21 October, 2010
A most perplexing issue
Living in a practical libertarian manner can be a real pain in the ass sometimes. Case in point, the Boy Scouts are denying a gay father a leadership position in their organization. Now, I was a Boy Scout and support and understand their right to choose who they allow into their organization. On the other hand, who you decide to be intimate with is none of mine or anyone else's concern. Where does the privacy of the individual end and the requirements of the organization begin? It is quite the conundrum.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sorry, but I have to disagree on this one... Putting an acknowledged fox in charge of the henhouse just doesn't make sense...
Couple of points that I saw on a news broadcast.
The parent was not a leader, he was in charge of the popcorn sales but was (as far as I know) not an enrolled leader, did not take any of the required training.
The parent was wearing the Scout Uniform, even though he wasn't enrolled.
There is a major difference between involved parents and Scout leaders -- training.
While I agree with the idea that Scouts should change their policy, they have been consistent in enforcing it.
The parent knew the policy about homosexuals not being able to be a part of the Scouting Organization. It would be remarkably hard for a gay man to claim not to know that policy.
This has the smell of a set up to a degree.
Someone who admits to being gay is less of a danger than the one who stays in the closet--This is penalizing honesty.
A ban on gays in scouts based on theoretical danger to children is essentially the same as a ban on legal carry--the people who will comply aren't the ones you need to worry about. Instead we need to realize that these activities will inherently attract a small minority of people who are dangerous to children. We need to take appropriate steps that don't rely on self-identification of the dangerous ones.
Based on what Bob S is saying, there may be other things going on here.
Post a Comment