Yay for them! Go Boy Scouts! Way to go for finally "getting with the program" and "evolving" past all of those old-fashioned, archaic, and oppressive standards that tied you to all of those religious nut jobs! Now our boys can be "loud and proud" about their homosexuality! It's about time the BSA caught up with the GSA, right?
Lest you not know me well, the sarcasm was dripping from that like a 3-year-old with a popsicle. For the record, I am thoroughly disgusted. I think it was the worst decision the BSA could have made, and I do believe they have alienated thousands of supporters and they may be seeing a sharp decrease in their membership as a result. This was an organization KNOWN for its adherence to strong moral values and principles. Yet what they did was cave to political and social pressure to "evolve" and make gay boys more comfortable in their ranks.
Go ahead, call me a hater. I'm used to it by now. You may as well throw around the "homophobe" label too, while you're at it, since that's the token accusation, right? After all, I'm "one of those" who believes that homosexuality is contagious like leprosy, and of course if one gay boy is allowed in, he's going to go recruiting.
Yet more sarcasm. I'm in that kind of mood tonight.
Actually, I'm not going to throw around the typical justification for my opinion. I'm not even going to bring the Bible into this at all, because sometimes, common sense just needs to speak for itself. I want to explain just why it is I'm completely appalled by the BSA's change of policy.
I have seven children, but only one boy. Way back when he was in the tender years of adolescence, while we were stationed in Germany, I volunteered to lead his Webelos den of 13 boys while their dads were almost all deployed (what was I thinking???), and even though I was stressed out most of the time, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute I spent with those boys. It also allowed me to fulfill a dream I'd had for years of "being" a Boy Scout. See, years and years ago when I was just a wee, snarky sprout, I spent a year as a Junior Girl Scout. It was horrible. They all wanted to talk about fingernails and hair and purses and "girl power", and I was the lone wolf during the troop campout who was willing to get dirty, so I made the fire, cleaned up the muddy campsite, and chased off a raccoon that got into our tent. Those girls were WAY too girly for me, and I dreamed of being a Boy Scout to do the *really* fun stuff. However, it was very matter-of-factly explained to me back then in terms I would not understand for several more years that there is a VERY good reason why there weren't any girls in the Boy Scouts nor were there boys in the Girl Scouts. I used to think it was because boys didn't want to wear those stupid berets or the silly little sock taggie things.
And then I had children, and I understood VERY well why it is that there is a clear division between the BSA and GSA. I'll not get into my issues with the Girl Scouts right now, but let's just fast forward a few years, shall we? Right now, with two (married) adult children and five little girls moving at an alarming rate toward adolescence, their father and I were faced with a predicament--we wanted our girls to have some sort of non-church, non-sport activity that both supported our own values and encouraged them to grow up to be strong young ladies ... without the co-ed nature of the church's youth group, or our homeschool group (no offense to the families of those boys, they are OUTSTANDING young men) or their karate class. Why? Why on earth would our girls need something isolated from boys?
Two words--sexual tension. Somewhere between the ages of 9 and 12, a curious thing happens to every young person--they become acutely aware that the opposite sex is very, very different, and they begin noticing that they have an awkward feeling around those "other" people. They suddenly feel self-conscious and, even if ZERO attraction exists, the tension is there that this other person might be looking at me, noticing me, staring at me, etc.
In a "safe", one-sex setting, boys are able to be boys, and girls are able to be girls. Sure, they will eventually start comparing notes, sharing the who-likes-who and how this girl/boy is cute, but not *as readily* under circumstances when their attention is being diverted toward character-building activities.
The BSA just removed that barrier. No, I'm not comparing gay boys to Girl Scouts. However, there *IS* going to be something there that wasn't there before--sexual tension. It's not supposed to be there! Our CHILDREN are supposed to have a safe haven where this kind of thing doesn't exist! They should be able to be pimply, awkward, and innocent. Now they have this added issue of a boy who is not "just" gay, but who is being encouraged to be "openly and avowed" about his sexual attraction to the boys who, up until now, had this one place they could escape that sexual tension! WHY do we have to bring sexuality into Scouting??? Why?? Last time I checked, the orienteering badge had nothing to do with gender! No, I'm not being flippant--I'm quite serious. I do not ever remember anything in my son's Scout manual about sexuality. Nothing. So WHY now do we need to be "open and avowed" with ANY kind of sexuality??? Why on earth would we be encouraging 11, 12, or 13-year-old CHILDREN to explore sexuality of any kind? I do not understand for the life of me why we Americans have this ridiculous need to be "open and avowed" with things that should be very private in nature. I know there have been homosexuals in scouting--both sides-- probably since their establishment. My question is this: Why is it suddenly necessary to make it public, especially when "exploring" one's sexual desires can have such disastrous consequences? Why can't our children just have one "safe place" that they can be children? Why do we have to strip them of their innocence and turn them into tiny adults before they're emotionally capable of handling it?