Just in case you do not know, let me explain what I understand to be the BSA policy.
As you know, what is done in the privacy of ones own bedroom is none of anyones business as long as it occurs between two consenting ADULTS. Keeping this in mind, when a applicant for a position uder the scouting rules is KNOWN to be gay, we then exercise the right of free association and find that this is not the kind of person we want to lead our boys for a multiplicity of reasons, including liability and morality. We don't want to know what this persons bedroom antics are were or might be and the question is not asked but if we know then it stands to reason that we would not knowingly put our boys in that environment.
All this being said, why and how would we know? The answer is that the individual flaunted or makes public his sexual preferences and is therefore activist and disqualified from serving the boys. We have enough problems protecting our boys from harm due to all manner of dangers from human failings such as molestation from perverts either gay or straight. To knowingly allow a gay activist to sleep with our boys would be a travesty.
The Bedrock of Scouting Values Speech
In our pluralistic society, I find it interesting that some who champion individualism, tolerance, and diversity the loudest are the strongest critics of values that are different from their own. If pluralism ... if diversity ... if tolerance are truly important in a pluralistic society, then even though we may find fundamental disagreement with an individual or an organization, we must recognize and respect the right of that individual or organization to their opinions, their values, and their lifestyles.
Many of Scouting's critics confuse our mission and our methods. If the Boy Scouts of America was merely a recreation or social organization that taught kids how to camp, and nice things about crafts, and getting along with their neighbors, it would not have thrived for more than 90 years, nor would it deserve the support and popularity more than of 100 million alumni and members. Scouting is so much more. Scouting's mission, as an educational organization, is to provide children with fundamental values that prepare them for life. And, yes, recreation is a part of Scouting, but it is not an end in Scouting. It is merely a vehicle in which children, through a learning experience can gain the insights of values and responsible life. The essence of the Boy Scouts of America is found in our Scout Oath and Law.
The bedrock of Scouting's values is literally and figuratively ... duty to God ... "On my honor, I will do my duty to God and my country ..." To Scouting, the question is NOT: Can a person be honorable without a belief in God? Rather, our commitment is that no child can develop to his/her fullest potential without a spiritual element. The Boy Scouts of America is not a religion ... it is an organization with strong religious tenets. It is a movement that is committed to developing the entire child ... spirituality is very important in that total development. That is why we hold to duty to God. Whether it is the Judeo-Christian ethic; or a Buddhist, Protestant, Mormon, Catholic, or Native American ethic; or that of any of the other great religions of our world, the Boy Scouts of America is committed to the proposition that no child can develop to his/her fullest potential without a spiritual element in his/her life.
In looking ahead to their adult years, Scouting is in accord with the teachings of the world's great religions and is committed to the concept that sexual intimacy is the providence of a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage.
Also, consistent with the world's great religions, the Boy Scouts of America is committed to respecting the dignity of individuals or values with which we disagree. In four places in the Scout Oath and Law ... when you read the descriptive terms ... you will find comments related to respect. But, respect doesn't mean abdication of one's values. Nor does it mean the forced inclusion of others' values in your life. What it does mean is the recognition of the right of people to have opinions, values, and lifestyles other than yours and for all to be tolerant of each other's differences. When the Boy Scouts won the United States Supreme Court case, you didn't see us "celebrating in the street." The issue was not to vanquish a young man who is an inappropriate leader within Scouting. The issue was the maintenance of our constitutional right and our commitment to providing those faith-based values to our constituency in a respectful manner.
Scouting has never sought to impose its values on anyone. We welcome all who share them, and we respect the right of others to walk a different path. We don't expect everybody to agree with our standards and values ... but we do think it's fair to expect others to respect them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In Support of Values -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Boy Scouts of America http://www.bsa.scouting.org
Please don't misunderstand me: I don't question your right to hold your opinions, or to have whatever rules for admision that you think is best. All I say is, that I am not sympathetic to the underlying beliefs that lead you to these opinions. As I understand you don't feel that a gay man could properly teach your kids some fundemental values, supposedly(?) values of heterosexuality - the nucleus familly basically, and that being around gays in their childhood may increse the probability that kids grow up to be gays. This illustrates, pardon me, quite a bit of ignorance about the entire concept of being gay/homosexual. Being gay is not learned. Whether they are the result of genetics or the enviroment, I don't know, and I don't think anyone have sufficient information to know with any degree of certaincy. However, I can say that noone "recruited" me to homosexuallity - during my entire childhood I met one or two gays (that I know of), and still I grew up to become a gay man. This is IMHO the thing that has caused the most misunderstandings about gays; since we know, almost instinctivly, that there is no such thing as "gay recruting" we tend to get irritated with people who still think there is. Unfortionally this irritation leads some of us to label anyone, eg. the BSA, as homophobes or gay-haters, simply because they are yet suspicious about gays. Ironically this behaviour tends to make everyone else more suspicious of gays, and a vicious circle have started.
The bottomline of all this is, that even though I don't agree with your idea that gays can't act as good rolemodels for your kids, I also realize that this is not necessarily because you are intrinsically hostile towards gays, it may very well be because of a genuine concern for your kids. I can only hope that further awareness of the gay community, and of gays in general, will cure this division, and make eg. the BSA realize that there is no real reason for it's current fear of gays. I also sincerely belive this will happen in the not-so-far future.
The program methods and membership/leadership standards of the BSA must be consistent with the organization's set values and the tenets of most world religions.
Consistent with those values, the BSA is committed to the concept that sexual intimacy is the sole providence of a man and a woman within the bonds of marriage.
Although the BSA makes no effort to discover the sexual orientation of any person, the BSA believes an avowed homosexual is not a role model for the faith-based values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law.
Adversaries of the BSA feel that everyone should be allowed to participate in Scouting activities. However, these are only methods that Scouting uses to deliver the values found in the mission of the movement.
The last two points bear further discussion.
First, what's the definition of "avowed"? National Council has not set any specific standards that I've seen on that. So, different Councils are using different standards for judging what comprises an "avowal". In Dale vs. Monmouth Council, B.S.A., James Dale was involved in a gay rights rally/parade, and gave an interview explaining his role and his sexual orientation. This met Monmouth Council's definition of "avowed", and they were successful at the SCOTUS level in defending that they had a right to set that definition and exclude James Dale from membership. Similar behavior would probably get you bounced in any Council. However, if you are engaging in certain homosexual behavior in public (say, kissing your boyfriend in a local restaurant), but without getting media coverage and without doing it in/on a BSA-associated event (say, kissing your boyfriend goodbye in front of the whole Troop in the church parking lot just before everyone takes off to summer camp), you'll get away with it in some Councils, but not in others. It's instructive to note that in all such cases as Dale, it's been the local Council that has moved to revoke or deny membership. Neither the local unit, the sponsoring organization, nor National Council have made the first move.
Secondly, people opposing the BSA's policies have tried to make a case against the BSA by pointing out that denying a young man BSA membership denies him access to the BSA's activities and could cause him to be ostracized or excluded from a significant part of the social fabric in their community. Such people fail to note that conducting these activities are not the objective of the BSA; it's objective is the development of fitness, citizenship, and character in young men and women, and these activities are the method for getting to the objective, not the objectives themselves. Homosexuality and atheism are judged by the BSA as so contradictory to it's objectives as to require those who practice them to be excluded from it's activities, as they would confound the BSA's objectives.