Create own organization

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    Feb. 23, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    Tolstoy -

    That is easy to claim, with no evidence.

    Here are a few observations:

    Criminals tend to be big liars.

    Those males who sexually abuse young males usually don't abuse young females, ie they have a specific interest in males. So they do have same sex attraction.

    Those who seek an opportunity to sexually gratify themselves with scouts, would not have that interest served by stating they are interested in their same sex.

    Those who are caught in such criminal activity, lie to help their cause, specifically by deflecting blame to the heterosexual class, to protect those like themselves.

    Many of the scouts are close to consent age, and may be viewed as recruits for the near future, by those who have a sexual interest in them. (18 is arbitrary. People don't suddenly become wise at 18. But they can be legally 'victimized' at 18.)

    Research is most often done to prove a point, is funded by those wish to prove a certain point of view, and thus has an inherent bias.

    I have an inherent bias, that children should be protected first and foremost. I won't apologize for that, because it is the right thing to do.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:11 p.m.

    As has been pointed out a hundred times already those that identify as homosexual are statically less likely to abuse these boys then those that identify as heterosexual and no matter how many times you reward the lie that fact will not change.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    Feb. 22, 2013 5:46 p.m.


    I am glad you bring up victims. Victims are what the boy scouts are trying to prevent.

    Protecting boys is priority 1 while they participate in a great program that helps them grow up to be men. Because of the camping and associated close quarters and secluded places, it make sense to exclude leaders and members who would be sexually inclined toward these boys, including women, homosexual males, and pedophiles.

    If they open the door to one group, the others will be demanding they be let in too.

    Safety first and foremost. One boy molested is not a statistic, it is a tragedy.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 22, 2013 11:35 a.m.

    Erda, Ut

    "I wouldn't want my son with gay leaders. I am sorry. I am not homophobic but..."


    er uh, yes - you are.

    Here's the test for it --
    "I wouldn't want my son with Black leaders. I am sorry. I am not racist but..."
    "I wouldn't want my son with Muslim leaders. I am sorry. I am not a bigot but..."
    "I wouldn't want my son with Jewish leaders. I am sorry. I am not anti-sematic but..."
    "I wouldn't want my son with Hispanic leaders. I am sorry. I am not against Mexicans but..."
    "I wouldn't want my son with Women leaders. I am sorry. I am not a Chauvenist but..."

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 22, 2013 9:08 a.m.

    " I am not homophobic but I believe diversity divides. "

    That statement alone is what is making it hard for me to want to return to Utah. The idea that diversity makes any group weaker is a failed notion. The most powerful companies in the world thrive because of the diversity of their employees. The church is enjoying growth around the world, through diversity.

    God made this whole world, every nationality, every race.... not just those that look and think like us.

    Just my opinion.

    "sexuality" in any form doesn't belong in scouting.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:54 p.m.

    So insisting your kids only associate with other kids that think just like you is being inclusive?

  • hardware Erda, Ut
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:47 p.m.

    Why do groups have to fold to meet the expectations of gay groups? Why do they have to change their organizations to "include" them when in all actuality it divides them? I wouldn't want my son with gay leaders. I am sorry. I am not homophobic but I believe diversity divides. I want my kids with other kids with the same values.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:29 p.m.

    trying to claim victimhood at every turn is also trying to shut down debate, but it does not seem to stop people from challenging you anyway does it.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:23 p.m.

    2nd try. Will this comment get posted?


    There are already rules that prohibit scout leaders from sharing a tent with scouts who aren't their own children. My husband was a scout leader (several years ago) and he couldn't share a tent with our son because scouts other than our son would also be staying in the tent.

    There is no scientific evidence that gay or bi-sexual adults are more likely to be pedophiles.
    Many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:04 p.m.


