Boy Scout New Policy

[Someone]

Just a quick update on this topic.

 

http://www.nationalr...e-court-victory

 

The key vote is next week but what still seems to bother people on both sides of the discussion is why an Eagle Scout is fit to lead up until his 18th birthday and then he becomes unworthy.

 

TX says they will vote against the change. NH says they will support it. Utah says it's up to each of the 15 delegates to vote as they see fit.

 

USA Today fount that 55% of Americans want to end the ban. Don't tell the Pope but 61% of Catholics want to end the ban.

 

Mean while, the American Family Association published this gem: "We believe scouting should not include homosexual men who go on overnight camping trips with young boys."

[EbylHusker]

>60% vote for ending ban on gay youths.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-boy-scouts-lift-ban-on-gay-youth-20130523,0,5686326.story

[Someone]

In the end, it wasn't even close.

[StPaulHusker]

There are various angles to look at this vote and policy. I am happy that they are opening it up to allow gay youths to participate. These kids have to deal with enough struggles in their lives they shouldn't have to worry about not being included in groups like this on top of it.

 

From the Scout side, I saw why they were struggling with allowing it to happen at all. How many members would they lose or gain by the passage or failure of the vote? What would be the legal ramifications against them if something happened between say an older gay member and a younger "impressionable" member?

 

As far as not allowing gay leaders. I think I see what they are trying to avoid. They don't believe that the leader would start teaching and guiding kids to be gay. It is probably from a liability stand point. Kids have been known to say things to get adults into trouble. This is their way of avoiding it. All it would take is a disgruntled parent of this vote to send their child on an overnight with the new gay leader and when they returned, the kid has a story of what happened. I as a married heterosexual man avoid driving my child's female teenage babysitter home at night for these same reasons. I do not want there to be ANY chance that anything could be said about me.

 

The points listed above could just as easily happen with straight men as well. I get it. But the Scouts do have a responsibility to their organization to try and limit liability when it can. I am not saying I agree or disagree with their views. I am saying that I can understand why they have them.

[BigRedBuster]

There are various angles to look at this vote and policy. I am happy that they are opening it up to allow gay youths to participate. These kids have to deal with enough struggles in their lives they shouldn't have to worry about not being included in groups like this on top of it.

 

From the Scout side, I saw why they were struggling with allowing it to happen at all. How many members would they lose or gain by the passage or failure of the vote? What would be the legal ramifications against them if something happened between say an older gay member and a younger "impressionable" member?

 

As far as not allowing gay leaders. I think I see what they are trying to avoid. They don't believe that the leader would start teaching and guiding kids to be gay. It is probably from a liability stand point. Kids have been known to say things to get adults into trouble. This is their way of avoiding it. All it would take is a disgruntled parent of this vote to send their child on an overnight with the new gay leader and when they returned, the kid has a story of what happened. I as a married heterosexual man avoid driving my child's female teenage babysitter home at night for these same reasons. I do not want there to be ANY chance that anything could be said about me.

 

The points listed above could just as easily happen with straight men as well. I get it. But the Scouts do have a responsibility to their organization to try and limit liability when it can. I am not saying I agree or disagree with their views. I am saying that I can understand why they have them.

 

 

I understand your point. However, the bolded part negates everything else in your post that might stand as a reason for not allowing gay leaders.

[StPaulHusker]

There are various angles to look at this vote and policy. I am happy that they are opening it up to allow gay youths to participate. These kids have to deal with enough struggles in their lives they shouldn't have to worry about not being included in groups like this on top of it.

 

From the Scout side, I saw why they were struggling with allowing it to happen at all. How many members would they lose or gain by the passage or failure of the vote? What would be the legal ramifications against them if something happened between say an older gay member and a younger "impressionable" member?

 

As far as not allowing gay leaders. I think I see what they are trying to avoid. They don't believe that the leader would start teaching and guiding kids to be gay. It is probably from a liability stand point. Kids have been known to say things to get adults into trouble. This is their way of avoiding it. All it would take is a disgruntled parent of this vote to send their child on an overnight with the new gay leader and when they returned, the kid has a story of what happened. I as a married heterosexual man avoid driving my child's female teenage babysitter home at night for these same reasons. I do not want there to be ANY chance that anything could be said about me.

 

The points listed above could just as easily happen with straight men as well. I get it. But the Scouts do have a responsibility to their organization to try and limit liability when it can. I am not saying I agree or disagree with their views. I am saying that I can understand why they have them.

