yes, I agree with the boy scouts of america decision. If there is one place on earth that should have a ban on homosexual, it is the boy scouts. Forget the politically correct b.s.
Danny Mills
Maryland Heights, Mo

It is perfectly legal for organizations to restrict membership. These rights, privileges & immunities have been REPEATEDLY upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Aren't you glad the government can NOT FORCE you to accept people you do not wish to associate with?

Don't you wish every person in every country had this right? God Bless America!

This right is "Freedom of Association". Or something like that.

You do not have the right to USE the government to force your personal beliefs on others.

This young man and other boys, young men and adults like him are free to form their own private organization or start their own association of "scouts" or what ever they want to call it. I think they should.

I totally agree with the decision of the BSA.

No, this makes no sense at all. The reasoning is that parents should preserve "their right to address issues of same-sex orientation within their family, with spiritual advisers, and at the appropriate time and in the right setting." What?? What does that mean? I think they're saying that they want to kick all gays out so that their families won't see them. What else could that mean? And why does this only apply to gays? What if Lutherans don't want their children to see Methodists? Or if Asians don't want to see Latinos?

So, if a boy scout turning 12 or 13 realizes he's gay, then he must leave his troop, because if he doesn't, then his friends' parents won't be able to "address issues of same-sex orientation within their family." Does anyone really believe this? How will his forced removal preserve family autonomy? And what about him? Don't we care about him, too?

I thought I'd chime in too. I was a scout all the way through school and I was a Cub leader for my oldest who is now in his 3rd year of scouts. I love the program and how it has stuck to the basic principles of scouting: nature, camping, leadership, teamwork, love of country.

Still, I'm sad that the BSA can't work around this issue of gays in the program. But it's such a sticky situation. At the same time, it is the BSAs right as a private group to say who their members are.

Remember, it was once taboo for moms to be Boy Scout leaders, but here we are. Maybe some day we'll figure out how to all coexist peacefully.

It took them two years to come to this decision?! I guess the Prejudice Badge must be one of the most difficult for scouts to earn!

They had a right to keep their ban, even though lots of people would like to see them more tolerant. They just aren't "there" yet. Think about this locally...if you put together say 800 people and asked them to accept the philosopy of including homosexuals in their group. They are not going to all agree 100% to do so.
Granted, their fears are mostly unfounded, but they are there. My husband and I both served as leaders for 12 years. We never saw anyone questioned on their sexual orientation, either when they joined or later. And yes, I did see a couple of leaders who probably were a gay couple. But with the rule of 2, (minimum 2 boys and 2 adults at ALL times), it was not a problem. They conducted themselves in an appropriate manner to any family type gatherng. Not like the pedophiles who sneak in and give fake reference; they target ANY group of children whether it is scouts, church groups, community centers, etc. We were lucky enough to have a group of committed parents who were involved in all aspects of the troop, so they "knew" who was with their kids and they had no fears. Believe me, we all would want to protect the kids from any threat but I never saw any threat from that direction. I guess I'm saying this: don't fret about it on the national level. Trust your community members to do the right thing. And if you don't like it, get involved! Don't deprive your child of this experience as a "protest" for inclusion. BSA just isn't there yet.

I personally disagree with this judgement. It is a shame that a organization that has been in existence for so long has not evolved. I watched the interview with the young man that came forward last night and he seemed to be the model young person. He came forward out of honesty and integrity knowing it may not end well yet it was the right thing to do. So for the scouts to strip him of his status and ban him from further activity to me sends a horrible message, that honesty may not be the best route. Most young men do not come to terms with being gay until puberty if then and by that time may have been in scouts for years. They are just encouraging them to lie or they are making them feel ashamed when it is nothing to be ashamed of. To me it is horrible that such a respected group is showing such prejudice to young men that may need them the most.

No, I do not agree with this position, nor does my husband who was an Eagle Scout. It is hard enough for a boy/teen to realize and accept that he is gay. Why is it necessary to deny him the boy scout experience? The boys in his scout troop are already sharing experiences with him at school, sports teams, church or just by being his neighbors. Why is there a problem with allowing him to participate in scouting activities? The same goes for scout leaders. Being a gay man does not make you a pedophile any more than my being a heterosexual woman means i am going to molest young boys.. Our (hetero) grown son's favorite teacher was a gay man, and he couldn't have been a more caring, supportive role model for what it means to be an honorable person. Sexuality - both hetero and homo - has no place in scouting activities so BSA has made a regrettable mistake by introducing it into the mix, and banning the participation of homosexuals.

i agree with the BSA

while I agree that as a private group, they can make their own rule, but find it both sad & ironic that they are worried about gays, but would have welcomed Jerry Sandusky with open arms!!!

