by Jon Blevins
Most understand that the Boys Scouts of America are a private entity. Further, most understand that the Boy Scouts employ religion in its teachings. Thus, most understand that the Boy Scouts probably can keep homosexuals from its ranks.
The problem with the Boy Scouts is that it cannot create a rational argument why homosexuals should not be allowed to be troop leaders. For example, in defense of its overt bigotry, the Boy Scouts explained:
“Our focus is on delivering the nation’s foremost youth program of character development and values-based leadership training. Our mission does not include teaching young people about sex or sexual orientation, and we do not believe it is Scouting’s role to introduce this topic in our youth development program.”
On some small level this makes sense. The Boy Scouts do not want to educate youth about sex. However, the wheels come off when you compare the argument why heterosexuals are allowed to be leaders:
“Heterosexuality does not conflict with Scouting’s policy and is not a reason for removal from the program. However, if a leader chose to make it a focus of his or her time with youth they could be removed from the program.”
Essentially, the Boy Scouts believe the heterosexuals are asexual. They interpret heterosexual as having no sexual connotation. However, homosexuals – just because they are homosexual – create an environment of overt sexuality. This highlights the bigotry and lack of education. Thus, a homosexual who is single, does not bring their partner to meetings, does not discuss sex and does not have “gay” tattooed on their forehead forces “introduction of [sex] in [the] youth development program.” Additionally, the fact that someone is homosexual assumes that the person “makes that a focus of his or her time with the youth.” The Boy Scouts still subscribe to the gay conspiracy.
It is disturbing that people still think this way. The Boy Scouts assume that you can just look at a person and determine their sexuality.
Fortunately, for those who support equality, the Boy Scouts are working against their own cause. What other heterosexual organization had a uniform with short shorts, a sash, trinkets, and merit badges (that must be sewn on)? Seriously, what is gayer than this? To add insult to injury, the organization encourages camping in the absence of females. Does anyone see chicks in this list?
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
The Boy Scouts gave their good reason when their policy was tested in the Supreme Court: they get most of their funding from three large Christian churches, two of which have made membership compulsory for the sons of their followers. If the Scouts changed their policy, all three would feel the need to abandon Scouting and start new clubs of their own.
I do not like anti-gay policies either, but the only way they’re going to go away is if we somehow ban even churches from having them, as Canada has done. I don’t see that as a gain for freedom.
Since this prolicy probably does not rise to the level of Constitutional infirmity. The best way to combat these policies is to withdraw support for the Boy Scouts. The easiest way to withdraw support is to stop volunteering children to join.
If you effectively hit them in the pocketbook, even the churches have to revisit their policies. Boy Scouts generate revenue for the benefefactors. Thus removing revenue will force them to revisit.
This is why the Catholic Church has evolved its policies on contraception and other sins. They did not change because the Bible was edited. They realigned their policies and beliefs to attempt to keep or recapture its flock.
Following on from the comment above, I was curious to know your personal view on the right of a private organisation to determine its membership. I realise it is not specifically a first amendment issue and I am not a lawyer, nor even live in the USA, but like you, I am Italian…so I wonder on your opinion because I have found almost every one of your posts to align very much with my own views. You’re an excellent writer and get complex points accross very well and easily. My own view is that a private entity should be allow to do as it pleases. While I may not agree with their practices, ideals etc. surely people have the right to determine who they associate with? In theory a ‘pink’ boy scouts with ONLY homosexual leaders could be formed too…. I await your response with curiosity.
The Girls Scouts seem to be thriving with their all-inclusive policy~
Marc(o), just out of curiosity, as I have read a good deal of your entire blog in the last two days and find we have a very similar view on many things and a not dissimilar sense of humour too, what is your personal view of a private entity (like the boy scouts) determining whatever they want regarding their members?
I know it’s not strictly speaking a first amendment issue (bear in mind I live in the UK but I am Italian and am not a lawyer) but I think it is somewhat analogous.
My view is that a private club can decide who can join in whatever way they want. Regardless of whether I agree with it or not. Besides, in theory nothing is preventing a ‘pink’ boy scouts being formed where the troop leaders MUST be gay….
It kind of applies to the church too. If the Catholic church decides that marriage under their auspices is only, and will ever ONLY be between a man and a woman, while you can get whatever civil, legal, etc. etc. arrangements, it would seem to me that no gay marriage can ever happen under the Catholic church’s benediction. (I’m not baptised and completely agnostic by the way, in case you thought I was a cross-bearer). And in my personal view, I think the church has the right to say and do that. Similarly, I cannot be a member of other groups that may have similarly weird rules (I am not and would not be a member of the Catholic church even under pain of death I think, but that’s just my view). And I think that’s ok by me.
I don’t have a bone to pick either way, just curious on your personal view on this point regarding private entities being entitled (or not) to determine whatever they want regarding their composition.
This was not written by me, but by Jon Blevins.
Nevertheless, I think that a private club should be able to decide whoever they want in it. If they want to discriminate, then so be it. However, I think that any group that does discriminate should be banned from receiving any public funds, even indirectly.
Yes, I wrote the post. I actually concede my allusion in my post and directly in my reply to “jdgalt” above, that this is probably not a constitutional violation. It is a private organization. However, the private nature does not create an absolute right to discriminate. I agree with you and Randazza that the Boy Scouts probably can discriminate. But, they do so at their own peril.
It is incumbent for people to be aware of this issue with the Boy Scouts. If you cannot have a court enforce equality, then utilize the economy. By pointing out the fallacy in their argument (and openly mocking them) the intent is to demonstrate the bigotry within the organization. Also, that leaders of organizations dedicated to children proliferate the arcane arguments made above.
Also, it is also important to note that the Boy Scouts stand alone on this issue. The Girl Scouts have an open inclusion policy for gay, straight, bisexual and transgender members.
Basically it is a basic consideration of “we can but should we?” Hopefully, the Boy Scouts get enough bad publicity that is changes its policy.
Bigotry is not inherent…it is learned. The Boy Scouts should not want to be a place that fosters bigotry. If the first impression these children have of homosexuals is a person being cast out of the group, their mindset may be irreparably harmed. They may forever view homosexuals as different. This perpetuates the problem.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. I understand your points and generally would agree with them in principle. In practice it is slightly different. Now at the risk of being labelled a bigoted racist of the worst sort ( or maybe just exposing myself as such?) and partly also to play devil’s advocate ( I’m no lawyer but seems right to me Lucifer’s guy wouldn’t be legal…) : I agree with you that children’s minds are easily warped by fucked up adults, and for this very reason, I plan to have a certain level of paradoxical stability and concreteness in my young daughter’s life while also exposing her to as much varied and different ideas as possible. However, this needs to happen gradually. Ideally, the level of exposure will always be a little below her level of self-assured sense of self. Of course, life throws you curve-balls, that’s a given, but my role as parent is to catch as many of them as I can and prepare her for those that get past me.
In this respect then, I personally would not be happy with her going to a girl’s scout troop where the leader was a gay person or a transvestite. Before you condemn me, hear me out. More than 15 years ago there was a study reported in new scientist where they had done autopsies on over 1500 gay men and examined a region of the brain normally associated with sexual thoughts. In something like over 90% of cases, this area was overdeveloped when compared to the same area of most heterosexual males. The same level of development was generally found only in heteresexual males that would generally be classed as hypersexed or deviant (as in practicing bizarre sexual rituals in a rather obsessive fashion). I do not recall the name of the article but I do recall I had also read colin wilson’s study on sexual deviancy which essentially concluded that in general so-called sexual deviants had a more developed sense of imagination. In general humans with an overactive imagination will tend to more often than not use it for sexual gratification and hence, over time, sort of increase itheir perversions. Of course some turn it to say physics instead and become renowned geniuses itheir field. However, the point was that the study was considered controversial precisely because it was feared it would be taken as evidence that gay people (or at least a large sector of them) were in essence ‘choosing’ to be gay to some extent or other. An extent that was in fact now measurable to some degree ( admittedly only after they were dead but still…).
Well, go on and call me a bigot, but I personally do not see this view as very far-fetched. I do believe a minority (not sure of the %) of gay people are genuinely 100% gay as a result of biology, but a larger sector of them is gay essentially by a mixture of confusion, strange or anormal sexual events itheir life, or events they interpreted as sexual anyway, and a number of other factors, including, their own curiosity and thrill for the taboo. Please understand, that I honestly do not care what anyone does with anyone as long as all parties are consenting adults. However, I do not want to specifically expose my child to individuals that in my opinion are quite possibly somewhat unbalanced. I realise that applies to 100% of the human race including me, but as sex is such a powerful force in our life and since kids pick up on the darnest and subtlest of things I would prefer to have her be exposed to gay people for long periods of time on her own only once she has already formed some beginning of a sexual identity. Now if my daughter turns out to be a lesbian stripper and she is HAPPY and makes that choice based in her own sense of what is true to her, what works for her and what feels good to her, then so be it, I’ll even pay for pole dancing classes, but in order to be reasonably sure she is making that choice from as healthy a mental state as she possibly can, I will endeavour to shield her from the more outlying elements of human nature. I would after all, be careful about exposing her say to biker gangs, or probably evn just long-range truckers. Not to say I wouldn’t have such people in my home if they are friends of mine, but I wouldn’t say, sure…go travel with uncle bob the trucker for a week. Even if I was absolutely sure uncle bob would die before he’d let anything happen to her. Fact is uncle bob, the long-range trucker, even on his best behaviour has some habits that I think are unhealthy. Habits of mind, of action, of thought. And I’d want her to be a bit older and mentally tougher before she can take a week long ride in uncle bob’s truck. Paradoxically, if she is mentally well-developed and later on decides she wants to not just ride with uncle bob, but even ride bob himself, hey, again….explore and discover, safely and consciously, but that’s the point. Consciously. With awareness. With a true and deeply rooted sense of who you are first. Some kids can do this at age 5 and sadly most humans can’t do it at age 50, but I hope I have managed to get my point accross.
I hope you see it’s more than that, but if you (or Marc, or anyone) decides to reduce it to: “no fags ithe military and no fags in the boy (and girl) scouts”‘ well, then so be it. Go ahead and class me a dumb redneck, or (to at least be more geographically correct) a typical dago living in the stone age. I would however, be interested in your view (both yours and Marc’s). As I think sadly many kids today are given all this “freedom” before they had a chance to even know what they like. “hey son, here’s a doll, a gun, toy trucks and a dress. You can play with all of them and there is nothing wrong with wearing a dress if you want.” so which kid would not experiment? Take it a bit further and before you know it it’s drugs or anal sex with uncle bob because it’s just the one time and he did take you fishing…I and so…confused the youth become. We had one of the most liberal upbringings ever, but we were always clear on right and wrong (justice from an ethical point of view) because whatever else our parents did wrong, they loved us more than life itself. As a result none of us three ever even entertained the idea of drugs or a lot of other stupid crap that lost many kids our age. We did some outrageously stupid shit, but it was the result of REALLY poor judgement KNOWING most of the time it was a bad call going into it. That is called doing the wrong thing on purpose. We knew it was wrong and we knew there would be consequences (if caught) but chose to do it anyway for whatever reason. And if my kids end up doing wrong shit, or being flamboyantly gay for a summer, or for life, I want them to do it that way. On their own terms, not as a result of being confused from an early age.
I look forward to your potential replies. Even if it’s just to call me a bigoted wop.
Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of those that cannot formulate a valid argument on the merits.
Having said that, it appears that you are trying to convince yourself that your position is correct rather than present a counter arguement. The “statistics” and “theories” you cite are…not attributed to any source. I would be interested to review the research and consider the source of the publications.
As to the Girl Scouts, they have an open inclusion policy. Yet, the establishment and their cores values remain intact…not to mention cookies sales remain a constant source of revenue regardless of the peddlers sex or sexual orientation. http://www.girlscoutsofcolorado.org/inclusion
Thus, it appears the Boy Scouts stand alone.
As to the remaining points, it appears to be short sighted. While I cannot comment on whether you’re a bigot (since I do not know you) much of the remainder of your comment encompasses the problematic thought process that fosters points of view that are antithetical to promoting equality…
Thank you for your response, and apologies for my delay in replying. I have been busy with paperwork for my daughter and also quite ill.
