Boy Scouts vote to allow gays.

[techs]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18447459-boy-scouts-vote-to-lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

What a huge change in attitudes towards gay people in the last 10 years in this country.

Amazing.

 

[davmat787]

I am curious if those companies that dropped support for BSA will now return to supporting them. I know people like to force change, but isn't this outcome better? That the BSA chose and voted on their own terms to accept?

 

[nanette1985]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18447459-boy-scouts-vote-to-lift-ban-on-gay-youth?lite

What a huge change in attitudes towards gay people in the last 10 years in this country.

Amazing.

I'm curious why all off a sudden the gay thing exploded when it did? Gay folk have been around for hundreds of years, it would have been perfectly sensible to have changed much earlier. What happened? Is it really the illuminati thing I keep hearing about?

 

[randomrogue]

The USA is catching up to parts of Europe, South America, and New Zealand which are ahead of the curve. Honestly I think we're still way too far behind. Why the USA doesn't have a federal law in place by now giving them the same rights is quite frankly baffling. We look archaic. It's so incredibly embarrassing when someone today is anti-gay marriage, gay rights, gay adoption, etc.

This is a bold move by the boy scouts. Considering all the bad press they got before I hope the press devotes an equal amount of time to acknowledging their new policy. Maybe people will notice and push legislation in their states and nationally.

 

[crashtestdummy]

It should be noted that while this is a start, they still don't allow gay troop leaders.

I'm curious why all off a sudden the gay thing exploded when it did? Gay folk have been around for hundreds of years, it would have been perfectly sensible to have changed much earlier. What happened? Is it really the illuminati thing I keep hearing about?

An enormous number of things have changed in western society in the past 250 years that have helped lead to this point.

You could start with the enlightenment era. While subversive philosophers are as old as civilization (see: Socrates, Galileo, and others), is was not considered acceptable to challenge the dogma you were raised with. Afterward, "because [religious book] said so" was no longer an acceptable answer for a large fraction of the population.

This has in part led to a steady secularization of society. 250 years ago, moral enforcement for common people was largely the responsibility of the local community. Your local Priest, Minister or Rabbi determined what was moral, and had relatively few secular checks on that power. As states have become more secular, that power has been stripped from the religious institutions and given to the State.

Advances in communication and public education have also done a great deal of good. Before widespread literacy, you really had no choice but to trust the word of your local authority (usually religious) on issues of ethics and metaphysics. You couldn't go to a public library and read Plato. Ethics for the masses was determined by a combination of religious tradition and a small group of philosophical elite.

On the communication side, most people growing up didn't ever meet anyone outside their village. Thus minorities of other cultures were completely foreign to most. If you were gay but didn't know anyone else who was, you'd probably just forever stay in the closet, afraid that you were the only one and had something evil. In the past 50 years especially, you've seen a rapid change. Once people started to come out around the same time as the civil rights era, younger people saw they were not alone. One that next generation came out in droves, it became a relatively normal part of culture to be gay. Now, you'll be hard pressed to find someone in an urban area of America that doesn't have a close friend or family member that's gay.

 

[dougp]

Being an Eagle Scout, I came in here for a discussion about the policy and what else it'll effect in the BSA yet the thread has turned into a P&N flame war. What. a. shock.

I generally don't talk about this, but while I was working at camp over a summer, I was sexually harassed by another youth who most of us knew was gay. Obviously policy isn't going to prevent anything from happening - so this change is obviously good. Something to keep in mind is that individual troops can still deny openly homosexual members based on religious reasons. Another comment I have is that a large amount of adult members are former Scouts or parents - allowing gay youth, but not gay adults will be impacted here and set a double standard. As has been discussed before, not all pedophiles are strictly gay or even open about their homosexuality - allowing gay leaders would still allow gay youth who were active to still participate.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Being an Eagle Scout, I came in here for a discussion about the policy and what else it'll effect in the BSA yet the thread has turned into a P&N flame war. What. a. shock.

