.

Gay Mom Jennifer Tyrell and Boy Scouts of America

Tyrrell wants to participate in Boy Scouts with her son and she's gained national attention trying to change the BSA policy banning gay leaders and scouts, so that others can too.

Southern California is home to tens of thousands of boy scouts, located in most cities. If estimates are correct and up to 10% of the population is gay, this topic impacts our readers. Patch welcomes opposing views, so join our conversation in comments.

Jennifer Tyrrell does not want to tear down the Boy Scouts of America, she just wants her family to be able to participate “without feeling like second class citizens.” As she talks about it, she gets really emotional, but mostly she sounds like a down-to-earth mom who spends Saturday doing laundry.

Her love for Scouts is part of what compels her to keep going. She says her main message is that, “whether you are gay or straight, or black or white, take that out of the equation and just try to imagine how it would feel to wake up in the morning and feel that you are not as good as other people.

"Can you imagine," she adds, "to be told that you are not good enough to participate in your child’s life? I hope nobody has to feel that.”

A few days ago I spoke with Tyrrell to find out what is happening with her nationwide petition that asks Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to change their policy prohibiting gay scouts and gay scout leaders.

Jen Tyrrell lives in Ohio with her partner Alicia Burns and their four kids. When one of her sons wanted to join the Boy Scouts she was unsure about it, but she wanted her son to have the same experiences and advantages that his little friends would have. So she signed him up with the local pack, chartered through The Church of God, and was asked to volunteer to be the den leader.

The boys in the den had a great year as Tiger Cubs and advanced to the Wolf level. In just one year that her son was a scout, Jen could see a change. “It made him a better little boy. It made me a better person in a lot of ways too. I love love love scouting!”

She told the boys she would take them all the way to Eagle Scouts if they wanted. Her sexual orientation not once came up - never mentioned, never discussed.

Then Jen Tyrrell volunteered to do some accounting for the pack, since she is trained and the treasurer had recently stepped down. The pack was bouncing checks and she uncovered some bookkeeping discrepancies. Suddenly her sexual orientation became an issue for her local pack. On the day that she was scheduled to make a financial report, she got a call from the local council office. The woman on the other end of the phone was in tears and told her she was sorry but she was being relieved of her duties as a den leader. The council representative went on to say that she did not agree with the policy. Within the week her membership was revoked based on her sexual orientation. Jen Tyrrell was shocked.

Most of us learned about Jen Tyrrell from the Change.org petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/boy-scouts-of-america-reinstate-cub-scout-leader-who-was-removed-for-being-gay?gclid=CK-t1tXKq7ECFSUbQgodYCIAVA), which she launched in April this year, asking BSA to end their policy prohibiting gay scouts and gay leaders. The petition now has well over 300,000 signatures and is still live and active on the Change.org website. She encourages supporters to keep signing and leaving comments in the hope that the swell of support will help convince the BSA to change their policy. She says she will not take the petition down until they win.

That is the way Jen talks these days. Her life is a lot busier than it was before this controversy came into her home. It is a little ironic, she says, because public speaking is not her forte. In fact, she failed a public speaking course in high school because she was afraid to speak in front of a class of 20 students. But that changed when she had something to say, something really important to her and her family.

"I have dealt with a lot of things in my life, but I have never been compelled to speak out before." Since her petition gained nationwide support and notoriety, she has been traveling around the country to promote it. She rode in the New York City Gay Pride Parade in June, sitting next to George Takei, Star Trek’s Mr. Sulu and an outspoken advocate for gay rights. In San Francisco she received recognition from GLAAD for her work on this issue. While she was on stage, her children played backstage with Diana Agron, another gay rights advocate and star of the television show Glee. What a difference a petition makes!

