Boy Scouts of America Votes in Grapevine, TX, to Let in Openly Gay Boy Scouts

[James Nored]

Today, right in Grapevine, TX, the Boys Scouts of America, long known for its strong moral stance and rejection of homosexuality, voted to allow openly gay boy scouts, but not openly gay scout leaders to be able to enter into and stay in the Boy Scouts of America.

Here is the headline quote from the article in the New York Times:

"GRAPEVINE, Tex. — In a landmark step its chief executive called 'compassionate, caring and kind,' the Boy Scouts of America on Thursday ended its longstanding policy of forbidding openly gay youths to participate in its activities.

The decision, which followed years of resistance and wrenching internal debate, was widely seen as a milestone for the Boy Scouts, a symbol of traditional America. More than 1,400 volunteer leaders from across the country voted, with more than 60 percent approving a measure that said no youth may be denied membership 'on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone.'"

Most Christians still believe homosexuality to be wrong, and there is biblical basis for this. Just as with the laws that are changing on this issue, I do not believe that these laws or rules do not do much to change people's behaviors. But to me, it is indeed a (sad) indication of how prevalent homosexuality has become in our culture--though we should love everyone and show them Christ.

How should Christians respond to this publicly, privately, in their families, with their peers, and if their children are in Boy Scouts? Should they boycott? Continue to participate and hope to be a positive influence for the other teens and parents and share Christ and the gospel with them? Speak out? Keep silent?

These are real questions. And how does this issue fit into other moral and cultural issues? Does not the Boy Scouts allow teens that openly commit or admit to struggling with other sins? Is this issue singled out? Should it be singled out? Teens that go to public schools have openly gay teens in attendance, and yet most Christian parents still allow them to attend (though home schooling is on the rise.) Is there a difference here? Should there be? Also, I am unclear whether homosexual behavior is allowed, or only "orientation." Does this make a difference to you? What biblical basis for your thoughts do you have?

I am interested in hearing your thoughts.

[Michael Lum]

Visiting with a good friend who is a local leader in BSA.  He was very distraut...said it was totally money-driven.  Enough big donors were pressured by the militant Homosexual lobbyists that they threatened to pull funding.  Interestingly, in two years there will be another vote he said concerning openly gay leaders.  This will take the same track and will in effect "end" the BSA as many of us have known it.  Satan is truly "on the hunt".

[Jackson Haley]

First of all, it is not an untruth. The previous commenter was strictly correct, just selective and prejudicial.

The CDC clearly demonstrates in their reports that blacks have a higher incidence for many diseases. Hispanics too. Homosexuals too. Native Americans too. These are a statistically accurate statements, and not lies.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/risk/racialethnic/aa/index.html

http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/specpop/resources_TB_... ,

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/meas.pdf

There was a time when I would not have been allowed to marry my wife. Justification for this restriction was that statistics accurately stated she was more likely to have lice and carry syphilis and herpes. These numbers were accurate but the causation was attributed to ethnicity, not socio-economics or other factors.

In my field, which sometimes involves genetic algorithms and bioinformatics, we have a saying: There are no lies in statistics, just insufficient data and liars.

Social statistics are supposed to indicate that there's a correlation or causation that must be addressed. As you said yourself, blacks tend to lack the same resources and access as other demographics. That could be a contributing causation.

But the approach of using statistics to inextricably link correlation with causation and therefore justification for denying a statistical set of humans equality, is downright improper.

My point of using these statistics about blacks and disease was to showcase the absurdity of a  using a limited dataset in statistical reports to justify a biased position against a certain set of humans. A person using statistics this way either lacks statistical literacy or is involved in deception.

The worst kind of deception using statistics, though, is self-deception. The devil's greatest trick is fooling people into believing the lies they then tell to others, in the name of righteousness.

[Jackson Haley]

Apostle of Jesus Christ Solael:

You reinforce exactly the point I was trying to make to a previous commenter, who stated an objection to homosexuals in Boy Scouts for reasons of increased risk of infectious disease.

I once saw a speech about miscegenation (interracial marriage) from the 60s, that contained the same objection. The implication is that "these people are inherently filthy."

I don't like to compare the homosexual marriage issue with the racial civil rights issues of the 50s/60s. But when opponents puts up the same arguments that previous generations had, it's the opposition's fault for repeating history and validating those comparisons.

[Michael Neill]

Lord come quickly.