I don't agree with this decision. I know the Boy Scouts had their own issues with abuse just as the Catholic Church has. They have both also seemed to determine that gay people, men or women, are the issue and will prey on others. If there's anything we've learned over the years, it is that predators abusing the power of their position is the issue, not their sexual orientation. Many of these abusers are heterosexual. The Congressman in the airport stall, the college coach are more prominent examples of heterosexual males seeking out a sexual encounter. The airport stall incident brought out information that this activity is quite common in airport and park public restrooms among males and heterosexuals are often involved. For the pedophiles, It is their opportunity as a trusted individual that has them alone with a youth that is the issue, not their sexual orientation. Pedophile priests abuse boys because they have more access to them, not because they are gay.
The Scouts have put in place many useful common sense protections against abuse in the wake of their issues such as requiring that more than a single youth and adult be present at all times. That makes perfect sense for protection. Shunning gays does not.

Seems like most people commenting don't believe in the rights of freedom of association.

I think it means that Alexander Hamilton was correct when he said " Never underestimate the ignorance of the American People."

Read up on the rights, privileges & immunities American citizens have that most other peoples do not.

It is their right to exclude and they have done that. As parents we do not have to associate with them. When they conduct their food drive hang an empty sack outside with a note saying you can not support a group that discriminates. Same when they sell their cookie dough or want to sell you their Christmas trees. Instead donate food to your local pantry, buy your cookie dough from your school, and support a local tree farmer by buying a fresh cut tree. Vote with your pocketbook.

Please remember to respect others' views. It's fine to disagree but let's not make it personal.

You know, back in the day, no one even talked about sex. You might think someone was having sex with someone, even a same-gender someone, or someone not their own spouse. Some things were private.

Today, we whine and moan about "privacy" issues - which really aren't - yet feel the need to announce with whom we prefer to have sex. Certainly not saying that anyone should "have" to hide their true selves, but there is always a price to pay. Perhaps, for example, you feel that you are being true to yourself by walking into church and cussing like a drunken sailor. If that is who you are, you aren't likely to be welcomed. It's your choice to make.

However, I'm NOT saying homosexuality is a choice, in case anyone thinks they need to jump on that bandwagon. I'm merely stating that private things should remain private.

Guess the point many here are trying to make is the seeming WHY they are being excluded. Homosexuals are not any more likely to prey on the boys than heterosexuals, both groups have abusers. But is that the faulty reasoning being used to single them out?

I'm merely stating that this likely wouldn't be a big issue if we, in general, didn't feel the need to broadcast every detail of our lives. As I said, I'm not advocating hiding, just showing some discretion. You can say, "He and I did such and such," or "She and I went on vacation." You could say that "We live together," or you could talk about your partner all day long if you wanted to.

What drives conservative crazy is all the "in your face" stuff - and conservatives do it too, in other ways. People today seem to think that no matter what they do in their private lives, it must be broadcast, they must tell the world. It's ridiculous. All I'm saying is be yourself, but show some class while you're doing it.

I'm quite sure you'll jump on this post too. Are you gay? Are you a Boy Scout? If you answer yes, you aren't getting in my face, I asked.

And maybe my reaction to this has more to do with an article a couple days ago about the 17yo who was fired from Boy Scout camp because he came out to the director. There was no need for this - he wasn't in a relationship, he wasn't sharing a household, he had no partner. This teen felt the need to make an announcement. That's way different than "hiding" his true self.

One more question: DO the vast majority of people join Boy Scouts? Seems to me they, like Girl Scouts, have dwindling numbers. I'm quite sure there are many other alternatives to Boy Scouts.

The decision of BSA to exclude gays is clearly discriminatory and a violation of basic human rights. It's based on ignorance and unfounded bias against gay individuals. Hopefully, the day will come when all law-abiding people are treated equally. We need to move out of the "Dark Ages".

I don't think it's exactly discriminatory - they are a private organization, after all. And I don't believe it's based on ignorance. However, the Boy Scouts are based on "morality" and many, including the Boy Scouts, believe that homosexuality is immoral. That's it, in a nutshell.

Now just one less for gay boys to hook up and be with other boys. First Catholic seminaries now the boy scouts who's next

It's the organization's right to exclude any from membership. Membership is not a right. Some of you need to realize that. This is NOT the same as seperate but equal. Spend some time investigating logical fallacies, please.