Last week, on July 13, Jennifer and her family traveled to the Boy Scouts of America headquarters in Dallas, Texas to deliver her petition (http://www.change.org/petitions/boy-scouts-of-america-reinstate-cub-scout-leader-who-was-removed-for-being-gay) along with transcripts of comments from supporters. She brought the comments because she wants the BSA to see that there really is support from within the organization to change the policy. The first comment you read on the petition website is written by Jen’s partner, Alicia Burns. Her words are eloquent and heartfelt. Her comments end with, “Together, we CAN be heard, and it is now our hope to shape the future with not only the 12 Core Values of Scouting, but with acceptance as well.” The message the Ohio couple is trying to send is that they do love the values that the Scouts stand for and they think there is room for all, that bigotry does not hold a place in scouting.

The reception Jen received in Dallas was cool and cordial. But she was happy to even get in the door. Up until this point, the BSA had “repeatedly refused” her phone calls. Apparently the BSA has a committee to review policy matters but nobody knows who the committee members are. Many are calling this a “secret committee” and are demanding that Scouts and others have a right to know who is making these final decisions. The BSA is refusing to reveal the names of committee members. According to Jen, the BSA says they have research to prove that gay participation would be harmful. But they will not produce the research either. This response is hard to accept when it is clear, by the overwhelming number of responses from past gay scouts and annecdotal reports, that many gays do participate actively in Scouting.

Jen joins a growing number of Scouts and BSA supporters calling for change. Eagle Scout Zachary Walls gained national recognition last year when he delivered a speech to the Iowa House of Representatives supporting the right to marry for gay citizens. He was raised by two mothers and is proud of his family; his youtube video of his speech went viral. More recently, executive board members of the Boy Scouts of America, Ernst & Young CEO James Turley and AT&T CEO Randall Stephenson, have made public their view that prohibition against gays should be changed. Some local troops are sending their own letters to BSA headquarters encouraging change as well.

The Boy Scouts of America have attended to this issue with some serious due process in the past. They have legally defended the right to exclude and discriminate against gays to the highest court. In 2000 a New Jersey scout leader took his case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court (Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale)

In a press release from the ACLU on June 28, 2000 the decision was called “damaging but limited.” (http/::www.aclu.org:content:us-supreme-court-ruling-boy-scouts-can-discriminate-damaging-limited-aclu-says) Well, the severity of the damages probably depends on whom you ask. If you are one of the many Boy Scouts or parents of Boy Scouts who happen to be gay, then the decision was probably devastating and confusing. Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote that the Scouts had a right to express their views against lesbians and gay men and being forced to accept openly gay leaders would hamper that right. Furthermore, he declared that lesbians and gay men make a statement by their very existence.

Nobody is denying that the Boy Scouts do some great things for boys, their families and their communities, and that is probably why it has blown up into such a huge issue. By many accounts, Boy Scouts is an integral part of childhood for millions of boys and their families, and has been for a hundred years. But they insist on inserting a set of policies that seem to go against the dogma they teach to boys. One of the methods touted in their literature as a way towards these core values identifies “family involvement” as a primary tenet of scouting:
4. Family involvement: Family involvement is an essential part of Cub Scouting. When we speak of parents or families, we are not referring to any particular family structure. Some boys live with two parents, some live with one parent, some have foster parents, and some live with other relatives or guardians. Whomever a boy calls his family is his family in Cub Scouting.


Taken from the Boy Scouts of America website, http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/CubScouts/Leaders/DenLeaderResources/DenandPackMeetingResourceGuide/Overview.aspx

So how do the Scouts get to this place where literally thousands of scouts, former scouts, scout leaders and scout families are denied the privilege to participate? The Boy Scouts say they are a private organization and that it is their prerogative. The BSA is often connected very closely to church organizations, and they do also have a policy prohibiting atheists from participating. As with Jen Tyrrell’s pack, many packs meet in church buildings. The Supreme Court upheld the right of the Scouts to express their belief that gays and atheists do not fit with their values. Freedom of religion and speech are foundational beliefs of our nation. However, sometimes those freedoms are limited when they are exercised in a manner that violates the civil rights of others (as with racial and ethnic segregation, or sexual harassment). It is a fragile balance at best.