[Jackson Haley]

I was a Life Scout rank. Formerly a Scout Leader and might be again, thanks to this policy change.

 Let's first address some of the comments in this thread.

 I was a Scout starting 1976. "Morally straight" had nothing to do with homosexuality when I learned the oath. It meant "straight-laced" to us, not "heterosexual."

This is precisely how it was explained to me by all packs and troops I belonged to. The meaning of "straight" is a retrofit definition attributed to The Oath which was adopted in the early 1900s, before the slang term "gay" (as in homosexual) or "straight" (as in heterosexual) existed. The term "bent" to mean gay began circa 1957 in Britain. So that's probably where the term "straight" came to mean heterosexual.



At any rate, I can't see how someone who never took The Oath or practiced under it has much credibility interpreting its meaning for me, or for my fellow scouts.


The point that the Oath now must be changed exposes a basic belief that homosexual kids are inherently morally flawed because of their orientation, not their conduct. I'm not sure how you can "love the sinner but not the sin" while holding that prejudicial thought.


BSA was not historically a God-centered, religious or even para-religious organization. Especially in the 70's and early 80's. It was more like the Masons or Alcoholics Anonymous in religious character. There was an acknowledgement of a higher power, but that was pretty much it. My packs and troops were all in TX and OK. We didn't even pray - and my Troop leader was a Baptist minister. He mentioned that one of the boys belonged to a religious tradition that literally followed Matthew 6:6, so he explained that this is why scouts was so religiously generic, to maximize participation.

In fact, Boy Scouts was so irreligious that alternative God-centered scout organizations were formed in the 1960s and really accelerated in the early 80s. See Royal Rangers and Awanas. Scouting only really went religious when the LDS kids started forming entire exclusive troops, dominating the Jamborees and Eagle Scout rosters, in my estimation.



Interestingly, one could argue that an increased religious influence in the scouts coincided with the increase in sexual abuse since sponsoring church organizations acted to cover up abuses. I don't know if that's a valid hypothesis (or how to test it) but it would probably be truthful to say the net "morality" was unchanged by the increase of religiosity in scouting.


This won't be the end of the BSA by any stretch. It is a big organization, with enormous real estate assets. If the BSA made this decision for money reasons, then they have acted to preserve the organization or delay its demise. Membership might trend down, but it was trending down anyway and has been since I was a kid. It gets in the way of youth group, school, sports, chores, pursuit of girls, jobs, etc. The Scouts Canada organization today remains the largest youth organization in Canada, despite its downward trend in membership. Seriously, just check Wikipedia on these facts.

Additionally, I can't find any authoritative information but I'd bet Royal Rangers and Awanas is also declining in membership. And they disallow homosexuals.



Really, with the sexual revolution of the 60s/70s and the advent of a strong coed culture from competing organizations like 4H, Campfire and even church youth groups, single sex organizations are just old-fashioned and obsolete.



I suspect that what's killing scouting is the acceptance of women's equality as male peers in society and the increased intermingling of the sexes in social activities, both structured and unstructured. That would correlate with the decline in single sex educational institutions as well.

As to the issue of sexually transmitted disease concern, the statements in a previous comment offend the very nature of scientific analysis, metrics, statistics and logic.



First of all, to imply that an increased health risk as reason to exclude homosexuals from Scouting is presumptive, selective and prejudiced.

Do you know what other population represents a major high risk for HIV, STDs, mumps, measles and TB? Blacks. Blacks are, in fact (CDC), a very high risk population for a plethora of infectious disease. Shall we, based on that statistic, conclude all blacks represent a risk to social health and exclude them from things like scouting? Should we just ask them to form their own scouts? Shall we just presume, because of this one data point, that blacks are more likely promiscuous and take measures to segregate them?

Second, unless my understanding of infection control is wrong, gay boys don't represent a risk of HIV or STD infection to straight boys. And if one is worried about the spread of infection between gay boys, that's going to happen regardless of scouting providing a venue.

Third, do you know what the other international scouting organizations that allowed homosexual scouts in did? Do you know what the Girls Scouts did? They beefed up the health merit badges with sexual health information and educated leaders on the issues.

When I was a counselor, I separated (and traded them with other counselors) same sex kids into different that seemed too cozy with each other. It was essentially the same thing I did for dealing opposite sex canoodlers. I kept them all busy. Situation handled.

