jamborees was moved to W.Virginia, on private land. This was supposed to settle the issue once and for all. BUT...

"However, future involvement of the military in supporting Jamborees at The Summit is likely due to the recruiting and training opportunity it affords them."

In addition, W.Virginia, both the state government and various local government agencies, are providing both direct and indirect support for said "summit", in the form of tax breaks and other bonuses, plus the DOD is providing personnel and equipment to build the trails around the summit location - and all that, for the benefit of the non-gay Boy Scouts...

The most stunning thing here is that this policy is now practically being legitimized by the involvement of DOD, hence the federal government. Now, I may not agree with the views of the Boy Scots, but I can also see where the argument about them being a private company, might be coming from; although not necessarily being particularly happy about it. But don't the Scouts receive government grants in the meantime? Why is that? Does the federal government support a discriminatory policy against homosexuals - or not?

The other weird thing is that in its 2000 ruling, the SCOTUS used the 1st Amendment to exclude gays from being a scout master... Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure that was the purpose of the 1st Amendment?

And one last question. The disgrace that this organization has brought upon itself with this policy notwithstanding, why would the Boy Scouts even make homosexuality an issue at all? Was it anywhere near being one of the core principles on which that organization was founded? They're beginning to look more and more like the Bigot Scouts of America at this point.

Thoughts? Rants? Opinions? Macros?

Comments

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

There is no link between homosexuality and pedophilia. To conflate them does a disservice to anyone seriously combating pedophilia. Presuming homosexuals are pedophiles is textbook homophobia.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Well, we've SEEN how acceptance of homosexuality have
protected children from Molestation -- look at the Catholic Church for example

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I agree there isn't a link.

Its unfair in the way that some 18-20 year olds may be responsible and mature enough to drink alcohol but suffer the negative stigma of 18-20 year olds who aren't responsible.

And how some young people who drive safely suffer high insurance rates due to the high risk drivers in their age bracket.

Its difficult if not impossible to distinguish child molestors from gays therefore an across the board ban may be justified.

As is usually the case, I don't know that anyone has bothered doing a study or research on the topic.

I probably shouldn't have bothered saying anything.....

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

The fact that being homosexual used to be against the laws and sodomy laws still exist and some countries still execute homosexuals, I think that your analogies are not appropriate.

Its difficult if not impossible to distinguish child molestors from gays therefore an across the board ban may be justified.

It is no more or less difficult to distinguish pedophiles among straight or gay adults. It is bigotry and not justified by anything.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Consider the way healthcare functions. A person who lives a healthy lifestyle, eats well and takes care of themselves foots the health insurance bill for those who are considered high health insurance risks.

Gays may be penalized for the acts of molestors in the same way. Gays in the boy scouts wasn't an issue until after issues relating to molestation came to light. This isn't necessarily fueled by homophobia bur rather an over-reaction to the boy scouts having a history of molestation?

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Gays in the boy scouts wasn't an issue until after issues relating to molestation came to light.

Do you have any citation to support that claim?


This isn't necessarily fueled by homophobia bur rather an over-reaction to the boy scouts having a history of molestation?

To single out homosexuals is irrational and such over-reaction IS textbook homophobia.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Chronological history supports my claims.

Prove its irrational / textbook homophobia. Use facts, plz. Show me how its done, I guess..

An initial test.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Child molester or gay?




Child molester or gay?

[auntiesiannan.livejournal.com]

Just don't post any Paula Poundstone pictures.

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

That turned out to be reckless endangerment, and apparently she's asexual. False positive!

[op-tech-glitch.livejournal.com]

Or any conservative furries.

[jonathankorman.livejournal.com]

It is difficult if not impossible to distinguish child molestors from straight men therefore an across the board ban may be justified.

[awdrey-gore.livejournal.com]

Sandusky presented as straight so I suspect you're correct. We need to ban the straight men across the board. It just makes sense.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Straight men presumably would not molest others of the same gender..

[lafinjack.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Men molest girls and women molest boys all the time.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Gay men are not pedophiles. Heterosexual men are not pedophiles. Pedophiles and pedophiles and they can present as any sexuality.

And you seemed to have failed on doing research -again-. Seriously are you just trolling, or have some strange perverse version of digital masochism?

http://www.robincmiller.com/gayles4.htm

[chron-job.livejournal.com]

> Straight men presumably would not molest others of the same gender..

You don't understand pedophilia.

You're also repeating some myths that have been specifically crafted by people with a political and cultural interest in marginalizing homosexuals. Those ideas have no more validity than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Presumably you've never read anything on this topic, have you?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

It is difficult if not impossible to distinguish child molesters from hets as well, so is an across the board ban justified there?

[usekh.livejournal.com]

Beaten to it ;P

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Well, let's say there was a country with high rape statistics. 80% or more of the rapists are male gendered. The government cracks down upon its extremely high rape statistics by implementing a limited curfew -- making it illegal for men to be in certain areas at night including public parks and areas known to have a high number of incidents relating to sexual assault.

Would it be justified for men to claim they were victims of manphobia & that they were being treated unfairly?

Considering most cases of molestation in the BSA are similar to cases of molestation in the Catholic Church were the vast majority of offenders are (as far a I know) male gendered and gay.. I don't see why BSA attempting a ban against gays might be considered unjustified.

The problem with social programs is there are typically no solutions that satisfy everyone. Its not like an epsiode of star trek or a tv show where everything can be fixed in 30 minutes to an hour with an elegant solution that satisfies everyone.

Unless its possible to show that child molestors are not gay or that they're pre-dominantly heterosexual I don't know that its justified to label the BSA's approach as "homophobic".

Anyways, I hope that explains some things in regard to what my stance on this is. Go ahead and criticize, argue, debate. Tell me what you think.

[usekh.livejournal.com]

See "That link doesn't look quite right to me." or "as far a I know" these are not arguments. These are not evidence.

When -you- make an assertion put up some actual facts, not your feelings, or go away. Because many serious study shows that people who present as Heterosexual are more likely to molest. And you have provided nothing more than your feelings in rebuttal.



PS Catholic Priests are an awful example, as they are compulsorily celibate, which causes all kinds of distortions. And as much as I hate the Church for what they did covering it, it is a tiny percentage of total Pedophilia cases.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

Its difficult if not impossible to distinguish child molestors from gays therefore an across the board ban may be justified.

This would've been funny if it weren't sad.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

I don't understand why it would be a sad thing?

If it were possible for the Pope to reduce incidents of molestation in churches by introducing a ban on gays becoming priests I would fully support it if it had the potential to have a positive & lasting impact.

As is sometimes the case with these types of social issues, no one can say for certain what the outcome will be beforehand.

Has BSA managed to diminish incidents of molestation by denying gays admittance? If there were a study done that showed cases had decreased by a noticeable amount -- I would support the ban on gays considering it could have a positive effect that can be measured.

Gays might lose rights and feel singled out, but that could be a very small sacrifice to pay in my mind if it also came with potential benefits.

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

It's sad that you advocate throwing the baby along with the water, whereas the baby is not even the cause for the problem.

The path to Hell is paved with good intentions, and lots of small sacrifices.