The thing is that Boy Scouts use public facilities and resources all the time. They hold pack meetings in public schools, they lease public buildings for activities, and they send home literature about scouting with public school children. They have become synonymous with good and correct behavior of boys and young men in America. But they are a private organization. Yes, many religious groups rent public facilities, but they are not usually seeking to communicate with our boys on a regular basis. Those religious groups are not part of American lore and they do not give out honors that college applicants proudly report on applications.

Revisiting this Supreme Court decision might not be such a bad idea. It happens (Loving vs, Virgina 1967 removed prohibitions on inter-racial marriage). The Boy Scouts have changed in the past. They could change now, although it may be with much acrimony. When the first troop of African American boys was founded in 1911, there was initially opposition. Today there are scouts of every ethnicity participating around the world. The Supreme Court might make a different ruling too, if the issue ever makes it back there. As times change, so do the decisions of our highest court and our grandest institutions, once in a great while.

Tell us in comments, do you agree with Jennifer?

If you would like to support Jennifer in her efforts, she asks that you go to www.indiegogo.com/jennifertyrrell

Shripathi Kamath July 29, 2012 at 02:42 AM
The Boy Scouts is a private organization. While people may consider its behavior prejudicial and discriminatory, they are quite clear about who they allow in their ranks. The SCOTUS has ruled (correctly, in my opinion) that they have that right to prevent atheists and homosexuals from the ranks in either membership or leadership. As long as they are not getting any taxpayer funding, and no, use of public school property with permission does not constitute that since, such facilities are available to many organizations. (more on this later) I think it is fine to protest them, but suing to make them allow whom they do not want is pointless. They do not want atheists or homosexuals to be leaders, say so clearly, and are not required to do anything different constitutionally. Many Christian churches will not perform gay weddings even if their state allows it. Are we force them to do so using the Constitution? Can't. Likewise with the BSA. So there ends the matter. It'd seem that if enough parents whose kids belonged to the BSA. were to pressure their organization they might see a change. Enough of them do not. Why not spend time creating a parallel, more inclusive organization? If enough people were so inclined, they would support such an organization. Why subject yourself or your kid to such indignity of making him belong to an organization most of whose members think you are a second class human being, and if not, they are certainly silent?
Shripathi Kamath July 29, 2012 at 02:57 AM
"The thing is that Boy Scouts use public facilities and resources all the time. They hold pack meetings in public schools, they lease public buildings for activities, and they send home literature about scouting with public school children." Yes, and this is problematic, how? "They have become synonymous with good and correct behavior of boys and young men in America." That is good marketing. It should be challenged with these counterexamples. It is not "good or correct behavior" to exclude people based solely on their sexuality or their religious affiliation/lack thereof in supposedly communitarian organizations. Like we do with the Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK, Augusta National, ... and this month Chic-fil-A. Like the BSA which supposedly does good things, the head of the WBC, Fred Phelps also did good things in the 60s and 70s representing African Americans causes. He was so recognized by the NAACP. "But they are a private organization." That is the bottom line. "Yes, many religious groups rent public facilities, ... college applicants proudly report on applications. " No one is holding a gun to our heads to recognize them as saints. Let colleges to remind them that the BSA is a discriminatory organization. I will note that the outrage over them similarly excluding atheists is missing. No not in this article, that is not expected, but generally.
John B. Greet July 29, 2012 at 03:12 AM
