Leave Scouts alone
Leave Scouts alone
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) has been hit in recent years by many court cases related to past allegations of sexual abuse by scoutmasters. Since the BSA is an all-male (except for Cub Scout den mothers) organization, it's reasonable to conclude that the “abuses” were done by closeted homosexual males — “closeted” only because BSA official policy doesn't allow for openly gay males in that position.
And just how does the BSA national executive board plan to deal with protecting young boys in the future? By allowing openly gay scoutmasters! Utterly illogical and inane!
If you read why the corporate bigwigs from AT&T and Ernst & Young on the national board are proposing this policy change, you will see that protecting young boys from sexual abuse is not even being considered. It's all about getting more rights for gay men.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the BSA has the right to its “straight-only” policy. If the execs of the giant companies behind this push are so concerned that openly gay men can't be BSA scoutmasters, why not let them shift their funds to create a Gay Boy Scouts of America? Why mess with the BSA?
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Punishment pushback II
- Steel at stake, too
- Lawsuit: Publicity stunt
- Pedro must go
- Help for Tina
- Duty to disclose
- Oberdorf firing
- Not taxpayers’ responsibility
- Reverse red-kettle ban I
- Reverse red-kettle ban II
- Good riddance