So it seems to me, many of the objections here are not of genuine practical concerns, but merely rationalizations for a prejudice rapidly falling out of acceptance in polite society.

The BSA made this decision on their own. They certainly made a financial calculation. But I've seen churches and Christian colleges follow the money too, so who's throwing stones? Values held by any institution run by humans are for sale in a capitalistic society. Why so surprised?

If the BSA had decided against admission of homosexuals, I would have supported their decision to do so but continued to deprive them of my financial support or participation.

[Laura Conway McCann]

Boy Scout Oath or Promise

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

 

Seems the wording of the Promise may have to be changed; i.e. morally straight.

[Calvin B Massmann]

Yesterday was a dark day for America. Delegates to a national Boy Scouts of America (BSA) meeting in Texas apparently voted overwhelmingly on Thursday to validate homosexuality among boys. We are outraged.

This is a betrayal of the highest magnitude. It's a betrayal of the boys in the Scouts' care. It's a betrayal of trusting parents. It's a betrayal of a 103-year-old institution that has molded millions of boys into men. It's a betrayal of truth and honor.

Finally, it's a betrayal of God, in Whose name the organization furthered the priceless worth of being morally straight.

The immoral campaign within the BSA to sell out America's youths on the altar of political correctness appears to have been motivated by greed for corporate dollars and fear of being "on the wrong side" of an increasingly coarse culture that not only rejects biblical truth but openly attacks it.

The fallout of this evil act will be devastating, especially in areas where fathers are rare and boys desperately need male role models, such as in the inner cities. Apparently, these boys are expendable.

Absent in the debate are the well-documented health risks associated with homosexual behavior, especially among males. Over the past two decades, the media have provided only a false, positive picture, editing out any disturbing consequences such as the exponentially higher incidences of HIV infections, hepatitis and many other sexually transmitted diseases among males who have sex with males.

Unless a mighty outpouring across America forces the Scouts to rescind this action, it's the end for the Boy Scouts. This will achieve a long-sought goal of leftists who hate America and have wanted to eliminate one of the last groups devoted to traditional values. The Boy Scouts of America will dwindle and fold as they have in Canada, where a similar surrender 10 years ago has largely destroyed a formerly robust program. Why any parents would want their 10-year-old boy tenting with another boy who has openly expressed sexual desire for males is beyond comprehension.

Major Scout religious sponsors such as the Mormon Church, United Methodists and certain Catholic dioceses that have indicated that it will be business as usual despite the betrayal have themselves betrayed the boys in their charge and will have to answer to God someday.

Jesus made it quite clear in Luke 17:2 that anyone who despoils innocence is in for a terrible fate:

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin."

As for Scouting officials who brought this about, they had better enjoy their 30 pieces of silver while they can.

[Ben Skutt]

When God told Lot that he was going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot begged that they all be spared. Where is the compassion of Lot? I'll leave the judgement to God, and meanwhile pray that he witholds it.

[Michael Neill]

I propose that someone's militant behavior should not impact our actions or opinions toward them.  Jesus acted with the mind of God regardless of how much someone was "in his face" with their sin.  If we were to have a transgender, cross-dressing President of the United States, it does not change who we are, our mission, our calling.  To sum up my thoughts on the Boy Scouts allowing an openly gay scout;  it does not impact who I am one bit.  A continued downward spiral of morals in our country allows us to stand out even more as people of Christ.

[Bartlett Cleland]

OH NO...you mean they are allowing sinners to join the Boy Scouts???  As a former Boy Scout, andone who was jsut 2 merit badges and my Eagle project short of being an Eagle Scout, thank the Lord for teh Scouts who allowed an agnostic to join and advance.  As a group Scouts was one of the first influences on me eventually coming from being agnostic (and atheist for quite sometime) to being a Christian.  I will never understand Christians who try to rank sins and make homosexual activity any worse than, let's say gossiping.  I frankly do not even understand why it is worth mentioning that secular society (as that is a given, oh wait, also true for Christian society right??) has sin, the only reason here is because it isn't about an "acceptible sin."

 

I did appreciate Michael's comments - I won't sit around and wring my hands about the presumed decline of Christianity in America, an argument of which I am deeply skeptical and should be all but irrelevant to Christians other than that our mission field is that much bigger.  I wonder where we would be if the disciples sat around and groused about the state of the world, th percntages they faced, or whether some club allowed sinners to join....