"Why subject yourself or your kid to such indignity of making him belong to an organization most of whose members think you are a second class human being..." As opposed to the indignity of being asked to serve as a Den Leader, serving well and faithfully in that and other capacities afterward, only to have someone note and take exception to your (gasp) sexual orientation and, so, be summarily dismissed on that basis alone? No allegation of improper behavior toward or in the presence of any of the members. Just a slightly more polite version of: "You're a girl who likes other girls, we can't have your kind around here." Yes, SCOTUS has ruled that the Scouts (as a private organization) can discriminate against those they feel do not meet their moral standards. Yes, the Scouts *can* legally discriminate. That's not really the question, though. The question is, *should* they? Should they -as an organization that values principles such as "Citizenship", "Compassion", "Cooperation", and "Respect" and in which discussions about sex, sexual preference, or sexual orientation have no proper place- trouble themselves with the sexual orientation of *any* of of their members or leaders? I do not think they should and I, for one, am *very* pleased to note that Jennifer Tyrrell, reluctant though she may be, is standing up and doing what she can to bring attention to this clear double-standard in the policies and principles of the BSA.
Shripathi Kamath July 29, 2012 at 03:33 AM
"As opposed to the indignity of being asked to serve as a Den Leader, serving well and faithfully in that and other capacities afterward, only to have someone note and take exception to your (gasp) sexual orientation and, so, be summarily dismissed on that basis alone?" No, as opposed to not even joining the BSA. There is no indignity in teaching your kid that you should not belong to a private organization that discriminates. Not just against homosexuals, but also against atheists. In fact, that is A Good Thing to teach your kid. "Yes, SCOTUS has ruled that the Scouts (as a private organization) can discriminate against those they feel do not meet their moral standards. Yes, the Scouts *can* legally discriminate. That's not really the question, though." More than that, it isn't a question at all. "Should they -as an organization that values principles such as "Citizenship", "Compassion", "Cooperation", and "Respect" and in which discussions about sex, sexual preference, or sexual orientation have no proper place- trouble themselves with the sexual orientation of *any* of of their members or leaders?" It is *their* choice to be that way. It is not a question of "should they". They already are.
John B. Greet July 29, 2012 at 03:59 AM
"No, as opposed to not even joining the BSA." Agreed, but that is not what happened here. Tyrrell's son had already been a member in scouting for over a year, she had served as a leader for the same period of time. Someone chose to take ex post facto exception to her sexual orientation. This is not just and I submit it is more than right to bring national attention to this injustice and to call into question the discrimination and hypocrisy of a national organization that so blatantly practices both. "More than that, it isn't a question at all." Yes, actually, it is. Many who are not familiar with the SCOTUS ruling are asking that very question, and then receiving an answer. Perhaps what you meant to say is that it isn't a question at all for *you*? "It is *their* choice to be that way. It is not a question of "should they". They already are." Shripathi, at one time they were also an organization in which existed opposition to black kids. Should the less discriminatory folks of *that* day declined to question or challenge that just because the organization "chose to be that way" and because that's just the way the organization "already" was? I sincerely hope you would agree with me that it is very good that someone was willing to challenge the BSA then. To your mind, what's the difference now?
John B. Greet July 29, 2012 at 04:27 AM
I don't think this would assist Jennifer Tyrrell since the Scouts are a private organization, but in many States, volunteers are protected under various State and local government anti-discrimination policies. Placer County, CA, for example, has included volunteers in their "Policy Against Workplace Discrimination, Harassment & Retaliation": "The County of Placer will not tolerate discrimination, harassment, or retaliation, as defined in this policy, of an employee, job applicant, volunteer, or person providing services pursuant to a contract, by an employee, supervisor, management employee, elected official, contractor or member of the public, on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, disability, medical condition, marital status, pregnancy, sexual orientation, sex, including gender, or age." http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=workplace%20discrimination%20and%20volunteer%20and%20california&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.placer.ca.gov%2F~%2Fmedia%2Fceo%2Friskman%2FWorkplace%2520Discrimination%2520Harassment%2520%2520%2520Retaliation.ashx&ei=IrgUULzpGIH48gST4oDgAw&usg=AFQjCNFkaquN77rL-Gbn3CqOsWoV9Dst4Q Again, this is a public (government) organization, but it's nice to see them recognize that volunteers, while not technically employees, still deserve protection against discrimination.
