Philadelphia Court Case on Boy Scouts Anti-Homosexual Stance: Bad Law but…
The City of Philadelphia took legal action against the Boy Scouts who have had a long established sweetheart lease for property in Philadelphia on which they’ve erected a scouting facility for which they pay one dollar a year rent. The city contends that because the scouts excludes homosexuals, they are violating the city’s antidiscrimination laws thus should pay $200,000 a year in rent. The Boy Scouts have enjoyed this special arrangement for over seventy years.
Because the Boy Scouts are a “membership” organization, the Supreme Court ruled that the scouts can exclude homosexual members. The Scouts maintain that their right to due process and free speech would be violated and such a move would make operating within the city of Philadelphia unsustainable.
The jury has yet to rule.
The issue of homosexuality is a difficult one, but clearly, society’s values are changing. Perhaps under membership provisions the Scouts are entitled to exclude homosexuals.
As a private organization, the Scouts are free to pursue what policies they see reasonably fit to maintain their organization and serve their members. However, how would society react if they excluded members by race? That they are enjoying a sweetheart deal on their rent shows them a highly esteemed organization, which they are.
The Scouts benefit boys tremendously teaching them skills, helping them build relationships and positive values. However, their stance on homosexuality is out of step with the times and hurtful.
Surely, there is an unfounded fear that homosexual Scouts or troop leaders might make homosexual advances against susceptible young men, and that they might encourage or influence Scouts to chose a homosexual lifestyle. It almost plays into the mania that homosexuality is contagious.
Today, we know homosexuality is not a choice. It’s simply the way some people are. People don’t chose to homosexual, nor can people be influenced to become gay. The only possibility is if homosexuals are allowed to be honest with their orientation, they might encourage others who are in denial or in the closet to come forward and be honest about their sexuality.
We must consider the age of boys in scouts covers the time in a young man’s life when he first starts developing his adult sexual orientation. Puberty is a difficult time, but as adolescence reaches its conclusion one’s identity is generally quite apparent.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining rules of discipline that sexually oriented behavior on the behalf of one Scout toward another is unacceptable. The fears of what homosexual Scouts could bring simply are hysterical notions based on outmoded concepts. For the good of what Scouts have to offer, it’s time for them to step up and join the 21st century. Greater lessons might be taught if Scouts deal with issues like gender preference in an open and constructive manner.
The City of Philadelphia took legal action against the Boy Scouts who have had a long established sweetheart lease for property in Philadelphia on which they’ve erected a scouting facility for which they pay one dollar a year rent. The city contends that because the scouts excludes homosexuals, they are violating the city’s antidiscrimination laws thus should pay $200,000 a year in rent. The Boy Scouts have enjoyed this special arrangement for over seventy years.
Because the Boy Scouts are a “membership” organization, the Supreme Court ruled that the scouts can exclude homosexual members. The Scouts maintain that their right to due process and free speech would be violated and such a move would make operating within the city of Philadelphia unsustainable.
The jury has yet to rule.
The issue of homosexuality is a difficult one, but clearly, society’s values are changing. Perhaps under membership provisions the Scouts are entitled to exclude homosexuals.
As a private organization, the Scouts are free to pursue what policies they see reasonably fit to maintain their organization and serve their members. However, how would society react if they excluded members by race? That they are enjoying a sweetheart deal on their rent shows them a highly esteemed organization, which they are.
The Scouts benefit boys tremendously teaching them skills, helping them build relationships and positive values. However, their stance on homosexuality is out of step with the times and hurtful.
Surely, there is an unfounded fear that homosexual Scouts or troop leaders might make homosexual advances against susceptible young men, and that they might encourage or influence Scouts to chose a homosexual lifestyle. It almost plays into the mania that homosexuality is contagious.
Today, we know homosexuality is not a choice. It’s simply the way some people are. People don’t chose to homosexual, nor can people be influenced to become gay. The only possibility is if homosexuals are allowed to be honest with their orientation, they might encourage others who are in denial or in the closet to come forward and be honest about their sexuality.
We must consider the age of boys in scouts covers the time in a young man’s life when he first starts developing his adult sexual orientation. Puberty is a difficult time, but as adolescence reaches its conclusion one’s identity is generally quite apparent.
There is nothing wrong with maintaining rules of discipline that sexually oriented behavior on the behalf of one Scout toward another is unacceptable. The fears of what homosexual Scouts could bring simply are hysterical notions based on outmoded concepts. For the good of what Scouts have to offer, it’s time for them to step up and join the 21st century. Greater lessons might be taught if Scouts deal with issues like gender preference in an open and constructive manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment