Archive for the ‘Accusation: Boyscouts Forced to Allow Homosexuals’ Category

h1

THE BOYSCOUTS WILL BE FORCED TO ALLOW HOMOSEXUALS (men attracted sexually to males) TO SUPERVISE YOUNG BOYS

May 24, 2009

BOY_SCOUTS

SOSANCHORAGE.ORG:

From CWA.org
Sexual Orientation and American Culture 7/10/2002
By Robert Knight

Assailing the Scouts
The first victims of any “sexual orientation” law are the Boy Scouts, who have good reason to keep their leadership free from men attracted sexually to males.

“Sexual orientation” laws turn the Boy Scouts into bad guys overnight. In California, the state Supreme Court is considering banning all state judges from associating with the Boy Scouts because the Scouts are exempt from a statewide “sexual orientation” law. Good judges (mostly fathers) are being told to hang up their gavels or stop associating with this “hate group.” Are they a hate group or are they just trying to prevent what happened in the Catholic Church.

Even though they won a U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2000 that affirmed that the Boy Scouts of America have a right to set their own membership standards, the Scouts have been under attack in many places for resisting homosexuals’ demands for inclusion. In virtually all cases, critics of the Scouts point to laws or policies containing the term “sexual orientation.”

In September, 2002 the Berkeley, California, City Council pulled the low-cost lease for city dock space for the Sea Scouts, saying that the group is associated with the Boy Scouts, and thereby violates the city’s “sexual orientation” law.

In June, 2001, The District of Columbia’s Commission on Human Rights fined the Scouts $100,000 and ordered them to reinstate two openly homosexual leaders. That decision was overturned in court, but the Scouts paid heavy legal fees.

In Broward County, Florida, in March 2001, the Scouts were forced to sue after county commissioners barred their access to public schools in the fall of 2000.

The Ann Arbor, Michigan City Council cut ties in August 2001 to the local United Way for their refusal to eject the Scouts from the United Way program. More than two dozen chapters of United Way have cut off the Scouts, and at least 359 school districts with a total of 4,418 schools in 10 states have taken action against the Scouts, according to the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.

Former Vice President Al Gore pledged someday to use the proposed Employment Non-Discrimination Act – a bill to empower the federal government to ban discrimination based on “sexual orientation” in all workplaces with 15 or more employees, to force the Scouts to admit
homosexuals. Despite all the media-driven attacks, most Americans support the Scouts’ right to set their own moral standards. In an October 2000 Chicago Tribune poll of Chicago-area residents, “82 percent said the Scouts should be allowed to meet in schools and other public buildings. Only 10 percent disagreed, and 7 percent had no opinion.”

People who engage in homosexual behavior have the same BASIC rights as other citizens, but should not be given SPECIAL RIGHTS that create so many unnecessary problems for others.

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS ARGUMENT:

Let’s take a look at a Supreme Court verdict that went in the favor of the SOS ideology. Let’s look at Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 2000, where Scoutmaster James Dale was expelled from the Boy Scouts of America upon public admission of his homosexuality. Our highest court found that the BSA was justified in firing Dale.

But John Paul Stevens offered a dissenting opinion that plays true to the reality of the situation. He first observed that “every state law prohibiting discrimination is designed to replace prejudice with principle.”

Stevens called the BSA out on the fact that their mission statement clearly seeks “to prepare them to make ethical choices over their lifetime in achieving their full potential.”

Stevens’ dissent continues:

The Scout Oath and the Scout Law, which set forth the Scouts’ central tenets, assist in this goal. One of these tenets is that a Scout is “morally straight.” Another is that a Scout is “clean.” As these terms were defined in the Scout Handbook, Justice Stevens said, “it is plain as the light of day that neither one of these principles—’morally straight’ and ‘clean’—says the slightest thing about homosexuality. Indeed, neither term in the Boy Scouts’ Law and Oath expresses any position whatsoever on sexual matters.”

What guidance the Boy Scouts gave to the adult leaders that have direct contact with the Scouts themselves urged those leaders to avoid discussing sexual matters. “Scouts… are directed to receive their sex education at home or in school, but not from the organization.” Scoutmasters, in turn, are directed to direct “curious adolescents” to their family, religious leaders, doctors, or other professionals. The Boy Scouts had gone so far as to devise specific guidelines for Scoutmasters. (1) Do not advise Scouts about sexual matters, because it is outside the expertise and comfort level of most Scoutmasters. (2) If a Scout brings specific questions to his Scoutmaster, the Scoutmaster should answer within his comfort level, remembering that a “boy who appears to be asking about sexual intercourse… may really only be worried about pimples.” (3) Boys with “sexual problems” should be referred to an appropriate professional.

So, yes, homosexuals should be allowed to be a part of the Boy Scouts of America, who have been repeatedly victimized by sexual assault while operating under their “no-gay” policy. It’s not sexual orientation that is the problem. It is the lack of scrutiny by the BSA in who they assign you to trust your children with.

Advertisements