Shripathi Kamath July 29, 2012 at 05:54 AM
"Agreed, but that is not what happened here. " Perhaps next time you'll just ask "As opposed to what?" Nahh... ""More than that, it isn't a question at all. - me" Yes, actually, it is - JG" It isn't. There is no question in "Yes, SCOTUS has ruled that the Scouts (as a private organization) can discriminate against those they feel do not meet their moral standards. Yes, the Scouts *can* legally discriminate. " "Shripathi, at one time they were also an organization in which existed opposition to black kids." Yes, just like Augusta National today is in 'opposition' to women. And at one point only wanted black caddies or some such nonsense. "Should the less discriminatory folks of *that* day declined to question or challenge that just because the organization "chose to be that way" and because that's just the way the organization "already" was?"' Ah, you seem to be confusing my stated opinion that the BSA is prejudicial and discriminatory and should be protested against like one protests against the WBC, the KKK, the Chik-fil-A, to mean that I am not aware that they are discriminatory and should not be challenged. IOW I am 'gins "Revisiting this Supreme Court decision might not be such a bad idea." "I sincerely hope you would agree with me that it is very good that someone was willing to challenge the BSA then." Hope for whatever you wish I had said instead of what I actually did.
Shripathi Kamath July 29, 2012 at 06:11 AM
Placer County seems to have the best intentions for people, commendable even, but I can see some clever, determined attorney representing a not-so-nice group sue them for protecting non-employees some day. Like the UN a couple of years ago when they dropped protections for gays against executions. Almost sure some state did something similar recently, but it escapes me right now. If we want to show support for Jennifer Tyrrell, I think we should get our kids out of BSA, a discriminating organization. Or contribute to her or someone else forming a parallel, more inclusive organization. I will definitely send such a cause something. As to her wanting to change the rules at BSA itself when a seeming majority of the members do not want her in their private org., to that I simply say, good luck.
John B. Greet July 29, 2012 at 07:15 AM
"Perhaps next time you'll just ask 'As opposed to what?'" Perhaps next time you'll note the question mark at the end of another's sentence, and afford the person the simple courtesy of allowing them to ask their own questions, in their own fashion? Nahh... "It isn't. There is no question in..." Petty rhetorical games, Shripathi. You should be above resorting to them. "Yes, just like Augusta National today is in 'opposition' to women. And at one point only wanted black caddies or some such nonsense." Loosely translated: "We can't convince them all so we shouldn't attempt to convince any", is that it? Sorry, Shripathi. My cynicism runs deep, but not that deep. In that, if in no other way, you surpass me. "Ah, you seem to be confusing my stated opinion...to mean that I am not aware that they are discriminatory and should not be challenged." You are mistaken. Still, if you are against re-visiting that SCOTUS decision concerning the BSA, I can agree with you. Private organizations should have a constitutional right to be as prejudicial and bigotted as they like. Just as those who disagree have a constitutional right to speak out in opposition or, as Jen Tyrrell has done, to attempt to organize others and petition such organizations to change. True? "Hope for whatever you wish I had said instead of what I actually did." I had hoped you would agree with me, which was what I actually said. A simple "no" might have sufficed.
John B. Greet July 29, 2012 at 07:36 AM
