Boy Scouts Taking Heat for Taking a Stand

The Boy Scouts of America recently affirmed their policy of excluding openly homosexual boys and leaders. The official policy reads:

While the B.S.A. does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers or members, 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 B.S.A.

Homosexual advocates have made their disgust with the policy clear, noting that the Girl Scouts and the Boys and Girls Club of America have already amended their policy to allow for openly homosexual membership.

But one really has to wonder how homosexuals and their social crusaders justify this intense desire to pressure voluntary, private organizations into endorsing the normalcy of homosexual behavior. No one is forcing anyone to join the Boy Scouts, and for all the vitriol that is being levied against them, the B.S.A. has a very reasonable defense for its policy (though they shouldn’t really need one). They claim that the membership of openly homosexual scouts or leaders would be a “distraction to the mission of the B.S.A.” And there is no doubt that it would. Girls aren’t allowed to be Boy Scouts either. Allowing sexual distractions of any kind is not conducive to the obvious purposes of the Scouts.

But when girls weren’t allowed into the Boy Scouts, do you know what they did? They made a similar organization just for girls. If it is so important for homosexual boys to go camping with their peers, perhaps they should just start the Gay Scouts of America. I’m sure their rolls would be overflowing with applicants. But this doesn’t really work, does it? The point is that homosexuals want to be “left-to-themselves-to-do-in-the-privacy-of-their-own-homes-what-doesn’t-hurt-anyone-else,” …except they can’t seem to extend that courtesy to anyone else. They want to celebrate “diversity,” while at the same time lobbying for a uniform moral code that normalizes their behavior. And if you don’t like it, they are more than willing to use social pressure to shame you into accepting their choices. And if that doesn’t work, they’ll just legislate their morality—creating “hate speech” and anti-discrimination laws to silence their opposition.

All in all, I’m glad the B.S.A. stood up for its rights. But I think the opportunity to do so is dwindling. Private organizations are not exempt anymore. More and more businesses and individuals are being taken to court for applying their personal moral standards to their private affairs. (Remember those Christian photographers in New Mexico?) If attempts to bully the Boy Scouts fail to produce the desired outcome, I would not be surprised if the homosexual lobby flexes its legislative muscles to force the Boy Scouts to change their “offensive” policy.

And for what purpose? The Boy Scouts wouldn’t be the same then. Many parents would immediately withdraw their children from it. It’s just such madness. Homosexuals want to be a part of the organization because of what it is and has been. But it also needs to change its fundamental nature in order to accommodate them? So which is it? Is it a fantastic organization they desperately want to be part of? Or is it a hate-filled, bigoted cultural dinosaur out of step with society?

I wonder what will happen if the homosexual community wins all of its political and social battles. Will they have a problem with open pedophiles becoming troop leaders? Will they join ranks with zoophiles to fight for the right to marry farm animals? No, but these things are ridiculous, right? I’m committing the slippery slope fallacy or something. Perhaps. But if you had asked people seventy years ago whether or not their grandsons should have openly homosexual Boy scout leaders… they’d have called you crazy.