Perry Fights Letting Gays in Boy Scouts

Compassionate conservative or just a bigot? Perhaps som,e elements of both.

Indeed, the former presidential candidate and current governor has stated that the Boy Scouts, which he is a former member, should exclude gay members. Not leaders, but members. Perhaps he thinks being gay is a big, divine oops.

I am trying to think of why an organization that is supposed to teach children morals, leadership, and character should ignore those three things in favor of nonsensical discrimination. But for the life of me, it seems that Perry's suggestion seems the antithesis of what the Boy Scouts allegedly stands for. Be fine, upstanding young men and make sure that anyone different than you in any way you exclude.

So what are children supposed to take away form Perry's suggestion? That being gay is bad? That the Boy Scouts and their alleged morality (yes, I actually did smirk while typing that) is nothing more than lip service? Because it sure seems to me that Perry is espousing nothing more than ignorance here.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/us/rick-perry-opposes-opening-boy-scouts-to-gays.html

AUSTIN, Tex. (AP) — Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said emphatically Saturday that the Boy Scouts of America should not soften its strict policy barring gay members, and dismissed the idea of bending the organization to the whims of “popular culture.”

Mr. Perry, the country’s longest-serving governor, is an Eagle Scout, and in 2008 he wrote the book “On My Honor: Why the American Values of the Boy Scouts Are Worth Fighting For.” It detailed his deep love for the organization and explained why it should continue to embrace traditional conservative values — including excluding openly gay members and leaders.

The governor spoke at the Texas Scouts’ 64th annual Report to State, where hundreds of scouts from across the state filled the State House of Representatives to announce their delegations’ recent accomplishments. Mr. Perry had addressed the gathering several times before, most recently in 2010.

The Scouts’ national leadership announced last week that it was considering ending the mandatory exclusion of gay members. The group could allow different religious and civic groups that sponsor Scout units to decide for themselves whether to maintain the exclusion or open up their membership.

Even though the Boy Scouts reaffirmed the policy just seven months ago, the proposal is expected to be discussed, and possibly voted on, at the meeting of the Scouts’ national executive board, which will begin Monday in Irving, outside Dallas.

Mr. Perry told the youngsters that the Scouts were a key reason that he had joined the Air Force and later sought public office, and that society’s failure to adhere to the organization’s core values was a cause for high rates of teenage pregnancy and wayward youths who grow up to be “men joining their fathers in prison.”

After his address, Mr. Perry said: “Hopefully the board will follow their historic position of keeping the Scouts strongly supportive of the values that make scouting this very important and impactful organization.”

 

Equal rights for all is fine. But I wouldn't let a son join a cub pack with a gay scoutmaster because no gay man can teach a straight boy how to be a straight man. Besides, it's like letting a boy become an altar boy assisting a gay priest perform the Mass. The risk is too great.

 

Perhaps you missed the entire OP. Clearly it states that Perry is calling for banning of gay members, not leaders. As for the rest., I am not sure how "being a man" is a trait endemic to or excluded from straight or gay people.

 

Its the NOT open gays who are the predators who pose a risk to your children.

A pedophile rarely would ever let himself be branded as "gay" - too many parents cut off access.

 

And we ALL "know" gay kids will "find morals and go straight" when they are bullied, picked on, and banned by the Boy Scouts.

 

And here I thought he was against the 'over reaching' of a 'country wide governing body' that wants to control the individual cells that make up said body, when they obviously know more about the individual needs of that particular cell then the faceless overseers.

 

What 'risk'?
Are you claiming gays are pedophiles?
or are you seriously, in this day and age suggesting gays 'recruit'?

The idea that a gay man can't be a scout leader is ridiculous.

 

k, seriously, are we just gonna rehash this again? Why can't this forum combine relevant threads into one, so we don't get the same crap every time a new angle of the same story pops up?

 

Their organization, their business.

But believe me, I get it: homosexuals want more access to young boys.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't join the Boy Scouts then. I'm sure you'll find some other group to give you access to young boys. May I suggest NAMBLA?