May I suggest 4-H ---- all of the leadership training, fun activities, camping and last I heard none of the discrimination that BSA seem to have with their right of "freedom of association".

i agree.. we have so many people who hurt kids now a days if i found out a cub scout leader of ours was gay i would make my son quit just to be safe. i dont care how many people hate what i said...im being honest

To all the people, who comment and suffer from homophobia, I hope that the nearest and closest kid to you comes out of the closet. Discrimination is discrimination. The main reason why this straight guy, nor his son, will ever join an organization who looks down and shut out people of a different culture. It only teaches our children to judge.

A private club should be able to chose who their members are. If their choice is to ban a segment of the population based on their religious or "moral" ideology, they should have the freedom to do so. They also have the freedom of reaping what they sew. I.E. fewer members since it is by and large viewed as a discriminatory practice. I don't agree with it, but I defend their right to make up their club of whomever they choose. I can't stand to hear Howard Stern speak, but I'll defend his right to be a vocal idiot all the same. Here's a question. Why would anyone want to be part of an organization that they disagree with? If you don't like their policy, join something else...or here's a novel idea....Start you OWN club. Everyone has this attitude now of "change how you do things to suit me personally" instead of making the effort to start their own group or business or whatever the case may be.

They feel it wrong to be gay.....so do normal people....it't not normal to be gay

It's discrimination. Do all the homophobes realize that child molester's are mainly straight, white males? This is ridiculous in this day and age! Would you feel the same if they were banning blacks? Indian's? Etc??????

Cut off all federal funding!

They feel it's their right to believe in 'ignorance'...so do 'normal' people...
I guess that's where the old adage comes from 'ignorance is bliss'...

Alma:
The Boy Scouts don't get Federal funding. It's a non-profit organization. They are funded by donations.

Actually, with the number of editors constantly working on Wikipedia, it is in fact an excellent factual source. Using the references at the bottom of the page can help you delve deeper into a subject. Your complete hand-swipe dismissal of the site restates a common misconception repeated so often it must be true, right? Now, let's apply that same logic on all topics we post. Makes it hard for me to take your commentary seriously, because you don't work hard enough to separate fact from fiction.

I don't understand why people waste their breath on banning gays. You can be who you want to be. Gays can be who they want to be. What is trying to be accomplished, all gays should go straight? It's not that easy. I'm not saying anyone has to change their views. I'm saying that it's an unnecessary ban.

Homosexual definition: relating to or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex.
Heterosexual definition: relating to or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the opposite sex.
Even though Sandusky was heterosexual in that he was married and fathered children you cannot deny that homosexuality was involved when he preyed on young boys. Also you can look it up that percentage-wise more sexual crimes are committed against children by homosexuals than heterosexuals.
There is no way to protect a child 24/7 on a camping trip. It is much better to be safe rather than sorry later.

Over 90% of sex crimes commited against children are by males. Up to 1/3 of all sex crimes commited against children are committed against boys as opposed to girls. Since homosexuals are 3-5% of the population but are committing 1/3 of the sex crimes against children, homosexual men are molesting boys at rates grossly disproportionate to the rates that heterosexual men are molesting girls. In addition many homosexual activists consider the defense of "boy-lovers" to be a legimate gay rights issue. Also much gay literature promotes "intergenerational intimacy".
I will protect my children the old fashioned way, keeping them away from perverts.

I can understand certain points & have similar views to DC Dale and 2 Cents Free. People can feel how they want to feel about things & private organizations can have their own policies. What disappoints me is that Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are seen as American institutions that most people would agree teach children & teens good skills, some of them being social in nature. They give children something constructive to belong to & keep them positively occupied. I was a Girl Scout & reflect very fondly on my experiences. Many of the hobbies, interests, activities & skills I enjoy as an adult were cultivated through my various experiences. I am all for people starting new organizations, but ones with a history as rich as Boy Scouts & Girl Scouts aren't just born overnight. I would imagine the two years it took to finalize this ban would be less time than it would take to develop a solid foundation & following for a brand new national youth program to take flight. I definitely can't believe people still think being gay is a choice and immoral, but I guess I have "freedom of association" to avoid such people. Some of the attitudes associated with the comments on this thread remind me of the "gay panic" currently under scrutiny in Australia. Just because a person is gay doesn't mean they are a child molester or rapist. The underlying problem here is that people are under-educated. Would Baden Powell agree with the recent decision? http://www.scouting.org/filestore/pdf/quotes.pdf

The NAACP does not ban Caucasians/whites, many are members and have been since it's inception (to Tolerance is not acceptance??????).