    " The LDS church can and will DROP BSA unless they keep their no-gay policy in tact. BSA can then attempt to stay afloat without their largest sponsor... good luck with that. "

    so then just like last night at this point may I suggest you try answering tolstoys question.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    re:omni scent

    It isn't about just allowing gay scouts - which there most likely wouldn't be is allowing gay scout masters. There is no way the parents of scouts are going to allow their 12 year old son to go into the back country with a homosexual man - possibly sharing a tent as well as participating in swimming etc... Would you allow your son to sleep next to someone who has a sexual attraction to other males? This is a completely inappropriate association and all the political correctness liberals live by isn't going to change it.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 6:11 p.m.

    re:LDS Liberal

    It doesn't matter what you are supposed to do or not supposed to do as a leader - what matters is reality and the reality of putting a 12 year old boy in the back country of the High Uinta Mountains with a homosexual man is reality if BSA allows gay leaders and that my friend is called an "inappropriate association" the same as having the young women share a tent at girls camp with an adult male leader. If BSA allows in gays I 100% guarantee you will have some sort of child molestation case to deal with down the road - (like Jerry Sandusky of Notre Dame and his molestation of young boys age 10-13 ). Homosexual men are sexually attracted to those of their same gender and that isn't something you can control ...other than never to allow the association in the first place. You also have to think of the normal male adult leaders having to share sleeping quarters with a homosexual man and having been a scout and explorer leader for 20 years that alone is something that would not fly either. PC is usually always bad!!

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 5:59 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil: "We have members of the church who are gay, but not practicing, that are allowed to participate in the church."

    This is precisely where the line should be drawn. Men who have same-sex attraction can still serve as proper role models by staying morally straight through abstinence. Men who practice homosexual behavior should not be Scout leaders, because they're not leading by example.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 5:57 p.m.


    Let me add point number 5 to your list.

    5. The LDS church can and will DROP BSA unless they keep their no-gay policy in tact. BSA can then attempt to stay afloat without their largest sponsor... good luck with that.

    ** BSA needs the LDS church much more than the LDS church needs BSA

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 4:48 p.m.

    Bountiful, UT

    That same Supreme Court also ruled in 2000 [Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640] that the Boy Scouts, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards.

    3:35 p.m. Feb. 21, 2013


    That is right.

    They (BSA) is free to choose.
    i.e., no Government entity is "forcing" the Boy Scouts to do anything, either way.

    It is an internal matter, and will be decided on internally -- not by the gv'mnment, or Obama, or any other strawman evil Socialist boogieman frenzy the right-wing whips itself into blaming.


    Voice of Reason.

    Once again you are wrong.

    Marriage is about love and committment, not about sex.
    I've been involved with the Boys Scouts for over 40 years. We are never supposed to talk about 's-e-x' of any kind...EVER with the boys! If even the very topic comes up (homo OR hetero) - we are to report it immediately. Abuse is abuse - not matter what kind.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 3:11 p.m.

    So this is a question that was posted on the thread yesterday on the exact same subject that pretty much made the same argument but no one responded to the question. maybe some here wants to take a crack at it. "On the surface this seems like a fair question (request) but what is the difference between someone demanding they change and someone demanding that they not change their beliefs? either way you are trying to force them to adhere to your views instead of someone else's."

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Feb. 21, 2013 3:08 p.m.

    It is interesting to read that many don't feel that an organizations ability to not pay taxes isn't a form of subsidy. If I didn't have to pay my mortgage, that would be a benefit to me. If a company didn't need to pay certain bills, that wouldn't be a benefit. If BYU doesn't make students pay their full cost based on their religion, that is not a subsidy.


    As to the BSA... my grandfather was the one who brought the Scouting program to the church. While I never liked scouting, I have a deep respect for it, and my sons have earned their eagles. Creating a parallel organization just doesn't make sense to me. We have members of the church who are gay, but not practicing, that are allowed to participate in the church.

    Sexuality, in any way, needs to be out of scouts. Even without gays, scouting has been plagued with abuse problems. This is an abuse issue, not a gay issue. I don't care if people are gay or not, I don't want either of those groups making any of that part of scouting. Period.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 2:58 p.m.

    why do you ask the same questions that have been answered a hundred times before? the state only has a right to intervene if there is a social harm there is no social harm from gay marriage, however, as you all ready illustrated there is a social harm from the other forms of relationships you sight. Asking the same question or trying to make the same false argument 101 times is not going to change the outcome. your same arguments have failed across the board over and over again from these threads to the courts.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 2:31 p.m.

