Agreed. Lamp puts it much more insightfully than my cynical, sarcastic reply.

I need to work on my sincerity.

Segregation is already happening along race. I'm not sure it's a bad thing though. There was one black kid in my son's Cub Scout den. Only child of a single mom. He was treated well in that den, but always had more problems than many of the other boys staying focused and on task, so he was often singled out for "hey, pay attention" type reminders. He wasn't the only one getting those reminders, but he got them consistently. He seemed to mostly have a good time though.

When it came time to join a Boy Scout troop, he found an all black one on the south side of town. At first I was almost offended, like he thought the troops in his neighborhood weren't good enough for him, but then I figured it was probably really good for him to be getting a whole bunch of positive male role models he could identify with. It would be good for him to see people who looks like him succeeding at all the stuff scouts are supposed to learn.

I think it's very similar to the idea of an all woman's college where a woman can go and learn without being distracted or feeling like they need to compete with the men in the classroom. It's not for everybody, but it can be a good fit for some.

But all that was an example of just one specific boy, and not BSA policy.
Yet it is a sad example of my meanings above along the lines of
intentional or unintentional consequences which "...drive them out... "

I'm sorry to disagree, but separate but equal is not.

In the 1980's, BSA received $ from United Way of Multnomah County (OR), and very influential on $ grants.
We, as competing social service non-profit organizations, challenged UWMC
on this funding of BSA with their policy of discrimination towards gays.
BSA threatened to withdraw and take with them their funding resources.
Today, BSA does not receive $ from UWMC and time has shown that fund-raising
has not been negatively affected for remaining social service organizations.

It is not ironic that BSA's "Learning for Life" program
does not have such discriminatory policies. As so often is true, follow the $.

The issues are complex, but BSA will have to reconsider policies
if it wishes to maintain it's exceptional reputation across the US.

Assuming it had an "exceptional reputation across the US". I've often heard Boy Scout as derogatory term.

Sorry, I didn't mean it that way at all.
I believe BSA has a well-deserved GOOD reputation.

I think you've even used it as a derogatory term ;)

Absolutely. Just like "goody two shoes" is a derogatory term. And I think it's something to aspire to, to be called that.

Oh, so now you're casting aspersions on amputees. Well I never... :haha:

Thanks Bruce. All this time I thought Glatt liked me.

I got the survey, I indicated that the policy of considering a participant's sexuality in any way was a ridiculous waste of time, adults or children.

I also indicated on the survey that regardless of the outcome of their decision, I'd continue to ignore the sexuality of my fellow scouts--not my fucking business--and carry on with my scouting regardless. I believe this will happen in many places.

It is a STUPID policy, especially given that many of our youngest leaders are themselves recently matriculated/graduated/aged-out scouts. So now it's "ok" to be a gay scout and get your Eagle. Then when the scout turns eighteen, goodbye, BECAUSE HE'S GAY. Whereas a straight scout in the same situation can be recruited as a junior scoutmaster... What bullshit.

I have no idea how such a policy can even be enforced? How is it determined? How is it measured? How? I don't remember any question like that on my application. glatt's right, it is a baby step in the right direction and the ultimate result will be to repeal the policy prohibition against sexual orientation being a factor at all for adult membership.

...

I searched and found this from the BSA Membership Standards Resolution. Sounds like DADT, and we all know how effective and useful and what a positive effect *that* policy had on another highly regimented organization.

From V's link above...

Might this wording remove not 1, but 2 of the 3 G's of the BSA discriminations (gays, girls, and godless)

... another unintended consequence ?

;)

nope. still have to be a boy to be a boy scout.

that's not the case for the venturing program, which is co-ed.

"co-ed"... as are the Learning for Life and Career Awareness Explorling programs.

Again, unfortunately, follow the $
What I am trying to say is that this whole business of homophobia in the BSA
is not an absolute (religious) value, it is being bought for the organization's ($) profit.

As such, it's not worth maintaining in order for BSA to continue providing
the community service and good works that come from scouting.
It is harming the reputation of BSA and sending a wrong message about being gay,
and therein excluding potentially valuable members and leaders unnecessarily.

Which one?

I got two. Lots of similar questions between the two, but one asked specifically about forcing a straight scout to sleep in a tent with a gay scout, and the other didn't.

Yeah, but then you get boys wearing dresses. :haha:

http://cellar.org/2013/scout mag.jpg

But seriously, folks, this video by Todd Bieber, Eagle Scout and film maker, is perspective from someone who's been there, done that.