6/22/07 11:42 AM
rec wrote in topic Article: The Boy Scouts:
“I live in Massachusetts where same sex marriages are legal, and are likely to remain that way for the foreseeable future. Many people hate that, but I don't. Why can't the Boy Scouts be on the inclusive side on this issue?”The first question I would ask is, “Are there limits, then, to inclusivity?” If not, then we have replaced all other virtues with the single virtue, “tolerance.” Then we need not, by the Scout Law, be “trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly…”; we need only be tolerant, because all behavior, virtuous or not, is equivalent.
I certainly do not believe that, and I am certainly not in favor of that approach. We may differ, of course, on the relative importance of the many and varied virtues, but I think we all need to come to an understanding that tolerance is only one of the many virtues, and that the other virtues are indeed often in conflict with tolerance. I think to brand someone who has heart-felt questions and reservations about tolerance of deviant behaviors, including sexual behaviors, as a “bigot,” or as “practicing discrimination” is counter-productive and unreasonable. Moreover, I feel it is likewise unreasonable and unfair to exert legal pressure upon individuals or groups to compel them to conform their moral viewpoints to the popular cultural shift or movement of the current day and age, simply on the basis of political correctness or doing the alleged “right thing” or “coming into the 21st century.” All have a right to hold their own moral viewpoints.
As we have seen since the Dale decision in 2000, there are homosexuals who publicly identify themselves with their sexual behavior and seek government protection and explicit inclusion based on their sexual behavior. Do we want Boy Scouts or Scout Leaders who publicly identify themselves by their sexual behavior? Is this the kind of discussion we want taking place within the scouting program? My view is that Boy Scouts should be a haven for boys removed from the sexualization of our culture, given that this sexualization is morally questionable, largely destructive and an inappropriate concern for our youth; discussion of matters of sexuality should be left to parents and families. It seems to me that the explicit inclusion of a group publicly promoting its sexual rights is the antithesis of this aim.
My view is that the Boy Scouts has a long tradition of upholding the family and the development of boys in traditional masculine leadership. The basic objectives of the Boy Scouts are character development, citizenship training, and personal fitness. In my view sexuality has never been part of the scouting mission; indeed, much of the objective in the creation of the Boy Scouts in the first place was to provide wholesome outdoor activities that might help divert boys’ attention from sexuality until they are older and seeking marriage. Yet I feel that inclusion of homosexuals would almost invariably necessitate inclusion of sexuality in the scouting program. For instance, the Scouting for All website promotes a “rainbow merit badge” for Webelos Scouts (4th and 5th graders), the requirements for which involve answering 43 questions about homosexuality and atheism. If such is already promoted by Scouting for All, would this not be the very kind of program that would be urged upon the Boy Scouts should its membership policies change?
In my view this would be an unwelcome and unhealthy change for our boys, a change that would make the Boy Scouts something other than scouting as I understand it. I could not be a part of such an organization, nor would I want that for my children or the children of my community.