    No one is forcing the Scouts to accept anybody. The Scout organization itself is questioning its own policy because it is manifestly unfair--and well they should.

  • Bergbub Midway, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    Wouldn't it just be a whole lot easier to just open your mind and quit discrimating against kids who just want to fit in? As for funding, BSA gets lots of subsidized funding through United Way, churches and other agencies. Fortunately, many local United Way chapters have withdrawn funding because of BSA's discriminitory practices. More groups, including churches, should be shamed into withdrawing their taxpayer-subsidized support as well.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 21, 2013 1:40 p.m.

    Before you go on and on about liberals and their slapping evil labels and trying to shut down those people that disagree with them you may want to read about what has been happening to the Mississippi newspaper the Laurel Leader. YOu may also want to consider why it is that the DN has not run one story about what is happening to that paper since it is so fond of running numerous stories on any incident where anyone that apposes gay marriage gets any backlash. I have said it before and I will say it again, you are not a victim.

  • glendenbg Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 1:36 p.m.

    The question is not should gay boys and men be involved in scouting - they already are. Almost every gay man I know who grew up in the US was a boy scout. Many of them speak fondly of scouting and had great experiences. And many of them recall knowing they were gay and worrying their secret would get out. I know more than a few gay men who dropped out of boy scout because they were afraid of what would happen if their fellow scouts found out they were gay.

    By banning openly gay boys and men from participating in scouting, BSA encourages systemic dishonesty. They're saying "Be a boy scout, but lie to us about who you are." Being told to be systematically and consistently dishonest corrodes the soul. Lying in word and deed about who you are is the opposite of the spirit of the boy scout oath. Consistent dishonesty is the opposite of "morally straight."

  • Grover Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 1:35 p.m.

    This is a classic case of adults messing up something that was designed and built for kids! Every demographic study shows that the acceptance of gay people is lowest among those over 50 (around 60%) and highest among those under 30 (almost 70%). If adults back away, this issue will soon disappear.

    Feb. 21, 2013 1:13 p.m.

    what is interesting is you continually want to make erroneous comparisons to things (that by your own admission) have a known social harm and gay marriage which has no proven social harm. I find it fascinating that five years later you are still reverting back to the same old failed arguments (not just here or by you but in the court of law and the court of public opinion) over and over again. why is that?

  • Voice ofReason LAYTON, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Omniscent - So you'd be fine with government-sanctioned polygamy? Interesting that you ignored my "desire" not to be a polygamist, but to simply "marry" 30 other adults of mixed gender. So we can all have government-sanctioned sex whenever we want. So we can all force government - and by extension taxpayers - to support my lifestyle choice with special protective laws recognizing our 30-person "marriage."

    Maybe you wouldn't care about even that, but I've got news for you: most people who support gay marriage would not support government-sanctioned "marriage" involving a large number of adults who just want to sleep with each other. In other words, gay marriage supporters have a line that even they won't cross for marriage. To which I again pose the question: why? If moral judgment can no longer decide what sexual relationships government will sanction and support through law, then how can we tell ANY adults that their "marriage" won't go?

    The truth is, the word "marriage" loses all meaning under such conditions. The standard for government-sanctioned marriage should be what system actually benefits society; not whatever system politically influential people just want to do.

  • observator east of the snake river, ID
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:34 p.m.

    Simple solution:

    1. The BSA will allow all boys and all leaders who are approved by any chartering organization to participate in Scouting.
    2. The BSA will define "morally straight" to include prohibition of extramarital relations, and to define marriage as "the legally recognized union of two individuals who may, in principle, produce children without assistance from a third party".
    3. By biological definition, heterosexual unions may, in principle, produce children. Whether they actually do is beside the point.
    4. The BSA can hold, as it has in the past, that those who do not uphold the oath to be "morally straight", as defined, will not participate in the organization.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:27 p.m.