Earl, you're kidding right, equating eating a lobster with homosexual sex. By the way God took us off the hook for eating shellfish in Acts 10: 11-15. Look it up and feel better about yourself.

We will respectively agree to disagree. Guess we will have to wait until we get to the Pearly Gates to see if God equates eating a lobster to homosexual sex.

I remember when teachers were talking to me about that dusty 2000 year old book of fables that some other dude was at the pearly gates, I think his name was Peter which makes me wonder why that maitre d in the sky is slang for a phallic symbol.

So, declaration of heterosexuality is a requirement to join BSA, or do they just presume one is heterosexual? Are they afraid someone's "gayness" is going to rub off and contaminate the straight (presumed) members? A persons sexuality is their own private business, just as is someone's religious or political preferences. Would a Taoist or a Democrat be excluded from membership? As for the appearance of being heterosexual, I'll bet BSA would have welcomed a fine, upstanding, prominent, "straight" man like Jerry Sandusky into the BSA fold.

The argument that the scouts ought not to take taxpayer money has actually already been settled by a federal court. Although the BSA has a discriminatory policy, a policy I don’t agree with, they are not considered a religious organization and thus the state would not be forbidden from supporting them if a majority in the lawmaking and executive positions wish to support them. http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2012/07/23/boy-scouts-equal-but-some-not-welcome/

Many people still believe there is a God who is the ultimate judge. There is a moral code that He has left with us. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, stealing etc are all defined as immoral behavior. It is unfortunate that people have become so hardened to equate homosexuality on the same level as a person's race. People who 'support' homosexuality are doing these people caught up in this lifestyle no favors. Just take the physical act of male sex - it leads to disease, it is wrong and it is immoral. The Scouts have chosen to follow the God of the Bible for their moral foundation versus the god of Political Correctness which is based upon moral relativism.

Tomorrow is eat at Chick-fil-A day!

Agree with their decision. They have a right to not allow anyone in their association that do not agree with. Even though the main stream media leads you to believe that everyone approves of their lifestyles, if I recall 32 states voted on gay marriage 32 voted against it. If the gay population contracts the large majority of aids cases and lesbians are virtually exempt from aids so that leaves less than 1% to get the vast majority of the HIV virus. Something is not quite with that statistic or maybe its the lifestyle.

Additionally, you confuse sexual orientation with lifestyle. The lifestyle that leads to disease transmission is one that includes high risk behavior and multiple partners. Again, more straight people than gay people lead such a lifestyle, and usually during their younger years. As people mature, many realize the risks involved and change to a monogamous lifestyle and learn safe sex practices. Marriage encourages fidelity and commitment, while denial of marriage equality discourages that. Many gay people lead committed, monogamous lifestyles, just as do some straight people.

While a private organization like the scouts can discriminate against whoever they choose, there is no scientific justification nor legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of equal legal rights, as required by the constitution.

Aids which used to be known as GRIDS (gay related immune deficiency syndrome) before political correctness arrived is a common byproduct of male on male intercourse. Unfortunately, this disease has now found its way into the hetersexual population due to blood transfusion, dirty needles, bisexual activity, etc.
Hiv/Aids is still primarily a male homosexual event.

"Sexual orientation is irrelevant." Believe whatever you want, but the data does not support your conclusion.

2% of the population ie.. (Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men) account for 49% of the people living with HIV.

You really believe just because homosexual men are "married", they will not engage in queer sex outside their marriage. Then please explain why states that allow gays to marry have higher rates of HIV amoung homosexuals compared to states like Missouri that bans homosexual marriage. Homosexuals are perverts and if they didn't have the morals of alley cats, the HIV problem wouldn't nearly be the crises it is today.

- In 2010 MSM (Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men) accounted for 61% of HIV diagnoses. In the USA, sexual orientation related to AIDS infection is very relevant regardless of your incessant spin attempts.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/resources/factsheets/us_overview.htm

- It is not predominantly a young persons disease either. As a matter of fact, ages 30-54 of AIDS infections comprise 70% of all 2009 AIDS infections. Shouldn't they know better by age 30?
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#hivaidsexposure

- Cumulative Estimated # of AIDS Diagnoses, Through 2009:
Male-to-male sexual contact 529,908 (2% of the population)
Heterosexual contact 198,820
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#plwha

You can continue to blather and opine your political agenda, but it does not change the data.

…and now it looks like the Boy Scouts of America have reversed their decision. Now how does the BSA cheering section feel? Patch readers want to know…

The previous comment was removed due to an inappropriate video.