A fair point. I've split the side discussion to a separate thread.

 

[smackababy]

While it is a big step they are allowing gay scouts, I think it is still ridiculous they are not allowing gay scout leaders.

I guess a small step forward is progress though.

 

[woolfe9998]

It should be noted that while this is a start, they still don't allow gay troop leaders.



An enormous number of things have changed in western society in the past 250 years that have helped lead to this point.

You could start with the enlightenment era. While subversive philosophers are as old as civilization (see: Socrates, Galileo, and others), is was not considered acceptable to challenge the dogma you were raised with. Afterward, "because [religious book] said so" was no longer an acceptable answer for a large fraction of the population.

This has in part led to a steady secularization of society. 250 years ago, moral enforcement for common people was largely the responsibility of the local community. Your local Priest, Minister or Rabbi determined what was moral, and had relatively few secular checks on that power. As states have become more secular, that power has been stripped from the religious institutions and given to the State.

Advances in communication and public education have also done a great deal of good. Before widespread literacy, you really had no choice but to trust the word of your local authority (usually religious) on issues of ethics and metaphysics. You couldn't go to a public library and read Plato. Ethics for the masses was determined by a combination of religious tradition and a small group of philosophical elite.

On the communication side, most people growing up didn't ever meet anyone outside their village. Thus minorities of other cultures were completely foreign to most. If you were gay but didn't know anyone else who was, you'd probably just forever stay in the closet, afraid that you were the only one and had something evil. In the past 50 years especially, you've seen a rapid change. Once people started to come out around the same time as the civil rights era, younger people saw they were not alone. One that next generation came out in droves, it became a relatively normal part of culture to be gay. Now, you'll be hard pressed to find someone in an urban area of America that doesn't have a close friend or family member that's gay.

These observations explain the longer term trend toward tolerance. They do not necessarily explain the unusually rapid increase in tolerance over the past 10 years in particular. I posit that it has to do with positive portrayals of openly gay people in popular culture. This is a trend kicked off by people like Ellen Degeneres coming out in the 90's.

 

[Emos]

These observations explain the longer term trend toward tolerance. They do not necessarily explain the unusually rapid increase in tolerance over the past 10 years in particular. I posit that it has to do with positive portrayals of openly gay people in popular culture. This is a trend kicked off by people like Ellen Degeneres coming out in the 90's.

I agree. Even though much of pop culture is a vapid wasteland there is something to be said for parts of it being a driver of social change. As you pointed out, Ellen and the "Will and Grace effect" had a lot to do with perceptions toward gays becoming much more tolerant. It's taking the unknown and making it familiar.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I think the continual erosion of the power of religion in society is behind part of this as well. Much of the opposition to gays is religiously-driven (or at least, religiously-rationalized), and more and more people are deciding to think for themselves rather than allowing preachers to tell them what to believe. The percentage of people self-identifying as atheist is up 50% in the last five years, agnostics up over 50%, and those answering "nothing in particular" up over 20%.

 

[smackababy]

I agree. Even though much of pop culture is a vapid wasteland there is something to be said for parts of it being a driver of social change. As you pointed out, Ellen and the "Will and Grace effect" had a lot to do with perceptions toward gays becoming much more tolerant. It's taking the unknown and making it familiar.

Just the spread of information that we have had in the past few decades has changed the world completely. Having positive gay role models AND have their influence able to be felt throughout the world near instantly with the internet has done a lot of good.

 

[crashtestdummy]

These observations explain the longer term trend toward tolerance. They do not necessarily explain the unusually rapid increase in tolerance over the past 10 years in particular. I posit that it has to do with positive portrayals of openly gay people in popular culture. This is a trend kicked off by people like Ellen Degeneres coming out in the 90's.

It think it's partially that, but mostly the fact that your view on gay people changes when it is a family member that is gay. A white person is unlikely to magically find out halfway through life that their uncle or their daughter that they love is black. The fact that being gay is not strictly hereditary actually helps in this case.