 

 

I understand your point. However, the bolded part negates everything else in your post that might stand as a reason for not allowing gay leaders.

 

I don't believe it does. The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to.

[BigRedBuster]

So, should all girls sports teams and organizations ban heterosexual males from being leaders or coaches?

[StPaulHusker]

So, should all girls sports teams and organizations ban heterosexual males from being leaders or coaches?

Since they already allow them, no. But if they didn't yet, I could see the point of not allowing it. I don't necessarily agree with the stance. I don't even know if it is their official stance. I am just saying that I can see WHY they might view it in this manner.

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

So, should all girls sports teams and organizations ban heterosexual males from being leaders or coaches?

Since they already allow them, no. But if they didn't yet, I could see the point of not allowing it. I don't necessarily agree with the stance. I don't even know if it is their official stance. I am just saying that I can see WHY they might view it in this manner.

 

 

Understand. But, if that is their stance, it is purely based on ignorance.

[StPaulHusker]

So, should all girls sports teams and organizations ban heterosexual males from being leaders or coaches?

Since they already allow them, no. But if they didn't yet, I could see the point of not allowing it. I don't necessarily agree with the stance. I don't even know if it is their official stance. I am just saying that I can see WHY they might view it in this manner.

 

 

Understand. But, if that is their stance, it is purely based on ignorance.

No doubt. But in today's society with sue happy people, this is what they have to resort to.

[Someone]

BSA already forbids 1-on-1 contact and even isolation.

 

It is sad to read that St. Paul believes (that perhaps the BSA believe) that a gay adult poses a greater risk to a child (6-17) than a heterosexual adult.

 

In fact, the BSA are on record that there is no connection between homosexuality and the chances that someone is a pediophile.

 

"The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." There is no increased liability. Period. Gay, straight, male or female leader--it is all the same rules and the same risks.

[StPaulHusker]

BSA already forbids 1-on-1 contact and even isolation.

 

It is sad to read that St. Paul believes (that perhaps the BSA believe) that a gay adult poses a greater risk to a child (6-17) than a heterosexual adult.

 

In fact, the BSA are on record that there is no connection between homosexuality and the chances that someone is a pediophile.

 

"The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." There is no increased liability. Period. Gay, straight, male or female leader--it is all the same rules and the same risks.

There is no perhaps about it. I said enough times that it wasn't my view. I said that it wasn't even the BSA view. I didn't even say it was a greater risk. I brought it from the viewpoint that a kid might initiate a claim or a parent with a problem with allowing gays could initiate a claim. I said NOTHING about there being increased risk of something actually happening. As far as there being increased exposure to a liability claim, I believe I am right due to the reasons I just listed. Regardless of how YOU feel, they have a right to do this in a way that protects them as well.

 

 

 

 

[Someone]

BSA already forbids 1-on-1 contact and even isolation.

 

It is sad to read that St. Paul believes (that perhaps the BSA believe) that a gay adult poses a greater risk to a child (6-17) than a heterosexual adult.

 

In fact, the BSA are on record that there is no connection between homosexuality and the chances that someone is a pediophile.

 

"The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." There is no increased liability. Period. Gay, straight, male or female leader--it is all the same rules and the same risks.

There is no perhaps about it. I said enough times that it wasn't my view. I said that it wasn't even the BSA view. I didn't even say it was a greater risk. I brought it from the viewpoint that a kid might initiate a claim or a parent with a problem with allowing gays could initiate a claim. I said NOTHING about there being increased risk of something actually happening. As far as there being increased exposure to a liability claim, I believe I am right due to the reasons I just listed. Regardless of how YOU feel, they have a right to do this in a way that protects them as well.

You've returned to the liability well, while saying both you and BSA don't think a gay leader is a greater risk.

 

Yet you believe they might not want a gay leader because someone so filled with gay hate will have their child make a false claim that gay leader did something wrong? Would having black leaders in the south create a greater risk of a false claim if a scout's parents are skinheads? Should scouts have the right to protect themselves against bogus racially motivated claims by excluding black leaders or a Sikh or women

 

We have already confirmed they already have strict policies that prohibit any adult to be alone with any child.

[StPaulHusker]

BSA already forbids 1-on-1 contact and even isolation.

 

It is sad to read that St. Paul believes (that perhaps the BSA believe) that a gay adult poses a greater risk to a child (6-17) than a heterosexual adult.

 

In fact, the BSA are on record that there is no connection between homosexuality and the chances that someone is a pediophile.