"Like the UN a couple of years ago when they dropped protections for gays against executions." In my view, the U.N. is a sham and has been for many decades. Still, it cannot confer "protection" upon anyone with the non-binding vote of an assembly that does not include all nations so, conversely, it cannot "drop protections" for the very same reason. "If we want to show support for Jennifer Tyrrell..." I think "we" should be able to confront prejudice and bigotry in multiple ways simultaneously. Fighting for fairness and equality for our LGBT community -in any area- need not be a single front war, nor a single tactic strategy. I suspect there may be quite a few parents who are now removing their kids from Scouting over this, just as there are quite a few people signing Jen Tyrrell's petition, just as there are quite a few former now-adult Eagle Scouts who are returning their badges to the BSA with very well-written letters accompanying them. I think all of these efforts (and, no doubt many of which we are not aware) are worthy and none need be dismissed or discounted. I have seen no evidence that "a seeming majority of the members do not want (Jen Tyrrell) in their private org." Perhaps if the entire BSA membership, or even the entire Council, or even District, Tyrrell had been volunteering with were asked, the vote may well have been in her favor. To my knowledge, no such vote has been called. I wonder why that might be?
SAS July 29, 2012 at 12:38 PM
You hit the nail on the head! It is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. As such, they can have their own rules and regulations. Join the group but keep your personal (sexual) business to yourself! Join it don't join it. Its a wonderful activity for boys to do boy stuff and learning from men and other boys. Help, don't help, but SHUT UP about your sexual orientation. Geez, I am not interested in that. If you are a good person, great - help out. Otherwise, start your own group.
John B. Greet July 29, 2012 at 03:03 PM
SAS: Please read the article. Either that or re-read it with deeper understanding. Jennifer Tyrrell did "keep (her) personal [sexual] business to (her)self" and she did "SHUT UP about (her) sexual orientation." Tyrrell did not raise this issue at all, she merely responded to it. By all acounts, she, her son, and the kids she was leading were doing just fine. If anyone in the organization was aware of her sexual orientation, no one seemed to mind. Then "...she uncovered some bookkeeping discrepancies. Suddenly her sexual orientation became an issue for her local pack." How...convenient.
Joker Joe July 30, 2012 at 01:39 PM
SAS Better get use to having this gay issue rammed down your throat. Since Obama proclaimed that gay marriages are the way. Gay is the way and don't you stray!!!
Joker Joe July 30, 2012 at 01:40 PM
John That is the way it should be . Hide it. Why put the burden on the other 99% to accept it?
Joker Joe July 30, 2012 at 01:42 PM
I love my cat. Why can't I marry her? What does Obama have to say about that?
Seth Eaker July 30, 2012 at 02:29 PM
John, you continue to impress me with you logic, reflection and thoughtful contributions to Patch discussions. Thank you for being part of a a reasonable, rational dialogue. "A rising tide lifts all boats," and your elevation of nearly every conversation to which you contribute, unlike some, encourages healthy and diverse engagement. Thank you. For the record, I agree with your analysis of this issue, both as a citizen and a member of the LGBT community. I too support Jennifer Tyrrell for her reluctant activism. She too, has refused to quietly get up from her seat on the bus and demanded to be acknowledged for her humanity and basic value as a contributing citizen to the scouts.
TVOR July 30, 2012 at 03:20 PM
http://temecula.patch.com/articles/gay-mom-jennifer-tyrell-and-boy-scouts-of-america#youtube_video-10735618
John B. Greet July 30, 2012 at 06:16 PM
You are most kind, Seth. I do try (not always with success) to remain civil and to make arguments in as dispassionate, reasonable, and logical a manner as possible. I am the first to admit that there are many folks I can learn much from about a good many things. I am, in fact, very anxious to do so. For me -as a former scout and scout leader, and with kids who have been scouts- the BSA question is a simple one: "As an organization designed to help teach and develop our youth, should the BSA discriminate against either members or leaders solely on the basis of sexual orientation?" This is a far different question from "*Can* the BSA do so?" for clearly, from a legal standpoint, it can. But *should* it? My answer is a clear and unequivocal "no." There is no place in the BSA for discussions or concerns about sexual orientation among its members at all, gay *or* straight. Likewise there is no place in the BSA for inappropriate sexual conversations or behaviors among its leaders at all, gay *or* straight. If the BSA is following those appropriate restrictions, the sexual orientation of members or leaders should not even be a concern...it should not come up in *any* context...and if it does, those who bring it up should be quickly admonished that such topics are not appropriate for their organization. If some people continue to bring it up, it is *they* who should be asked to leave, not sincere and dedicated volunteer adult leaders like Jen Tyrrell.
Breech July 31, 2012 at 01:42 PM
