I don't get this...

[Saltheart]

Kids start scouting at a very young age. My opinion is that most and in fact almost all understand nothing about why their sexual preference is what it is at 10 years old. So they join and as they mature they make a decision about hot dogs or tacos (I use this expression for humor but on purpose because to me its as unimportant to me whether you like boys or girls as it is whether you like hot dogs or tacos). This decision is actually made after the scouting has had a long time to influence their character and likely influenced their sexual preferences along the way. So since scouting spans these formative years , its rediculous for them to ban something at the end of a kids scouting experience that probably developed during the many years it takes to go through the program to Eagle Scout.

Anyway , I think the adult(s) who would deny a lifelong scout his Eagle Badge because he is gay is a far bigger threat to kids and scouting than the individual kids who may opt to be gay as they grow up.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Saltheart

Kids start scouting at a very young age. My opinion is that most and in fact almost all understand nothing about why their sexual preference is what it is at 10 years old. So they join and as they mature they make a decision about hot dogs or tacos (I use this expression for humor but on purpose because to me its as unimportant to me whether you like boys or girls as it is whether you like hot dogs or tacos). This decision is actually made after the scouting has had a long time to influence their character and likely influenced their sexual preferences along the way. So since scouting spans these formative years , its rediculous for them to ban something at the end of a kids scouting experience that probably developed during the many years it takes to go through the program to Eagle Scout.

Anyway , I think the adult(s) who would deny a lifelong scout his Eagle Badge because he is gay is a far bigger threat to kids and scouting than the individual kids who may opt to be gay as they grow up.

This process of awakening to who you are or what you actually believe repeats itself millions of times in innumerable situations. It is the cause of countless broken ties. The divorce rate is driven by this process. Friendships, partnerships--private or business or political or religious or . . .--are dissoved by it. In some instances, the relationships survive by placing more value in the relationship and by sacrificing private desires and realities. But most part ways either amicably or angrily. In few, if any, situations do the relationships survive by redefining the structure, the entity through which the relationship is created. Rather, the individual agrees, despite his inner desires, to abide by the rules of engagement. If the structure is changed to accomodate the individual, then it is different from the original agreement that all others agreed to.

If the young almost Eagle Scout has discovered late that he cannot abide the rules and beliefs of the organization to which he has so long been a part of, should the Scouts change their rules to accomodate him, or should he decide that accepting a trophy of accomplishment, from an organization that does not recognize the value of who he is, would be a sham?

If President Obama finally realizes, after a lifetime of being a free market capitalist, that he is really a socialist, or marxist, and "comes out" by declaring his new-found discovery of who he is, should we compassionately say "that's OK, brother, lead on the ship of state as you choose," or should we boot him out?

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Rather, the individual agrees, despite his inner desires, to abide by the rules of engagement.

So you want him to lie, which is against the rules.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

So you want him to lie, which is against the rules.

No, I don't want him to lie. If he chooses to lie, that is HIS decision based on whether it is more important for him to be a Scout and get whatever rewards he thinks that entitles him to. But if he chooses to be honest, realizing he cannot live up to scouting ideals and rules, and realizing that scouting ideals do not agree with his own, he can part ways with the organization and pursue life in his "true" way.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If he chooses to lie, that is HIS decision based on whether it is more important for him to be a Scout and get whatever rewards he thinks that entitles him to.

Oh, so its his fault. I see.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by likwid

Oh, so its his fault. I see.

What fault? I wasn't blaming anybody. Are you?

[FishermanTim]

They are adamant against letting gays in the scouts, but I wonder how adamant they are about letting pediphiles have constant access to young impressionable children? That's when they pull the "Don't ask, don't tell" crap!!!

I'm not saying it's that way everywhere, but then again how many gay children are there in the scouts? Surely they can tell just by looking that he is or isn't, right?

Now if a person is displaying attitude and personal traits that are detrimental and damaging to the troop and it's core values, then maybe that individual should be asked to leave, but to defer that stigma on all gay boys/men is just not logical. It almost sounds like the organization is saying that your sexual orientation is the most important factor in your life. I can only presume that you can be a lying, cheating, drug pushing drug user that bullies and assaults other children and be welcomed into the scouts with no questions asked.

But.....if you're gay and an honor student, a pillar of the neighborhood, an heroic award winning philanthropist who has been touted by civic leaders and peers alike, then you are SOL!!!

Sorry, but that's the picture that stories like this convey.