And agree on the Girl Scouts thing. I know that they are trying to get more of an athletic, outdoors program going, but I was very put off by my oldest kid’s experience. It was a lot of arts and crafts. When my spouse was in BSA, at her age, they were out in the woods learning to use a compass and how to safely light fires.

Another problem is the sleight of hand that changes “orientation” to “behavior.” Including gay boys does not mean that they will not be able to abide by restrictions on sexual behavior while doing scout related activities. And it does not mean that the organization cannot say to all scouts that responding with violence to someone who is in no way threatening you with violence is wrong. Period.

Oh, and by the way, I was a 4-Her and grew up on a farm. I attended one mixed gender overnight sports camp, and it included fishing (knives!), as well as skiing, snow-shoeing, etc. I just did a quick google and found out that, for just $150, Ohio 4-Hers, male and female, can attend a “Shooting Education Camp” from July 25-27. Pistols, muzzle-loaders, rifles, along with fishing, etc.

And I want to underline nobody.really’s point that the Scouts receive a lot of federal subsidies and perks. Frankly, I think BSA should also welcome girls; in too many places, the GSA are just a cookie- and magazine-selling organization where girls occasionally glue glitter onto paper plates.

Do any of those organizations put teenage youth in proximity with knives and axes? If they don’t, then the test is meaningless.

That’s sort of a requirement for “camping”. It’s only the BSA that has this “Totin’ Chit” idiocy.

Now, if you’d like a better example, my martial arts class went camping last November. The kids there all had varying degrees of access to lethal weaponry and no anti-gay policy to keep them all “safe”. Somehow no one got killed. And other than me (compound bow string hit my elbow — giant bruise that lasted for weeks), no injuries.

Perhaps the problem with the BSA is a lack of discipline? That would certainly agree with my experience of the BSA. A bunch of kids, all taught how to beat the cr@p out of other people, somehow managed to co-exist without actually beating the cr@p out of anyone else who might have been a little too swishy. Do you have an explanation for how that can possibly be?

The potential violence argument wasn’t limited to the military. It was deployed to defend the entire structure of Jim Crow Apartheid in the south, from public schools to public accomodations. Instances of lynching, burning and mutilation by mobs were cited as justification for keeping non-whites in “their” place for “their own good”. This provided the bonus of allowing advocates of viciously racist policies to pose as “friends of the colored man” having only black folks “best interests” at heart. Yet another telling parallel.

And yes, if I am not mistaken, “we can’t protect them” was an argument used against integration of the armed forces.

The argument about preventing violence is probably the most morally and intellectually corrupt one put forward thus far. It is virtually indistinguishable from arguments advanced in the past to justify both de jure and de facto racial segregation. Further, it represents a craven, not to mention cowardly, abdication of any pretense to moral leadership. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who would buy into this sort of “‘reasoning” isn’t fit to mentor on questions of character.

Good. God. Damn. This is so fucking wrong. I don’t know what amazingly idiotic source you’re getting this from, but IT HAS NO ANTHROPOLOGICAL VERACITY. It’s just a pure, 100% proof, straight-up shot of WRONG.

I’ve called you on this lie before on this blog. You’re not welcome in this thread anymore.

If I’m being generous, then I’ll say you should read about world cultures before making assinine and transparently false comments about what “all” cultures do or do not believe. However, I see no particular reason to be generous — as I’ve said, you’ve been called on this lie before on this blog, and I’m much more inclined to see your glib condensation of “humans” with “people represented in whatever cultures I as a westerner feel it’s necessary to know about” as part of a pattern.

Do any of those organizations put teenage youth in proximity with knives and axes? If they don’t, then the test is meaningless.

I know many parents who’d strongly disagree with you on that, Ron. And with each new generation, fewer and fewer people of any kind — including parents — will agree with you.

History doesn’t favor this interpretation. There have been many cultures where homosexual behavior has become destigmatized or normalized, and generally the pattern has been that this lasts for a generation or two and then there is a reversion to a less tolerant norm. Rome went through two or three cycles like that. In addition, the one world culture (ours) that shows open tolerance for homosexual activity is not winning the demographic trendline. It’s possible, though unlikely in my view, that in 2100 AD there will be more Americans who believe as you do. It is unlikely bordering on impossible that the balance of opinion will shift in that direction among humans.

Ron wrote:

The last thing I want to have to do is to call up Mom and Dad and tell them that their kid got stabbed because he made a mistake as to how receptive his tentmate was going to be towards his advances.

This sounds more like a post hoc rationalization than anything else.

Suppose that tomorrow, it were proven beyond any possible doubt that no one will get stabbed as a result of allowing gay kids to be Scouts (I know it’s not possible to prove that, but for the sake of the argument let’s pretend it is). Do you really believe that the BSA leadership would then reverse their anti-gay policies, or do you think they’d find some other pretext for them?

Ron, let me ask you: Can you point me to even one example of a gay camper getting stabbed in SpiralScouts? How about in the Navigators? Any stabbings in the Boys and Girls Clubs of America? National 4-H Council? CampFire Boys and Girls? Has there been a rash of anti-gay stabbings in the Jewish Community Centers? Because all of those organizations run Scout-like activities — including, in some cases, camping — and none of them has a “no gays allowed” policy.

One is that discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of sexual behavior are two entirely different things and parents especially will approach them as such.

I know many parents who’d strongly disagree with you on that, Ron. And with each new generation, fewer and fewer people of any kind — including parents — will agree with you.

The other is that I truly believe that you’ll find - at the expense of some young people and their parents - that your theories and desires regarding how young people should interact under such conditions fail in the face of reality.

Plenty of youth organizations don’t discriminate against gay youth and yet haven’t had stabbings. I think it’s your theory, not Mythago’s, that fails the reality test.

The Scouts did not descend from Mt. Sinai as a gift from Jehovah, they were created by the boring hard work of men and women over a century….

Hear, hear! I favor freedom of association. After all, moderators on this web site feel perfectly free to exclude people at will. Occasionally people gripe about it, but ultimately it’s up to the moderator. Don’t like it? Start your own website.

Heck, I’ll even go so far as to argue that it was unconstitutional for the IRS to withhold tax-exempt status from Bob Jones University. Bigots are entitled to the same freedom of association as anyone else, and government should not discriminate on that basis.

But just as I think government should not discriminate against bigots, I think government should not discriminate in favor of bigots. And here’s the rub: Whether or not Scouts descended from Mt. Sinai as a gift from God, they most certainly have been lifted up to their current status on the public dole. Next time you’re flipping through the US Code, check out

– 5 USC § 301;
– 7 USC § 7630;
– 10 USC §§ 722, 2554, 2606, 4682, 7541, 9682 (authorizing every branch of the military to subsidize the BSA);
– 14 USC § 641;
– 16 USC §§ 539f, 6231;
– 20 USC §§ 1681 (barring discrimination in educational programs getting federal funds, but granting an exception for you-know-who), 7261b, 7905;
– 32 USC § 508;
– 33 USC § 752b (giving BSA title to abandoned light houses)(repealed);
– 36 USC § 10101 (exempting BSA from annual audits expected of federally-chartered corporations), 309 (federal charter), 40731 (providing for loaning guns – no kidding!); and
– 42 USC § 5309.

And I haven’t even peeked at the federal regulations, state statutes, state regulations, privileged access to public schools, public parks, public parades, etc. The public subsidies are not insubstantial.

It’s a free country: let bigots be bigots. But let’em do it with equal protection of the law — nothing more, nothing less. No special prohibitions. No special exemptions.

And no special rental agreements.

Instead, the Scouts are arguing that the 2000 ruling in Dale trumps the city’s statutory power, and that as a private organization the Scouts have an affirmative right to expressive association that a lower legislative body cannot override. I have no opinion about the merits of this claim, it’s out of my pay grade.

The Scouts also argue that the city is selectively enforcing its ordinance, and that numerous other bodies which violate the city’s non-discrimination ordinance are not being evicted. Again I don’t know about the law, but as a matter of common sense, if this is claim is true it would seem to undermine the city’s position drastically. “We absolutely cannot tolerate discrimination” is one thing, “we absolutely cannot tolerate discrimination…except for his and hers and theirs, but certainly not yours” is quite another.

Regardless of the merits, neither of these claims depends in any way upon the city not being within its contractual rights to terminate their deal with the Scouts.

Not necessarily. The set “people involved in running BSA camping activities” includes plenty of people who don’t have kids in the program at all and never have.

How likely is it to include people who do have children (or young relatives) who would be excluded from BSA?

Still waiting for you to explain why the city acted in breach of its agreement.

the main argument people are making about scouting and discrimination is not that ending discrimination would make BSA better, though it would, but that BSA’s discrimination against gays in unjust and harmful.

That’s the argument that some people are making. Other people disagree. And there is no general consensus that this is actually true, at least in the context of youth programs of the kind that the BSA promotes.

Alternatively, the superiority of an alternative non-discriminatory policy could be tested by a change in BSA policy,

Sure. No problem. Just get some parents to sign up and say “we’ll be glad to let you experiment with our kids.”

Myca, no one is saying that you have to create your own youth group in order to gain the right to criticize another. The First Amendment covers that. But going forward from that, I’d say that in trying to do so you’d come up against a couple of my points. One is that discrimination on the basis of race and discrimination on the basis of sexual behavior are two entirely different things and parents especially will approach them as such. The other is that I truly believe that you’ll find - at the expense of some young people and their parents - that your theories and desires regarding how young people should interact under such conditions fail in the face of reality.

While it would be great to see a democratic and peaceful German government, that wouldn’t mitigate the Nazis in the slightest.

Except, of course, by replacing them.

BSA is getting a job done for millions of people. If that job can/should be done better, then fine - let’s see that happen. There is money on the table, there are resources available, there is a burning need for the services being provided - if this can’t be made to work in the way you think it ought to work, then tearing down the people doing a (flawed) job of it isn’t all that compelling a case.

And if it can be made to work, then the way to demonstrate that is to demonstrate it. Either BSA will be forced by the superior alternative to change, or the superior alternative will displace and then replace BSA.

I mean, jeez, “You think slavery is so bad, huh? Well, why don’t you run a plantation without it and show everyone what a big mister smarty-pants you are. Come on, big shot, put your money where your mouth is!”

Gimmie a break.

—Myca

If you believe that an organization which does not discriminate in the ways the Scouts discriminate would be a superior organization, then proving that proposition is perfectly tenable: create the superior organization, and watch it crush in the marketplace of ideas. The demand for healthy activities for young people is enormous, and you’d have the huge advantage of being aligned properly with the values of most of the governments that are currently having all these issues with the Scouts.

In fact, I hear there’s a great headquarters building coming available.