The Regime Has Spoken: Gays in the Boy Scouts

“My attitude is … that gays and lesbians should have access and opportunity the same way everybody else does, in every institution and walk of life,” he said.

“The Scouts are a great institution that are promoting young people and exposing them to, you know, opportunities and leadership that will serve people for the rest of their lives, and I think that nobody should be barred (from) that.”

Uh, nobody is barred from it, unless they insist that the Boys Scouts condone something contrary to their purpose and oath.

Consider, for example, the widespread problem of pornography.  One could speculate that there are a number of Scout Masters and Boy Scouts who have a problem with it.  But no one would ever be barred from the Boy Scouts for that problem, unless they made their problem the Boy Scout’s problem.  The policy of the Boy Scouts expresses a moral objection to the public legitimization of homosexual behavior.

This is not a political issue about which Dear Leader has anything more to say than I do.

17 thoughts on “The Regime Has Spoken: Gays in the Boy Scouts

  1. You’re suggesting that there is a moral problem with homosexuality. Would you care to tell me why you feel that way?
    Also, this is a political issue because the Boy Scout’s is a great institution and any young man should be allowed to join and engage in it, regardless of their preferences. Preference has become a public thing nowadays, and it is almost like if some Scout were to see another holding hands with another young man, then they would be kicked out. Thus making it a “Scout problem.” Homosexuals don’t always intend for their sexuality to be known by their fellow Scout’s, bear this in mind. I’m not attacking you, I just felt as though you didn’t really look at it as if someone from outside could tell on a Scout, etc.
    Hope to hear back from you.

  2. As a Catholic (and a Catholic priest) I have a moral objection to homosexual acts for the same reason I object to contraception or heterosexual sodomy, because they are by nature contrary to the procreative end of marriage.

    The Scouts have a right to keep the condition of “morally straight” in their oath and to mean by that whatever they want. It is not a governmental issue.

  3. Unfortunately, everyone defines ‘morally straight’ differently. Honestly, I could care less if other scouts are gay or not as long as they’re not making sexual advances on other boys. Maybe I’m being naive, but my concern is more about the leaders. Most sexual assaults occur from MEN. It’s rare to read of a woman who sexually assaults someone. So, with that in mind, when you have young boys (some from very broken homes and desperate for adult relationships) and you put them in ‘over night’ situations and/or ‘secluded in the woods’ situations, you need to be 100percent POSITIVE that these men would NEVER EVER make a sexual advance on these boys. Most gay men would never do such a thing. HOWEVER, the fact remains that they are sexually attracted to this gender and are now placed in a possibly tempting situation. It only takes one. It would be no different than placing a heterosexual man (since men are the ones who are usually guilty of sexual assault) in with the girlscouts. Most heterosexual men would never sexually assault a young girl. But, now they’re in with girls whom they likely find attractive! They are in a tempting position so it would be LUDICROUS to place the girls in that situation. Are we not doing the same thing here since gay men are attracted to these young men? That’s my gripe. Perhaps the girlscouts, who have had lesbian leaders for some time, have not been having any issues. However, if this is the case, it’s probably more due to the fact that women aren’t usually the ones guilty of sexual assault. Again, maybe I’m being naive here. As for the boyscout decision, my husband hates camping trips but he may just have to go on every single one of them during these boyscout years to make sure our son is safe. What a mess.

  4. Jen,

    You raise an important issue, but I think more fundamental is the fact that once the policy changes, then Masters and Scouts can insist on their behavior, even if only outside the Scouts, is treated as moral. The Scouts will all get diversity training. The Boy Scouts will just become another institution in which your child’s innocence is no longer safe.

  5. Boy Scouts postpone vote on homosexuality policy
    In Christ,

  6. I thought Jennifer’s thoughts very interesting! She said what I would like to say. I mean that approaching to that question from a biologic point of view is important too. I don’t mean that morality is not important. But for the most of people is ignorant about morality. So when we start speaking from a point that is familiar to everyone the issue becomes more clear. The philosopher Olavo de Carvalho has dealt with homossexual question this way and it has seemed to take good results.

  7. That’s not the point but he (Olavo de Carvalho) uses to say that we can impose sexual likes (that is, phisical attraction for women or men). That means that you can impose your likes, whatever they are, to other people. The same things is applicable to homossexuality.

    Below, it’s a translation of an article of him that I made from Portuguese into English. It shows his thinking very well and clarifies what I’m trying to say.

    An Excert of Psicólogos e psicopatas (Psychologists and psychopaths)

    “[…] With all the evidence, no word against neurotic or sound homosexual conduct will be allowed.