    Voice of Reason and Utes Fan - Thank you for articulating many of the excuses that people like to use to justify their phopbias and exclude those who are different. Welcome to America, the land of the fr.....oh wait a minute. As has been stated so well by Curmudgeon, the Boy Scouts are wrestling with an issue that might not be as noble and honorable as we all want to think. They're worried about money! Which decision will help them most in that regard?

    I have to say that I, personally, choose not to be part of any organization that looks down on other individuals or tries to make them less that they are. If the Boy Scouts want to make the choice to continue excluding gays from their rolls then they are free to do that. How's that for a "liberal agenda"?

    Someday, hopefully, we will look at people simply as children of God and treat them accordingly. And by the way Voice or Reason, it is not a "fable that homosexuality is in any way even remotely comparable to the civil rights struggle of blacks." It is every bit as conparable.

  • 4word thinker Murray, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    Amen Scott Soulier!!!

    The Boy Scouts have put in the hard work, been honest about who they are, and what values they have and teach. If people don't espouse those values, make your own group. Don't destroy someone else's.

    Next thing you know these people will be telling religions and political parties they have to change their values and practices.

    Oh wait! They are already doing that.

    Well I am not caving to your craving and raving!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    Voice of Reason
    Layton, UT

    Please name anyone who is sitting in jail for polygamy?

    FYI - Warren Jeffs and the like are sitting in jail for child rape.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 12:07 p.m.

    Doesn't "Gay Scouts" follow the old flawed "Seperate but Equal" laws from the Segrated South -- from over 100 years ago?

    Conservatives just need a big old time machine - so they can all go back right from where they came from.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:53 a.m.

    Utes Fan: I don't know any liberals who say you can't make distincions between minors and adults. And the scouts already do accommodate those with physical disibilities. My troop back in the 90's had an Eagle Scout in a wheelchair.
    As for merging with the girl scouts, let's face it: it would not be practical. I can't really see that same argument for gay scouts not based in unrational fear.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    Voice of Reason: a marrage is a legal agreement between two people. Refrigerators and animals have never been able to enter into any legal contract.
    Plural marriage I'm actually okay with, as long as all parties are in agreement, and all willing and able to enter into that agreement. That would even fit the "historic definition" of marrage as expressed in the bible, not to mention Utah history. There, I'm not doing anything bigoted and hateful to you or your potential spouses.
    However, your arguments lack reason, and have done nothing to persuade me there is no difference between homosexuality and the civil rights movement.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:21 a.m.

    @omni scent
    "I don't think anyone wants to create a "Gay Scouts", rather a scouting organization that is all-inclusive."

    So, in other words, the boy scouts should accept girls - because according to the liberal agenda, they can't have gender discrimination. And the girl scouts should accept boys. Not to mention, that boys older than 18 would have to be accepted - because the liberal agenda excludes age discrimination. So, they would have to include 70 year old men and women. Also, since the boy scouts have physical requirements then they would have to change those requirements to accommodate those with physical disabilities because the liberal agenda prevents this. In fact, they would have to eliminate camping, swimming, hiking, etc.

    This sounds like an organization that accepts everybody, but cannot do anything. Just what the liberals want.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    I think society can become more inclusive to gay people without having to suddenly let people marry major appliances. We've done it before. We can do it again.

  • Voice of Reason Layton, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:41 a.m.

    Let's put to bed once and for all the fable that homosexuality is in any way even remotely comparable to the civil rights struggle of blacks. This is a comparison that is desperately pushed by gay activists because it muzzles actual debate, and manipulates people into not using their brains in considering gay marriage by just slapping evil labels on people that are opposite of their real hearts ("bigot", "hateful", etc.)

    So preserving traditional marriage under the law is somehow the same as the Jim Crow "separate but equal". Okay. So that means it's also "separate but equal" to not recognize polygamist marriages, group marriages, marriages to refrigerators & animals...ridiculous, you say? I agree; now you tell me why. But wait, you can't...doing so would be bigoted and hateful! How dare you refuse my joint marriage to thirty men & women!

