The policy change under discussion would allow the religious, civic, or educational organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting to determine how to address this issue. The Boy Scouts would not, under any circumstances, dictate a position to units, members, or parents. Under this proposed policy, the BSA would not require any chartered organization to act in ways inconsistent with that organization's mission, principles, or religious beliefs.
This part sucks, but I can still see this policy change being a very positive one. This is obviously a big step for this organization, and it's definitely a step in the right direction. No, it isn't going to take things ALL THE WAY to where they should be. But if this change goes through (and it sure sounds like it's going to), changes are going to start happening all over the place. As time goes on, these organizations that still want to continue banning gays will feel more and more pressure and eventually they WILL go the rest of the way, too--or die a natural death, as people leave their restrictive units for less restrictive ones.
To not support this policy change because it isn't absolutely perfect would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
To not support this policy change because it isn't absolutely perfect would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
I don't think anyone is actually saying that given a choice between this and keeping the current policy, that they would go with keeping the current policy. But, that doesn't make this change the best policy and we shouldnt pat our selves on the back like we've won and it's over.
and you make it sound like people are objecting to some minor thing rather than a major flaw...
I didn't mean to imply it's a "minor thing." I was just under the impression (evidently falsely?) that some people thought this proposed policy change was totally worthless,and that's what I was responding to. If I misunderstood, I apologize.
I was also influenced by my astonishment at learning that the BSA is contemplating ANY kind of change in the direction of inclusiveness. I thought they were a lost cause, tbh. In that context, this seemed like a significant development, imho.
No, this doesn't go nearly far enough, and nobody's "won" anything yet. Not trying to suggest that. This is just the beginning. But it IS a beginning.
This part sucks, but I can still see this policy change being a very positive one. This is obviously a big step for this organization, and it's definitely a step in the right direction. No, it isn't going to take things ALL THE WAY to where they should be. But if this change goes through (and it sure sounds like it's going to), changes are going to start happening all over the place. As time goes on, these organizations that still want to continue banning gays will feel more and more pressure and eventually they WILL go the rest of the way, too--or die a natural death, as people leave their restrictive units for less restrictive ones.
To not support this policy change because it isn't absolutely perfect would be like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, imo.
Reply
I don't think anyone is actually saying that given a choice between this and keeping the current policy, that they would go with keeping the current policy. But, that doesn't make this change the best policy and we shouldnt pat our selves on the back like we've won and it's over.
and you make it sound like people are objecting to some minor thing rather than a major flaw...
Reply
I was also influenced by my astonishment at learning that the BSA is contemplating ANY kind of change in the direction of inclusiveness. I thought they were a lost cause, tbh. In that context, this seemed like a significant development, imho.
No, this doesn't go nearly far enough, and nobody's "won" anything yet. Not trying to suggest that. This is just the beginning. But it IS a beginning.
Reply
Leave a comment