![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pecuniumThe Boy Scouts fucked up. It’s not that they are saying, “no gays”, which is wrong enough, but even more the disingenuous argument they are making, “The vast majority of the parents of youth we serve value their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers and at the appropriate time and in the right setting," Mazzuca said. "We fully understand that no single policy will accommodate the many diverse views among our membership or society."
Why do I say that’s disingenuous? Because I was an adult leader of Boy Scouts. As a Unit Commissioner I learned how Scouting works; in a way which was different from my understanding as a Scout. Scout troops are not owned by the Boy Scouts of America. They are owned by the sponsoring organization. So parents who aren't frightened bigots could sponsor a troop, and parents who want to be anti-gay can find a sponsor which is anti-gay. The Supreme Court has said Scouting has that sort of right to control who is a member.
What the BSA is doing is saying, in a way that is more obvious, that they support bigotry. Parents who aren’t scared of, “Teh Gay” are being forced to either accept this prohibition, or deny their sons the experience of scouting. It’s saying the people who are scared get to force those who aren’t pander to their agenda.
Why? I don’t know. It’s not as if Scouting has made the results of its two-year survey public. They’ve, in effect, had a Star Chamber. I can guess, and the guesses I’m making aren’t pretty. The most common thing I’ve heard is the base-canard that “gays have to recruit, and the incidence of pedophiles is higher” and other bullshit.
The other is that the number of religious institutions which sponsor troops is against it.
That one, I suspect is more of an issue. Why? Because one of the most militantly anti-gay churches in the country happens to require that its members be Boy Scouts. It’s the Aaronic Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Yep, the Mormons, Mitt Romney’s Church, are huge supporters of Boy Scouting. The thing is, Boy Scouting doesn’t need them. The BSA has an ample endowment. They are self-sufficient. But I think they are afraid a public backlash from the Mormon Church (and the Roman Catholic Church, since a large number of parishes sponsor troops), will cause the number of troops to decline, and they will lose some of their cachet.
It’s not that being a Boy Scout isn’t useful. Becoming an Eagle Scout is valuable in a number of professions. It’s a consideration when applying to college. It’s an automatic increase in rank on enlistment into the military. People who are entering politics use it when appealing to voters. I’ve seen it on resumes, for all sorts of jobs.
And the BSA is saying homosexuals ought to be deprived of this. Which is the same problem "men only" clubs had. They are preventing a group, for no good reason, access to the preferential advantages which come of membership. Gay boys are being penalised, for something they have no control over.
Assholes.
Why do I say that’s disingenuous? Because I was an adult leader of Boy Scouts. As a Unit Commissioner I learned how Scouting works; in a way which was different from my understanding as a Scout. Scout troops are not owned by the Boy Scouts of America. They are owned by the sponsoring organization. So parents who aren't frightened bigots could sponsor a troop, and parents who want to be anti-gay can find a sponsor which is anti-gay. The Supreme Court has said Scouting has that sort of right to control who is a member.
What the BSA is doing is saying, in a way that is more obvious, that they support bigotry. Parents who aren’t scared of, “Teh Gay” are being forced to either accept this prohibition, or deny their sons the experience of scouting. It’s saying the people who are scared get to force those who aren’t pander to their agenda.
Why? I don’t know. It’s not as if Scouting has made the results of its two-year survey public. They’ve, in effect, had a Star Chamber. I can guess, and the guesses I’m making aren’t pretty. The most common thing I’ve heard is the base-canard that “gays have to recruit, and the incidence of pedophiles is higher” and other bullshit.
The other is that the number of religious institutions which sponsor troops is against it.
That one, I suspect is more of an issue. Why? Because one of the most militantly anti-gay churches in the country happens to require that its members be Boy Scouts. It’s the Aaronic Priesthood of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Yep, the Mormons, Mitt Romney’s Church, are huge supporters of Boy Scouting. The thing is, Boy Scouting doesn’t need them. The BSA has an ample endowment. They are self-sufficient. But I think they are afraid a public backlash from the Mormon Church (and the Roman Catholic Church, since a large number of parishes sponsor troops), will cause the number of troops to decline, and they will lose some of their cachet.
It’s not that being a Boy Scout isn’t useful. Becoming an Eagle Scout is valuable in a number of professions. It’s a consideration when applying to college. It’s an automatic increase in rank on enlistment into the military. People who are entering politics use it when appealing to voters. I’ve seen it on resumes, for all sorts of jobs.
And the BSA is saying homosexuals ought to be deprived of this. Which is the same problem "men only" clubs had. They are preventing a group, for no good reason, access to the preferential advantages which come of membership. Gay boys are being penalised, for something they have no control over.
Assholes.