Why can't my 15 year old son join the girl scouts? Folks,we are all sexual creatures to our core.Sex will be an issue.It will not be kept private.This is why gays are excluded from the scouts and should be from the military.
John B. Greet July 31, 2012 at 03:51 PM
Breech: By your standards, there should be no Scouting program (Girl or Boy) at all. By your standards, there should be no military at all. If we agree that sexual activity -of any sort- has nothing to do with the mission and the purpose of Scouting, then why are you...and Scouting itself...only excluding gays? Why not straights as well? Sexual activity is sexual activity, regardless of type, and is not appropriate in the context of Scouting. So how about we just exclude/discriminate against/punish folks -gay *and* straight- who engage in conduct or comments related to sexual activity within a Scouting program and otherwise keep our judgmental noses out of the personal business of others? How about that?
John B. Greet August 01, 2012 at 09:55 PM
Bo Bo: Why should the LGBT folks hide who they are? Do straights hide who *they* are? Why -in an organization that has no programming or activities related to sexual activity or sexual orientation in either direction- must anyone even make this an issue either way? If a person makes their orientation an issue, then such people are wrong and should be asked to leave Scouting. That's not what happened here. According to this story Jen Tyrrell made no issue of her sexual orientation, someone *else* did that. I think it was the person who made an issue of it who should have been asked to leave the program, not Jen Tyrrell.
Sonny Barger August 22, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Next thing you know transvestites and cross dressers will want to get into scouting. I guess the scouts are not like the Hollywood version of modern family that are shoved down our throats every week. Sorry this has nothing to do with civil rights. If you don't like how scouting is run, it's too bad for you, Boo Hoo!. Sony B. Eagle Scout 1985
John B. Greet August 22, 2012 at 02:44 PM
"Next thing you know transvestites and cross dressers will want to get into scouting." Sonny, if it is true you actually earned your Eagle, then I am stunned that you learned so little about tolerance, civility, and mutual respect while achieving that high honor. I would venture to guess that there may be at least a few transvestites and closeted cross-dressers currently serving as adult leaders in Scouting. And? So long as these leaders are not inserting their personal sexual preferences into their Scouting curriculum, who cares? All Scouts and Scout Leaders have to wear the approved Scout uniforms in the approved manner do they not? *Any* discussion of sex or sexual activity (gay or straight) is entirely inapproriate in Scout activities, is it not? So what's truly the issue, other than your personal prejudice and ignorance, of course? Our military has finally been able to rise above that. Girls Scouting has been able to rise above that? Our government and so many other aspects of our society have been able to rise above that sort of prejudice and ignorance. Perhaps it is time for you to try to also?
Joker Joe August 22, 2012 at 02:53 PM
It will soon be called the bisexual scouts.
Seth Eaker August 22, 2012 at 03:04 PM
I concur with John Greet again. He may be right about those who participate in Scouting. Excluding others for arbitrary reasons when they don't bring a personal agenda into the organization seems against the very nature of the evolution of our society. As a young man who also was a Scout, I found it to be a excellent foundation into self reliance and wilderness experiences. I would hope that we continue to rise above the ridiculous "moral indignation" of the self-righteous few.
Honey West September 05, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Letting Gay's into Scouting. Would be like letting the fox in the hen house.
Joana Mar October 02, 2012 at 05:41 AM
That is really scary. Next thing I'll know, my straight boy would come back home from a camp and tell me some disgusting stories about his "fellow" gay boys scouts who joined the scouts only to find partners. Parents should make sure no gay scouts are aloud, parents or kids! We are trying to raise our kids into fine men, that is the whole purpose of scouting!
Donna Burns January 16, 2013 at 04:20 AM
Is it me or does it seem as though gays are ALWAYS trying to interject their sexual preferences/practices into forums/conversations ? Funny, you really don't see straight people/parents trying to steer the topic to THEIR sex lives ??!!!??!!!
John B. Greet January 16, 2013 at 04:33 AM
No, Donna, it's you...
Seth Eaker January 16, 2013 at 04:38 AM
Sorry Donna, it is just you.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something