all over the country ever since they lost the Supreme Court decision.

In Philadelphia, as around the country, it's the inner-city youths who have been most affected, as their subsidized BSA programs are cut back or out.

Ken you make a good point about the BSA's common sense attitude toward gays.   For just one example, if known gay men were leading Scout Troops, most parents would refuse to allow their sons to go camping.

The fact is, there are gays in Scouting, including Eagle Scouts.   But openly sexualizing Scouting, homo or hetero, is just as wrong as sexualizing our elementary, middle and high schools. 

Question regarding Ken's opening remarks to this article: When I was a Boy Scout, we had a den mother for 3 years (technically
this was the Cub Scout phase and I think that this is more or less the norm, or was in my day anyhow). That is, us boys were under the
leadership of a middle-aged woman. How is this different from gay
scout leaders, aside from the assumption that gay people are more
likely to be deviant, lack self control, and (TruthMonger's favorite)
harbor pedophiliac impulses?

Now, please be assured that I am not blindly advocating equal employment for homosexual scout masters. I'm just wondering how people characterize it as different from a heterosexual individual of the opposite sex supervising these groups.

"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte

I don't think when they called themselves the 'City of Brotherly Love' that
this is what they had in mind. Let the people vote.

The Boy Scouts should stick to their values. It is not worth the risk of
screwing up even one child's mind. And why would the Boy Scouts risk their
impeccable reputation. They are for the development of the children, not
indoctrination.

Shoving homosexuality down peoples' throats really gets old. Most people do
not care if one is homosexual but why can't they keep it in the bedroom? For
some odd reason the homosexual community feel it is necessary to take their
preferences to the streets and public displays. Can you imagine the chaos if
heterosexuals took their preferences to the streets too? Talk about a screwed up
world. Homosexuals also have a history of praying on young people who have
problems and are confused.

It is about time the fringe butts out and lets the children be children in
this country.

"It would be logical to most Americans that having openly gay adults supervising impressionable young boys under the age of consent might be a bad idea, setting aside moral or religious considerations."

I disagree. How can one assert this is a "bad idea" WITHOUT moral or religious considerations which, let's be honest, tend to be subjective?

Firstly, what is "openly gay"? Showing up at a scout meeting wearing a tu-tu, or simply refusing to lie about one's orientation, if the subject ever needs to be addressed (which it shouldn't).

I happen to know a person who is gay but is about as ultra-conservative as one can get. He is very old-school and traditional. He keeps his orientation extremely private. I personally don't see a disconnect if he wanted to volunteer for the Scouts.

That being said, the Boy Scouts is a private club, and they certainly should have their rights of free association respected (particularly from the leftist thought police). However, if this private club was to use public facilities, and be given preference, that can be a bit problematic.

It would be logical to most Americans that having openly gay adults supervising impressionable young boys under the age of consent might be a bad idea, setting aside moral or religious considerations.

If you are setting morals and religion aside, why would this be logical to assume that?  Is it better to have the guy that teaches the kids that women are put on this earth to please men?   How about we stick to what we know:

 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA et al. v. DALE , was a decision that held:

the Court is not guided by its view of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members in derogation of the organization’s expressive message. While the law may promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it may not interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may seem. Hurley, supra, at 579. Pp. 5—17.

 On legal grounds the city can not force the Scouts to accept gays.  I was a bit more irked with the representative from Cradle of Liberty Council, Jeff Jubelirer:

"We were trying to be amenable to all sides, but National would not allow us to keep that language, so we rescinded it. We can't have a policy where we put in specific words that National won't allow or we'll loose our charter. We can't afford not to be part of the national Boy Scouts," he said.

Jubelirer suggested the local chapter has been operating under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for other employees. "It's not something that is asked" of applicants, he said. "But if someone were to come forward with something regarding sexual orientation, political beliefs, atheism or communism, that would be a problem."

Is Jubelirer more concerned for the building than the Boy Scouts as a whole?  This building is a small fight compared to what the Scouts have faced in the past.

Don't ask don't tell?  Is that what we should expect from a local leader of a national organization that took on its opposition and won a landmark ruling?  Maybe had they asked and told,  scoutmaster David Mayberry would never have been able to hurt those kids.

I would like to know what the national leaders are doing about this..With people like Jubelirer running things, they'll keep the building but sell their souls to the devil

I hereby reject/denounce all individuals and groups who reject/denounce individuals and groups, including those who reject/denounce me for rejecting/denouncing those individuals and groups. I hope I've made myself clear.

   If the Scouts are forced by a court to accept openly gay leaders the Scouts shouild adopt a 'sting' policy to flush out innapropriate behavior.  Families of affected individual scouts should sue for all the peds worldly assets and the Scouting orginization should press charges to put him/her in prison for a long time.  That should help cool their desire for Scouting.

Being a Boy Scout isn't about sex, it's about CAMPING! ...Among other fun "boy" things.

For God's sake, does "gayness" have to permiate EVERY frigin' aspect of life in America?!?

Leave the Boy Scouts alone! And if Philly want's to deny the use of a building...So what!! The Scouts ought to tell em to: "stick it we'll find a nice church or somewhere else to hold meetings".

And another thing, anyone here who thinks the Boy Scouts should be integrated with "gay members" is an IDIOT!! Simple and plain!

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

I have a lesbian aunt who is a renowned child therapist.

I'm 100% positive that her sexual orientation has not come up once in the course of treating her patients.

Should she be banned from working with young girls b/c as a homosexual she's 'obivously' predisposed to pedophilia?

This is what you all are arguing about the boy scouts.  I'd be willing to bet my aunt's clients would disagree with all of you.

The basic question is this: Why would a gay man want to be part of the Boy Scouts?

Boys Scouts promotes family and strongly encourages parental involvement. I do not see a lot of interest from single men in the Boy Scouts.

If conservatives are RIGHT, then liberals must be WRONG.
Thompson/Rice