 

[Pulsar]

I think the continual erosion of the power of religion in society is behind part of this as well. Much of the opposition to gays is religiously-driven (or at least, religiously-rationalized), and more and more people are deciding to think for themselves rather than allowing preachers to tell them what to believe. The percentage of people self-identifying as atheist is up 50% in the last five years, agnostics up over 50%, and those answering "nothing in particular" up over 20%.

I agree. I can only hope that religion (the definitive anti-rational institution) continues to be marginalized.

On the other hand, we need to be careful that we don't go too far. People have every right to be religious and not be harassed.

 

[woolfe9998]

It think it's partially that, but mostly the fact that your view on gay people changes when it is a family member that is gay. A white person is unlikely to magically find out halfway through life that their uncle or their daughter that they love is black. The fact that being gay is not strictly hereditary actually helps in this case.

All of those things are factors but none explains the accelerated increase over the past decade or so in particular because what you're talking about could be applicable during any time frame. So far as discovering a family member who is gay, you have to wonder how many more have come out because they felt comfortable doing so after so many non-negative portrayals of open homosexuals in popular culture, and so many celebrities coming out. I think it's been heading in a direction of tolerance for a long while now and would continue that way regardless of pop culture, but pop culture IMO has accelerated it quite a lot in the short term.

 

[Craig234]

Wasn't the more general discussion split off to the other thread leaving this one for the scout issue? That seemed to stop wth the last scout post being post 8.

On this scout news, before we praise the scout leadership too much for progressing their views, I suspect the credit might belong to the scout boycotters creating pressure.

 

[Pulsar]

Wasn't the more general discussion split off to the other thread leaving this one for the scout issue? That seemed to stop wth the last scout post being post 8.

On this scout news, before we praise the scout leadership too much for progressing their views, I suspect the credit might belong to the scout boycotters creating pressure.

And before you and others go demonizing the scouts, let me explain that there is a very small very powerhungry group at the head of the boyscouts who are pushing the Anti-Gay policy. They are, quite literally, the 'good ole boys' of the scouts. That small group does not in any way speak for the entirety of the scouts. It isn't their organization - it's the kids' organization.

 

[piasabird]

Obviously you dont understand what the boy scouts is all about. It is not a sex club or a drinking society. It is all about guys, male bonding and learning to become adults. In their charter they profess to be a Morale organization, and they also have a policy that to be a scout you must have a belief in God (Your version of God is fine). If you change this part of the charter, then the Boy Scouts become something else or cease to exists.

Boy Scouts and also Cub Scouts starts at age 8 and then ends at the time most boys are considered to be men or reach adulthood. So it is an organization for adolescent male children. Sexual orientation has no place in the scouting program, and neither does Sex. They believe in Keep It Simple and Make It Fun. It is only adults that are confused.

There is another component to the Boy Scouts. A lot of the Boy Scout Troops are sponsored by churches. So this will cause a giant schism in the Boy Scout Organization. It will be like a civil war.

 

[Vaux]

So the boy scouts allow gay members, but not gay leaders. Are they looking for the leaders to teach the scouts to not be gay or something? It does kind of send a message.

 

[preCRT]

The BSA is still not fulfilling its stated objective of character development and values-based leadership training when it excludes not only gay leaders, but atheists & agnostics.

It is only those with no character or proper values who assume that one must believe in G-d to have morals and values. If the BSA truly did believe in G-d, then they would know that they should love their fellow human, expect all to do good, treat others as they would want to be treated themselves, and that it is not up to them to judge.

The BSA has taken one small step, but they still have a very long way to go before I would agree with their twisted views of morals, values, or character.

 

[davmat787]

The BSA is still not fulfilling its stated objective of character development and values-based leadership training when it excludes not only gay leaders, but atheists & agnostics.