 

"The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." There is no increased liability. Period. Gay, straight, male or female leader--it is all the same rules and the same risks.

There is no perhaps about it. I said enough times that it wasn't my view. I said that it wasn't even the BSA view. I didn't even say it was a greater risk. I brought it from the viewpoint that a kid might initiate a claim or a parent with a problem with allowing gays could initiate a claim. I said NOTHING about there being increased risk of something actually happening. As far as there being increased exposure to a liability claim, I believe I am right due to the reasons I just listed. Regardless of how YOU feel, they have a right to do this in a way that protects them as well.

You've returned to the liability well, while saying both you and BSA don't think a gay leader is a greater risk.

 

Yet you believe they might not want a gay leader because someone so filled with gay hate will have their child make a false claim that gay leader did something wrong? Would having black leaders in the south create a greater risk of a false claim if a scout's parents are skinheads? Should scouts have the right to protect themselves against bogus racially motivated claims by excluding black leaders or a Sikh or women

 

We have already confirmed they already have strict policies that prohibit any adult to be alone with any child.

Stop saying that I believe something when I haven't said it.

 

I will not go into hypotheticals about race on this issue because it has no bearing on the main reason there was a debate and vote in the first place. It had to do with morality and the values within the BSA not skin color.

 

And what good is a policy if there is no one there to enforce it? I am sure you can look at any organization and find policies that are made and frequently broken. The military had one that says a male drill sergeant cant be alone in a room with a female recruit. I know with 100% accuracy that this policy was broken numerous times while I was in training. The point being is that the policy is a cover your ass statement.

[Someone]

BSA already forbids 1-on-1 contact and even isolation.

 

It is sad to read that St. Paul believes (that perhaps the BSA believe) that a gay adult poses a greater risk to a child (6-17) than a heterosexual adult.

 

In fact, the BSA are on record that there is no connection between homosexuality and the chances that someone is a pediophile.

 

"The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." There is no increased liability. Period. Gay, straight, male or female leader--it is all the same rules and the same risks.

There is no perhaps about it. I said enough times that it wasn't my view. I said that it wasn't even the BSA view. I didn't even say it was a greater risk. I brought it from the viewpoint that a kid might initiate a claim or a parent with a problem with allowing gays could initiate a claim. I said NOTHING about there being increased risk of something actually happening. As far as there being increased exposure to a liability claim, I believe I am right due to the reasons I just listed. Regardless of how YOU feel, they have a right to do this in a way that protects them as well.

You've returned to the liability well, while saying both you and BSA don't think a gay leader is a greater risk.

 

Yet you believe they might not want a gay leader because someone so filled with gay hate will have their child make a false claim that gay leader did something wrong? Would having black leaders in the south create a greater risk of a false claim if a scout's parents are skinheads? Should scouts have the right to protect themselves against bogus racially motivated claims by excluding black leaders or a Sikh or women

 

We have already confirmed they already have strict policies that prohibit any adult to be alone with any child.

Stop saying that I believe something when I haven't said it.

 

I will not go into hypotheticals about race on this issue because it has no bearing on the main reason there was a debate and vote in the first place. It had to do with morality and the values within the BSA not skin color.

 

And what good is a policy if there is no one there to enforce it? I am sure you can look at any organization and find policies that are made and frequently broken. The military had one that says a male drill sergeant cant be alone in a room with a female recruit. I know with 100% accuracy that this policy was broken numerous times while I was in training. The point being is that the policy is a cover your ass statement.

Ok. Let's look at your first bolded statement.

 

Do "you believe they might not want a gay leader because someone so filled with gay hate will have their child make a false claim that gay leader did something wrong?"

 

You have posted: "the Scouts do have a responsibility to their organization to try and limit liability when it can." What limitation of liability are you refering to?

You have posted: "The Scouts shouldn't increase their exposure to liabilities if they don't want to." What increased exposure to liabilities are you refering to?

 

How does the concept of a GAY LEADER factor into either of the 2 above statements posted by you?

 

As far as you second point: There are no 1 adult camping trips. There is significant training that adult leaders receive that address child safety, including how to have a private conversation with a scout while still being where other adults can see what is happening at all time. All violation are to be reported.

 

It saddens me to hear the our military doesn't follow their own rules. We have seen the problems this can cause with recent headlines. The Catholic church is learning the hard way that these rules must be enforced.

 

Is enforcement perfect? No. See the BSA's own scandals and the recent release of 1200 names due to an Oregon case.