There are several points in your response I want to address:
1. I did a little research to try and find the specific article I refer to but could not find it. I read it sometime in the 1990s. I think it was more like 1997 or so but don’t recall. I almost sure it was in New scientist or possibly (not very likely) New American. Either way, I could not find this specific article and I accept your point that without a reference it is just hearsay. That said, I did report the article as I recall it to the best of my ability. Regardless, let’s ignore it for our purposes here if you prefer. Let me however point out that there is conclusive proof that simply imagining something does restructure the brain at a physical level. There are several peer reviewed studies on this and even more information on this from the Soviet block, who tends to be ahead in real-world psychology/physiology than the Western world (at least in my experience). Here is a link for you to one such study:
Click to access PascualLeone_MUSICBRAIN_NYAcadSci.pdf
and an excerpt from it to save you some time if you don’t want to read the whole thing.
Using the same experimental design as described above for the five-finger exercise,
we studied subjects who, instead of practicing at the keyboard two hours daily
for five days spent time at the keyboard visualizing, rather than executing, the movements.
5 They were told to repeat the movement mentally, as if they were playing, but
without moving their fingers. They could rest their fingers on the piano keyboard,
but the lack of voluntary movements was monitored using electromyography and
video. Such mental practice resulted in a reorganization of the motor outputs to finger
flexor and extensor muscles similar to the one observed in the group of subjects
who physically practiced the movements and led to similar improvement in their
ability to perform the five-finger movement exercise (FIG. 3).
In this regard then, I think it is pretty clear that if you constantly imagine a specific type of sexual act, (or any act, for that matter, whether it be skiing say or skiing naked, or doing unspeakable things do your skies) your brain will in time physically structure itself accordingly. Further, this restructuring will itself lead to a more marked proclivity/tendency/capability for said act.
All of the above falls under my first overall point and is firmly based in science. The second one is a philosophy/ethics one but similarly axiomatic really.
2. Ethically, we should indeed all be treated equally under the law, and I fully agree with this. Practically however, we are by no means all created equal, and this does have real-world consequences. In this respect, I did find your reply somewhat “platitude dense” and rather “content free”. I do not mean this disrespectfully nor even am I implying you did it on purpose, in fact, it may just be how you have been trained to “think” as a result of your schooling, society, etc. Etc. But the result is the same, a rather politically “correct” response that does not actually address the real-world points I raised.
I made the example of the trucker as it quite clearly is not related to sexual orientation specifically, and hoped you would see that my view is not limited to any specific ONE attribute of any given human. Another difficult example for homo platitudinous politicus correctus is this one: Assume you are an elderly father in your mid sixties with an attractive young daughter, perhaps walking down the street one dark night with her and encounter in the near-distance a group of say 5-6 individuals. Would you truly react similarly regardless of what that group’s composition is? Say in one case it is composed exclusively of young black males sporting lots of bling and being rather loud in their conversation and in another case it is composed of Catholic nuns. Are you telling me you are JUST as likely to cross the road in the first case as in the second?
I do not think so. And in such a case we could definitely say not doing so would be prejudicial. It IS prejudicial. It also makes sense to be so in my personal opinion. Does that make me racist in your eyes? If so I suggest it is a problem with YOUR perceptions of the world and not mine. Specifically in this case more so than in perhaps others because having lived for 25 years in Africa, I am almost certain I have more close friends (and some relatives) that are black than you probably do. And they would not disagree with me on this point either.
Now you can argue for equal right and equal treatment as hard and as much as you like, and ethically and legally I will always agree with you, but practically, there is no way on Earth that humans actually ARE all equal. We are not. Some are smarter, some are taller, some are…etc. etc.. and these differences sometimes affect how we deal with reality and other people.
To suggest that we ARE all equal is either idiocy or political correctness taken to the level of idiocy. To suggest a private entity cannot choose who or what can become a member I think is the really limiting perspective. My view allows for as many diverse, blinkered, limited or inclusive views as possible, while it seems to me, your view wants us all to believe some politically correct nonsense that has never been, and never will be reality. And to subject all our kids to that realm of thought without question or real thought in the interest of political correctness. I think this is wrong and unhelpful. I hope I have clarified my perspective a bit and hope expressed myself clearly enough.
The above thought process is why equality is illusory.
Apparently embedding does not work, so here is the transcript:
“what you’ve just said … is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
To which I quote your own words:” Ad hominem attacks are the weapon of those that cannot formulate a valid argument on the merits.”
I think you have made my case for me sir. Your logic fails you and so you devolve to insults. Poor show lad. I’m not a lawyer but I would hand you your ass in court any day of the week if this is any demonstration of your “fine legal mind” at work.