 

The Roman Catholic priesthood was also supposed to be free of gay predators, but it wasn't. Some portion of gay guys are child predators just like some portion of straight guys are child predators. Gay predators go after little boys and straight predators go after little girls.

As the father of men who were scouts as children, I would never have allowed my sons to be accessible to someone who might prey on them.

Should gays be scout leaders if they want as a matter of equal rights? Maybe, but that is a very different question than the one faced by a parent who worries about a little boy and the risk of being accessed by possible predators.

I wouldn't let a son be an altar boy, and I wouldn't let a son be a cub scout. The risk of being accessed by predatory gays is simply too great. The threat can be completely avoided by keeping clear of the Roman Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America. Let the gay guys become priests and scout leaders...but not with my son.

 

Gay men can't teach straight young boys to be straight men, just as straight men can't teach gay young boys to be gay men. Their skills don't fit the job description.

 

The risk of predation on young boys in the cub scouts.

No, except for those who are predators.

No.

A gay man can be a scout leader or whatever he wants...but he can't have access to my sons.

- - - Updated - - -

No. Gay men want to be accepted and loved. This issue will continue until gay men are accepted and lovedd or until the world ends whichever comes first.

 

Fixed that for ya. What a person does in their bedroom is their business and should never have any impact on how the world treats them. Do unto others and all that.

 

Why did you alter my post? That's unethical. Can you explain why you did that?

 

Well considering all the troop leaders busted for pedophilia, I'd say letting them into the scouts at all is a risk....

- - - Updated - - -

really? I know your not this dense...

 

With gays as scout leaders there is now an added risk to young boys. It doesn't make sense to allow a straight young boy to be accessible to gay men. The risk can't be quantified, but it does exist.

Gays can do and be whomever they want. But they couldn't approach my sons when they were boys. I would have removed my sons from their presence. Better safe than sorry. That's the same reason I stopped taking the boys to Mass when they were little guys. The risk of contact with pedophile priests was too great.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't do it again if you are interested in discourse.

 

Pedophile scout leaders only go after boys because their aren't any girls in scouts. Whether they identify as gay or straight is irrelevant. Honestly, if their was no history of scout leaders abusing boys (at all) then I would say you have some semblance of an argument to make. But the 'supposedly' straight leaders have shown that self-identified straight people can abuse boys just as much as self-identified gay people.

Sure.

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*)... pedophiles seek access to young kids, period.

 

Nor can straight men teach gay boys to be straight. I am not sure of what your point is, especially since it has nothing to do with what Perry stated.

 

What you've said about predatory straight men as scout leaders is correct. They are a big risk for a parent.

However, there is no denying that some unknown portion of gay men acting as scout leaders will be predators. And gay men who are like that and serve in that capacity are an ADDITIONAL risk for parents.

 

Interesting logic. I see where you are coming from, but personally, there is no difference in risk. Either my (or your) kid is gonna be molested or not.

 

Gay men should have equal rights. Parents must shield their little boys from predators. Some portion of gay men who serve as scout leaders will be predators.

How does one reconcile the need for equal rights and the fear of predation? It makes sense for parents to keep their little boys out of scouting because of the additional, though unquantifiable, risk resulting from the expansion of rights for gay men.

 

One can say that the nature of the risk is not magnified by the presence of a new type of predator in the scouts, but there can be no question that the nature of the risk has not been quantified at this moment in history. When a risk can't be quantified the prudent course of action for a parent is to avoid the risk altogether. That means keeping little boys out of the scouts.

 

Again, if you read the OP, you will see that Perry was talking about members, not leaders.

 

Good for Perry. Pop culture has no right to force a private organization to change its policies. I'm tired of these PC stormtroopers running around forcing everyone to change their values. Get bent! You guys are bullies. Leave people alone and mind your own business. Isn't that what you're always saying to us? Why don't you take some of your own advice, you hypocrites.