    Throughout history, no other human conduct ever enjoyed so vast privilege, so omnibus [large] protection. No one never been immunized by law against the possibility of criticism.
    It is not, for example, policy behavior (condutct). Is not no human quality, however lofty and respectable. It is not the artistic or scientific genius, unpolluted honesty or even holiness. There is a public or private life of anyone else. It is not even the usual conduct of a heterosexual couple, often criticized as a symptom of triviality and lack of imagination. Itis, finally, God himself, against which say and write freely and without fear of punishment, all sorts of barbarities.

    Legal protection that is claimed for homosexuality is so clearly megalomaniac, so disproportionate to the rights of all other persons and groups who make such conduct will result in a domain – the only area – separate from life and superior to it, untouchable and inaccessible to human opinions.

    The proposal is so clearly insane than the simple fact that the media and Parliament come to discuss it seriously is even evidence that most of society – exactly the most talkative and active – lost the innate sense of distinction not only between normal and pathological, but between reality and fantasy.

    According to the great Polish psychiatrist Andrzei Lobaczewski (see Political Ponerology, 2007), this happens precisely when leadership positions are filled with psychopathic personalities, which, with their daring (foolhardy) actions and their cold insensitivity to normal human emotions, consummated, when became triumphant , spreading in the general population a state of stunned confusion, lack of discernment, and in the end, the moral stupidity.

    Gay people can be healthy and normal? Of course they can.

    But what leads someone to advocate legal and political changes as monstrous as those mentioned here is no sex drive, either homo, hetero either. Is psychopathy pure and simple. […] ”


  8. My brother or sister (4 of God),

    Wikipedia is not a source reliable in many cases. I have to admit Olavo de Carvalho is a very controversial person. But I have followed this talkshow for ages and I can say he is a sincere Catholic.

    Beside that, Fr. Paulo Ricardo de Azevedo has helped him to devolep his works acording to Catholic Church teachings.

    I would like to speak more about these remarkable Brazilians, but my Englis is not good enough.

    But he has a website, where you can see his biography. See

  9. A correction (a rectification):

    He (Olavo de Carvalho) uses to say that we CANNOT impose our likes, as sexual likes to other people.

  10. Since we’re fairly new to the scouting world, perhaps someone who has been involved might be able to answer these questions I have. When a person applies to be a leader, up until now, do they even ASK if the man is gay or straight? I doubt that’s even a question. I’m sure the majority of men are fathers of sons in the troop. But there are a number of men who have just been doing it for years (kids have long since flown the nest) or were involved as boys and always wanted to stay involved. Do the scouts even ask? If not (which is what I suspect) then why do we need to even open this can of worms? Does the conversation of marriage ever crop up as a ‘teaching subject’ to be discussed amongst the older boys??? Does the subject of sex ever come up as a legitimate topic to be covered? (I’m sure it comes up with hormonally charged boys, but that’s amongst themselves and not as a legitimate topic presented by the leaders.) In other words, what was wrong with the way it was??? I’m sure there are gay men involved right now, without the rules specifying it. I don’t see why they’re even feeling the need to go down this road. It’s pointless.

    Feeling so clueless about life lately. :p

  11. Try imaging gays confined on a submarine that’s out to sea for 3 months at a time! Creeped my husband out every time the sub went out. Thank God he’s retired.

  12. I believe this article addresses your questions (from last year when they announced they would continue the ban)

    “The group explained in a statement that it “does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members.”
    However, it added, “we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission” of the organization. ………..

    Rather than a discriminatory move, the organization is simply “upholding the moral standards on which it was founded,” he explained.”

    In Christ,

  13. from Bill Foley,

    No one who responds to the temptation to engage in activities where the human parts do not fit is normal. See the following. I request that those who want to defend true marriage to use the following argument because the natural facts are obvious and self-evident.

    There is a natural argument against so-called “marriage” between two persons of the same sex.
    The basis is THE PARTS DO NOT FIT.
    This applies to the psychological, emotional, and spiritual aspects—three areas in which a man and a woman do fit.
    The other facet is the physical dimension. The sexual-generative parts of the male and female bodies do fit, THEY ARE MEANT FOR EACH OTHER LIKE A LOCK AND A KEY, and this fit is IN ACCORD WITH NATURE. This natural fit also follows a natural purpose, namely, the generation of a human life. The sexual-generative parts of two males or of two females DO NOT FIT and do not fulfill the natural purpose of generating human life.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s