It is only those with no character or proper values who assume that one must believe in G-d to have morals and values. If the BSA truly did believe in G-d, then they would know that they should love their fellow human, expect all to do good, treat others as they would want to be treated themselves, and that it is not up to them to judge.

The BSA has taken one small step, but they still have a very long way to go before I would agree with their twisted views of morals, values, or character.

Don't forget their bigotted uniforms. The current ones make their asses look fat.

Have you ever been involved with scouting? I would not characterize this as "one small step", they VOTED on it.

 

[preCRT]

So voting to stop discriminating against some boys while still blatantly and openly discriminating thousands of others is hunky-dory?


BTW, I was a Girl Scout. The Girl Scouts, unlike the BSA, have always promoted acceptance & diversity.

 

[davmat787]

So voting to stop discriminating against some boys while still blatantly and openly discriminating thousands of others is hunky-dory?


BTW, I was a Girl Scout. The Girl Scouts, unlike the BSA, have always promoted acceptance & diversity.

My point was the fact that BSA voted to accept gay members IS a big deal, and not a "small step" to borrow your phrase. When you consider how long BSA has been around, how religious centric most troops are, and how tradition oriented they are, I think it is a big deal. Couple that with the fact they voted for this change, rather than having a court demand they do so, again points to this being momentous. More change, the 'bigger steps' I am guessing you refer to, will surely follow given time.

Would you rather have the remaining change you refer to be forced upon them immediately, or wait for them to change themselves? Willing change from within will be more meaningful and long lasting, whereas forced changed will probably be met with resistance and worse.

As for atheists and agnostics, I think some of the oaths or sayings use the word 'god'. I am not 100% sure of this, it has been.... lets say decades, since my involvement in scouts. Are you suggesting they change this and any other possibly religious references so as to include atheists and agnostics?

 

[preCRT]

My point was the fact that BSA voted to accept gay members IS a big deal, and not a "small step" to borrow your phrase. When you consider how long BSA has been around, how religious centric most troops are, and how tradition oriented they are, I think it is a big deal. Couple that with the fact they voted for this change, rather than having a court demand they do so, again points to this being momentous. More change, the 'bigger steps' I am guessing you refer to, will surely follow given time.

Would you rather have the remaining change you refer to be forced upon them immediately, or wait for them to change themselves? Willing change from within will be more meaningful and long lasting, whereas forced changed will probably be met with resistance and worse.

As for atheists and agnostics, I think some of the oaths or sayings use the word 'god'. I am not 100% sure of this, it has been.... lets say decades, since my involvement in scouts. Are you suggesting they change this and any other possibly religious references so as to include atheists and agnostics?

I'd rather they never did wrong in the first place, that all discriminatory policies stop immediately. Not a year from now, not six months. Immediately.

No different to me than when there was segregation and folks 'needed time to get used to' not treating others as second class citizens. All BS.

Will there be those who drag their feet and do everything they can to fight against change? Of course, there have always been haters, but one should never tolerate bigotry.

 

[dougp]

I'd rather they never did wrong in the first place, that all discriminatory policies stop immediately. Not a year from now, not six months. Immediately.

No different to me than when there was segregation and folks 'needed time to get used to' not treating others as second class citizens. All BS.

Will there be those who drag their feet and do everything they can to fight against change? Of course, there have always been haters, but one should never tolerate bigotry.

You must live a very sheltered life. As I said above, it doesn't really matter whether homosexuals were allowed as both Scouts or adult leaders - abuse will continue either way. That's why this didn't make a lot of sense, but at least they're doing something about it. A few months ago, the BSA sent a survey out to their alumni (mostly Eagle Scouts or those who were heavily involved in Scouting) asking our opinions. The leadership in the BSA is still the "old guard" - until you see adults from my generation starting to take over, you will probably never see any trending that you'll be happy with. And regardless of what the BSA is enforcing, the host organization can remove the charter of a BSA troop if it feels that troop is no longer following any boundaries placed - if said organization opposed homosexual members, and the troop knowingly had said members but took no action.