So the boy scouts have decided to begin accepting openly gay members, but still have a ban on gay scout leaders.
My .02 - I think this is a wrong decision. The Boy Scouts were founded by a religious organization, and receive no government funding. Membership is purely voluntary. As such, I think that they should not capitulate or kowtow to any particular demographic other than the ones that they choose to. And as a religious organization (if they still consider themselves to be one), they should adhere to the principles of that religion–and the prinicples of the Christian religion eschew homosexuality.
Some people on here might point out that this is contrary to what I have said earlier, stating that I support equal rights for gays. This is a different issue. Gay marriage is about whether gays should enjoy the same legal rights afforded to them by law. However, they should not be able to “force” their way into a privately-run institution that does not share their beliefs. If their beliefs differ from the beliefs of the Boy Scouts, then they should not join. And the Boy Scouts should not kowtow to them or to political pressure.
I still remember joining in 2nd grade, lured with false promises of shooting guns, throwing axes, and learning how to start fires. Instead, we made macaroni necklaces. The pinewood derby was cool though.
Didn’t really think much about it. I’m not sure why a country club like that would close its doors to women. Their money is just as good as a man’s money.
I certainly don’t want to deny Augusta the right to exclude them, though. They’re a private organization. If they want to lose money, that’s their business (literally).
Practically, there will be no observable difference for some time. Just because gays will be allowed to become boy scouts does not mean that the organization will become gay friendly overnight. How many gay professional athletes are there? There will be some “early adopter” troops, but they will probably be located in gay friendly communities anyway. So, I doubt that it will be a profound cultural shift for them.
But should they have opened membership to gay people in the first place? I would argue yes, it is the right thing to do. Imagine if they had a policy saying no redheads can join. But should society be able to pressure them into accepting gay members? Probably not. Boy Scouts are not government funded, nor do they provide a vital service that people cannot receive elsewhere.
Edit: Maybe you could classify the tax exempt status as “government funded”. However, many tax exempt organizations are exclusive, either explicitly or implicitly - religious organizations, for instance.
I was in Boy Scouts (the foreign country equivalent) growing up. It was basically like a fraternity. There were bizarre rituals, hazing, and a highly stratified organizational structure. I learned were how to cope with unsympathetic environments, how to gain respect and become a leader in the group, and how to deal with assholes in all levels of the organization.
Political correctness would have materially changed my experience. Perhaps this would be “progress” in making the organization more acessible. However, from the old structure, I learned to deal with things that were wrong and generally not nice. And this was truly valuable to me, as the world is often wrong and not nice.
As I said before, it is probably more “wrong” to exclude certain groups from membership based on sexuality or other criteria. However, I also believe that something will be lost in the path to political correctness.
I too was a Boy Scout for a number of years and actively volunteer today with my troop.
It’s only worth it if you have a great scoutmaster. Fortunately mine was an old school no-nonsense militaristic one… He focused more on core skills and tough mental attitude over the sissiness that has crept up in majority of the troops over the last couple of decades.
I remember we used to play spin the ball with a tin can full of rocks and go on winter overnight hikes in 2ft snow and slept under a tarp. Fun times
Most of the change is also due to the kids today. I remember once a kid brought a brand new radio on a hike to listen to a baseball game and my scoutmaster found out. He took the radio, stomped on it and threw it in the fire.
Today’s kids can’t live without their ipod and iphones for less than 3 hours. Motivating them to try going on a winter hike? Fugedaboutit
South Park summed up this issue nicely several years ago. I highly recommend the Big Gay Al episode to anyone that hasn’t seen it.
Yes, they’re a private organization and, as such, should be able to decide who they let in. However, there’s nothing wrong with evolving your stance on something. Their views represented an out of date and out of touch philosophy that was negatively impacting their organization. So they changed. That’s the way things go. Ultimately it’ll be a good move for the Scouts and they know that. That’s why they did it.
^ The organization was only negatively impacted because of people outside of the organization who think the organization’s views represent an out of date and out of touch philosophy. By that standard, every private organization should change for its own good if enough outsiders cry loud and long enough.
I think there were plenty people within the organization that were willing to change too. It wasn’t all outsiders. But, yes, if you want your organization to thrive in perpetuity, you should consider your reputation. How outsiders view your club will effect membership (dues).
Just depends on what your long-term goals are. If your organization is all about some cause or another, sure then you don’t change. The KKK isn’t going to start allowing black people just because they get bad press. But if your organization is about being a place for young boys to learn cool stuff, then maybe being viewed as hateful isn’t good for your long term prospects.
I don’t think private org. should yield to political correctness, as long as there isn’t any big repurcussions.
Like that Abercrombie CEO saying he doesn’t want to make fat people clothes because they don’t cater to that crowd. People are actually complaining about it, and demanding they make fat clothes.
why would you even want to give your money to a company that clearly hates your “type” of people?
I agree with what Sweep says about staying relevant in a changing society. Hence, like I said before, there is a strong reason why Boy Scouts should accept gay members. However, I also believe that there are beneficial elements in certain ways of thinking, even as they become obsolete. So, we just have to make sure that the benefits of change outweigh the costs.
I agree in general theory, but the BSA is Christian organization and part of the pledge is to be moral, or some derivation thereof. Although the the thoughts of individual members surely vary, the official position of the majority of Christian religions in the US is that homosexuality is immoral (I personally disagree for whatever that’s worth). I suspect that most Christian religions in the US will change their position on homosexuality in the relatively near future (not the Roman Catholic Church though), but until that happens this capitulation by the BSA could mean the end of many troops based in religious organizations.
I think it boils down to the fact that society evolves.
The Mormons decided in 1978 that black people were ok because they were well out of step with society norms. I don’t really see this as different. Society has gotten used to the concept that you are born gay, you don’t choose it.
I don’t think that private organisations should have to change to suit political correctness, but there will come a time when the Scouts’ attitude towards gay people looks very old fashioned, to the point of ludicrous, and they’ll have to change for their own survival.
No. I also would not allow my daughter to join the Girl Scouts if the Scout Leader is male (pretty sure that male scout leaders are not permitted in the GSA, but you get the point).