    Still absurd? Fine, make your argument, and I promise not to call you a bigot. But also let me make mine without cynical labels designed to muzzle free speech and skip over the use of brains with hot-button labels.

  • Curmudgeon Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:12 a.m.

    Omni Scent: The dilemma the BSA is wrestling with is the possibility that by becoming "all-inclusive" the organization may lose the sponsorship and membership of many who do not wish to be associated with an organization that accepts openly gay men or boys, whether that is right or wrong. It would be ironic indeed if the BSA became less inclusive in practice by adopting a policy of broad inclusion.

    And speaking of inclusion, why is no one clamoring for merger of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 10:00 a.m.

    Charity for profit is not charity.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    Sort of like what the Nazis did in Germany. They put a star on those they wanted to target for their hate.

    The notion of separation of Americans by state, religion, race, and for what ever other reason, is not in compliance with the American creed of “One Nation Indivisable, With Justice for All”.

    I think the benefits of Scouting are desirable and needed by every boy in America, regardless of the other affiliations he may have. And they tend to bring America together rather than divide her.

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    I don't think anyone wants to create a "Gay Scouts", rather a scouting organization that is all-inclusive. After all, the Supreme Court has told us that "Seperate but Equal is inherently unequal"

  • omni scent taylorsville, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:37 a.m.

    Mike, you ask who the government has helped get off welfare in the past 8 years? Me. I was on unemployment for almost 3 months after the 2008 recession hit. Without that welfare I wouldn't have been able to pay my health insurance for a pre-existing condition. Without COBRA laws frok the government, I wouldn't even have had the ability to keep my insurance after getting laid off.
    Thanks to that help, I was able to look for a job instead of fretting about insurance and my health. I found a good job quickly. I'm anet positive tax payer, having paid back more then what I took from the system, and I am happy to do so. No man is an island, we all need each others help from time to time, and I am happy to contribute my part.

  • ECR Burke, VA
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    The problem with Mr. Soulier's reasoning is his assumption that the people who "donate their hard-earned money, their precious time, talents and anything else" or who "purchase land for camps" and develop handbooks or build their own buildings and pay "full-time executives and recruit an army of volunteers" are exclusively not gay. Just like the military and professions from every walk of life, gay people have served and performed in those organizations for as long as they have been organized, but they have done it while hiding their sexual orientation because of social pressure. I lived and worked in the Salt Lake Valley for the first 12 years of my professional career and in my line of work I had significant interaction with gay people. I think most residents of Salt Lake would be somewhat surprised by the size of Salt Lake/Utah's gay community. And all this time they have been doing the same things other cisitzens have been doing, including joining and serving the Boy Scouts.

    Mr. Sourier and others can promote a separate Gay BSA but I hope they won't be surprised when the "Non Gay BSA" starts to lose members.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    to liberals like isrred, unless the government decides to take a big chunk out of something in taxes, then it is "heavily subsidized".

    So when I choose to give $100 to the Red Cross for disaster relief (after I paid about $60 in taxes on $160 earned to leave me with that $100), the fact that the government does not take another $30 or so bite out of my donation before it reaches the victims makes the Red Cross a heavily subsidized organization that is getting a free ride on the taxpayer dime.

    Did I get that right?

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 8:04 a.m.


    yes, they did.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:59 a.m.

    "Tax-exempt" does not mean "publicly funded". If the government wants to replace every charitable organization with a tax-payer funded charity, let them try. Does anyone really think that with the government's overhead, any tax-payer public "charity" would ever succeed? Just look at how many people government has helped to get out of welfare in the last eighty years.

    Good people all over the nation volunteer their time, their money and their resources to help boys become men. Unfortunately, a very small percentage of the population thinks that they have the right to change anything that doesn't allow them total access to our youth.

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    Feb. 21, 2013 7:22 a.m.

    "But do it on your own dime"

    Seriously? The BSA and its largest promoters (LDS Church, Methodist Churches, etc) are some of the most tax exempt and thereby heavily subsidized organizations in the country. The BSA, nor its main supporters, definitely did not build it "on their own dime".