stats for wordpress
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


The Boy Scouts’ Futile Isolationism

by Zinnia Jones on July 19, 2012

in Bigotry Watch,Discrimination,News,Zinnia Jones

Post image for The Boy Scouts’ Futile Isolationism

No one should be especially surprised that the Boy Scouts of America recently announced they would maintain their policy of excluding gay people from membership. There’s little indication that they ever seriously considered revising their position that “homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts.”

WATCH: Romney On Boy Scouts: All People Should Be Allowed To Join ‘Regardless Of Sexual Orientation’

The BSA now claims that this policy has been under review for two years by a special committee, whose existence was never announced and whose composition is entirely unknown. They’ve stated that this mystery committee contained “a diversity of perspectives and opinions,” which apparently led them to conclude unanimously that the Boy Scouts should be for straight people only. And they’ve dismissed the significance of this issue with the flippant statement that “Scouting believes that good people can personally disagree on this topic and still work together to achieve the life-changing benefits to youth through Scouting.”

Legally speaking, the Boy Scouts are a private organization, and they’re fully within their rights to exclude whomever they choose for any reason at all, with no accountability to anyone. But we still have every right to expect them not to discriminate against people without good reason, just as we expect everyone else not to be racist, sexist or homophobic. Instead, the BSA has decided that the “life-changing benefits” of scouting should be denied to an entire segment of the population that they’ve deemed immoral, unclean, and poor role models. They have done this without even the barest explanation of why they believe this is so. Rather than pretending that there’s any sort of reason for this and hiding behind an unaccountable secret committee, it would have been more honest if they had simply told us, “Because screw you, that’s why.” That’s all it really boils down to when someone calls you immoral and refuses to say why.

Last month, the BSA offered a minimal justification for their current policy, saying:

Scouting believes same-sex attraction should be introduced and discussed outside of its program with parents, caregivers, or spiritual advisers, at the appropriate time and in the right setting. The vast majority of parents we serve value this right and do not sign their children up for Scouting for it to introduce or discuss, in any way, these topics.

Of course, this raises the question of whether opposite-sex attraction is a topic that the Boy Scouts program does discuss – and why same-sex attraction is so different that it must not only be left unaddressed, but literally banished. Does the presence of heterosexuals imply discussion of heterosexuality? If not, why is the mere presence of gay people considered synonymous with introducing and discussing homosexuality?

The notion that you can exclude the very idea of same-sex attraction just by banning anyone who possesses that attraction is pure fantasy anyway. Perhaps, like Anthony Esolen of Touchstone Magazine, they believe that any public awareness of homosexuality itself is corrosive to friendships between men, introducing the possibility of an element of attraction and making all close friendship suspect. Esolen’s solution, that being gay must once again be stigmatized to the point of being unthinkable, means requiring all gay people to live in secrecy, rather than expecting men who are friends to exhibit the maturity needed to recognize that homosexuality poses no threat to them. On an organizational scale, the BSA prefers the answer that’s most convenient to their prejudice.

But this is a genie that isn’t going back in the bottle. If the Boy Scouts don’t want to talk about sexuality, they certainly don’t have to, but removing so-called “known or avowed homosexuals” isn’t going to make anyone forget that they exist. This is the wrong answer to something that isn’t even a problem. And as a result of their moral laziness, families like mine have to explain to our sons why they can’t join the Scouts: because the BSA has decided that their parents just aren’t good people. The only thing life-changing about this is having to teach our 8-year-old how ugly the world can be.
Zinnia Jones is an atheist activist, writer, and video blogger focusing on LGBTQ rights and religious belief. Originally from Chicago, she’s currently living in Florida with her partner Heather and their two children.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 3 comments }

eroissyfr July 19, 2012 at 10:42 am

Bottom line – If the Boy Scouts accepts federal or state funds or perks to operate, and they do, then they are a public entity and therefore can not close their doors on who wants membership (although this is the BOY scouts so why would women or girls want to be in it? It is okay to keep some things separate).

If the BSA wants to restrict it membership then they must bean entirely private organization and then it becomes entirely not our business.

The BSA can't have it both ways and right now that is what they are doing.

kwine333 July 19, 2012 at 11:09 am

I agree with EROISSYFR (above). The BSA receives money from our government, so they should be expected to play by the same rules as other organizations that receive federal/state money.

The Los Angeles Times just did an article about this also. They offer the fact that 2 of the BSA's largest benefactors are The Catholic Church, and The Mormon Church. This explains a lot. I don't think the question about allowing Gay people to participate in their organization is based on morality (their "morality) . . . but more so it is based on what their sugar daddies believe. If they go against the catholics and the mormons, much of their money goes away.

On a separate note, I was in the Boy Scouts in the late 70's and early 80's. At that time, the term in the scout oath, "morally straight" NEVER was used to mean heterosexual. It meant being a good person. To suggest that teenage scouts don't discuss sex is preposterous! I remember older scouts discussing sex with their girlfriends . . . or sex they wanted to have with girls . . . crude ideas about female anatomy . . . jokes about sex with girls, etc. The BSA is a "boys club" and they want to keep it that way. Unfortunately for them, times have changed and they are being left behind as rusty relics.

Alex_Parrish July 19, 2012 at 11:31 am

This secret (and probably imaginary) study makes a laughing-stock of the BSA. They are a private organization; the SCOTUS has said so (So, like corporate personhood, right or wrong, it will remain so for a while) but the pursuit of this discriminatory and damaging policy will only serve to make scouting more and more irrelevant. Too bad. Scouting has done a lot of good for a lot of boys, but thinking parents will now be less likely to support scouting as an activity for their children. Like the Roman Catholic church, the BSA is creating the path of their own destruction. So be it.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: