THE leadership of the Boy Scouts of America decided today to admit openly homosexual scouts, bringing an end to the organization as a preserve of youthful masculinity. The decision by a majority vote among 1,400 scout leaders was not unexpected. The Scouts had lost major corporate sponsors and received relentless bad press. The Merck Foundation, Intel and UPS had all withdrawn major grants because the Scouts would not approve of homosexuality in its ranks; it was likely finances figured into the decision. But then let’s not dismiss the rank submission of American men, and their disregard for childhood innocence, as major factors here. Hundreds of men voted, after thoughtful consideration, to encourage adolescents to define themselves as homosexuals in one of America’s most revered all-male institutions. Need we say more about the degradation of the American man’s sense of authority and protectiveness?

Stay tuned for articles about boy scouts who want to wear dresses, girls-who-want-to-be-boys scouts and boy scout parades that include make-up and earrings (it wouldn’t be fair otherwise.) Homosexual activists have vowed to continue to pressure the group until it accepts homosexual scout leaders. The best families will leave the organization, and years from now, when older men look back bitterly on how they were initiated into homosexuality in the scouts, the memory of the good that the organization once represented will be long forgotten and buried.

The Boy Scouts is no more, but there are still boys. There are still vast woods and lots of sticks with which to build fires. There are still plenty of good men who want to introduce boys to manhood. One doesn’t need a corporate-funded super-organization to take a pack of boys into the woods and learn about survival. It’s time to begin anew. As more and more American institutions collapse irrevocably, there is no time to weep.

— Comments —

A reader writes:

My two brothers were Cub and Boy Scouts, many years ago, and have many treasured remnants of that time, such as pinewood derby cars, trophies, and patches, even a Boy Scout canteen from the camping days. A couple of years ago, our young son expressed an interest in joining the Tiger Cubs. At the time, we weren’t able to make the considerable commitment of time involved, and I was kind of sad about that, as I had always had the highest respect for this organization.

Now, I wonder if God was protecting us from what was to come. There is not a dime’s worth of difference between allowing openly homosexual scouts to join the ranks and allowing openly homosexual scout leaders, as unfortunately teenagers can be just as predatory as adults. In fact, it’s just a matter of time, as you point out, until homosexual leaders become the norm. What loving parent would want their son to be involved in such an organization? No young boy will be safe. You have pointed out time and again how Western men have repeatedly demonstrated passivity in the face of conflict, of evil. Again, this has happened. In fact, these men are now affirming evil, voting for it. Since when do corporate sponsors call the shots? Are the leaders of the organization so emasculated themselves that they doubt their ability to attract new and better sponsors? Have they no realization of the impact of this decision on their future enrollment? Or, is it possible that, heaven forbid, their enrollment will not deeply decline? The Boy Scouts will never be the same to me.

Laura writes:

The Boy Scouts will never be the same to anyone. It is an entirely different entity  — even for those who support this decision.

Bear in mind that the Boy Scouts have seen declining enrollment in recent years, which I attribute at least in part to the absence of mothers from the home and the general decline in childhood wholesomeness.

Terry Morris writes:

“It’s time to begin anew. …there’s no time to weep.” Amen. That is exactly the right attitude to take in my opinion.

It isn’t as though the handwriting hadn’t been on the wall for awhile now, after all. The Boy Scouts, as of yesterday, is a fundamentally changed organization now. Whatever it once was, it no longer is, to borrow from our intrepid President. It is official. Same with the military, and coming soon to a country near you – what passes off as “marriage” will officially and irrevocably suffer the same fate, which it probably should since it is a farce in the first place. Best just to abandon it all and let it burn in its own consuming flames.

Truth be told I gave up on the Boy Scouts over a decade ago because of what I was seeing within the ranks of the “leadership,” which I had no power to stop or turn back. All of the leaders in our Troop, excepting myself and one other man, were either directly or indirectly employed by government. And these men unceasingly extolled the virtues of working for government, influencing the impressionable minds of the boys in our troop. When I would say something negative about the government (it’s too big, too powerful, too influential, or whatever), I would be quickly called on the carpet for my effort, and subjected to a sermon about how government was ultimately responsible for making the individual in question the “man” that he is – you know, “it funded my education,” “I was able to get an FHA loan,” and this and that. Quite so. Well, enough finally became enough for me, and I resigned and took my son out of Scouting.

As you say, one doesn’t need the Boy Scouts to teach boys to be men.

Joe A. writes:

Jerry Sandusky only dreamed of an operation of this magnitude.

Laura writes:

Exactly.

The Man-Boy Love Association must be celebrating now.

The anonymous reader above writes:

I forgot to mention another observation about the trend in Boy Scouting since decades ago when my family was involved. Once upon a time, Boy Scouts had “den mothers”, who helped with planning events, providing snacks, and other tasks traditionally reserved for women. In recent years, however, many of our local Boy Scout troops began having female Scoutmasters. I often asked myself (and others), how does a woman teach a boy how to be a man? Of course, this parallels the trend in “modern” churches, as well, where so many now include female ushers, deacons, etc., despite the Biblical admonition against it. As for our house, we are teaching our son to be a man, to respect his father, and love and protect his mother and sister. It is all we can do.

Steve D. writes:

I find it more than a little strange that the Catholic Church is excoriated for its handling of sexual molestation by the same people who are all in favor of allowing homosexuals to insinuate themselves into the Boy Scouts. The Catholic Church is not a specifically youth-oriented organization; the Boy Scouts is. The Catholic Church does not officially allow homosexuals within its ranks; the Boys Scouts now do. What’s happening within the Boy Scouts of America today is what the phrase “the perfect storm” was coined to describe.

What do liberals suppose the end result is going to be of mixing homosexuals and young children? Is a pup tent out in the woods more public and easily monitored than a sacristy? Are people who openly believe in celebrating sodomy more worthy of public trust than men who at least nominally ascribe to the tenet that sodomy is wrong, and that offending against the innocent is one of the surest roads to Hell? When it all ends in disaster, will liberals demand the heads of Boy Scout leaders who allowed it to happen, in the same way they bayed for the pope’s scalp? Somehow I don’t think so. It’s far more likely that they’ll ascribe the problem to scouting families, and mandate sensitivity training.

Laura writes:

This makes a mockery of all those background checks that people who work with children must undergo.

A Grateful Reader writes:

My husband and all of the fathers in my son’s Boy Scout troop mourn the death of the Boy Scouts of America. This weekend, when my son’s troop goes to place flags on the graves of fallen veterans, they expect to place one more flag on the freshest grave, giving their dear departed BSA a final salute.  Fortunately, the troop comprises mostly traditionalist Catholic homeschoolers, so the troop leaders intend to move the entire troop into another organization.

Most of the fathers had themselves been Boy Scouts, but observing the changes to the merit badge pamphlets and requirements, they have long told their sons, “This is not your father’s Boy Scouts.” They recognized the wounds inflicted upon the BSA from without and from within. During the past few years the BSA  promoted STEM (science, technology, engineering, and medicine) with a galling quote, “Scouts can learn as much in the lab and the classroom as in the woods.”  Two humiliating changes appear in this one sentence.  First, there is no “Boy”, only “Scouts.” Enter girls and gays, exit boys. Finally, the heart of the Boy Scouts traditionally beat in nature, not in an artificial environment such as a laboratory or classroom. The BSA has joined the culture of death, preferring to be lead by Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Mengle rather than by Lord Baden Powell.

Anthony Esolen in his article A Boy’s Life in the Unisex Scouts presents a most beautiful expression of reality. His perspective combines compassion and logic to show the truths that the Boy Scouts of America once upheld. Here are just a few significant excerpts:

“The boy in the title was, if anything, more important than the scout.”

“He is a boy: vir futurus, a going-to-be man. Meaning: He will join other men, brothers fighting to attain or defend the common good.”

“In a healthy time, they [his parents] could take for granted the assistance of their neighbors [in raising a boy to become a man] and of teachers at school. It’s not a healthy time.”

“In other words, Luke’s father is being asked to enroll his son in a group specifically limited to boys, but one that does not recognize the nature of boyhood and its progress to manhood. Thus there is no real justification for the group; that its membership is male is accidental and not of the essence. He and they do not see the same being in Luke. He sees his boy, and the man-to-be; they see a neuter. He sees a father-in-training; they see an immature human thing, a bundle of appetites that are not in themselves subject to moral judgment.”

“What is the father supposed to do? He can recall that better time, that healthier time, and can name several boys he knew who, if they were boys today, would inevitably be enticed, by loneliness or a trick of the lewd or boredom or a desperate need to be noticed or a despair that they could ever become true men, into the life of the male forever seeking the male…He knows that most of them weathered the storms, precisely because the assumption that a boy is a boy gave them protection, some breathing space, some time to sort out their feelings and to grow up.”

“Where can Luke’s father turn? To the only institution left standing that affirms the goodness of human nature, both masculine and feminine…Luke will know, if but intuitively, that his calling as a Christian, to leave his selfishness behind, to enter what Saint Paul calls the glorious liberty of the children of God, implies the just use of his sexual powers: to give, if God calls him, his body and his heart forever to the woman he loves. That won’t teach him how to pitch a tent in the woods. It might teach him how to build a home in a wasteland.”

Dr. Esolen ends with the same beginning that you have suggested. His last line mourns the loss of our civilization and brings hope to the remnant who must emerge from the ashes.

Bartholomew writes:

You wrote, “Hundreds of men voted, after thoughtful consideration, to encourage adolescents to define themselves as homosexuals in one of America’s most revered all-male institutions.”

I agree that that is what they did, but I don’t see how your position–to ban self-identifying “homosexual” youth from the Boy Scouts–has, in the end, any different effect on those youth.

Including youth as “homosexuals” and excluding youth as “homosexuals” sends them the same message–that they are, in fact, “homosexuals.” The only difference is that the Includers think the Scouts should celebrate “homosexuals,” while the Excluders think the Scouts should quarantine them. Either way, Includers and Excluders agree that a) there is a specific kind of youth called a “homosexual” and b) these youthful “homosexuals” should be treated differently (Includers preferentially, Excluders discriminatorily) than normal youths.

Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as a “homosexual.” There are only boys and girls who are supposed to become men and women. Some 19th century crackpots invented the “homosexual” third sex out of thin air, and in the 20th century the rest of the world, including the Boy Scouts, lost their minds and ceded the point. Yeah, that ban should go, along with every other worthless idea about sex that came from that demented century.

Institutions like the Boy Scouts exist to help boys to become men. A boy who acts as if he were a girl is obviously a boy who could use the help. These are the kids you ‘d exclude from what might be their last, best hope? What else would you do with them? Have them join the Girl Scouts? Start a separate Gay Scouts? Lock them up in their rooms and wait for the gun shot? Seriously, what?

And anyway, why should I or any other man waste his time helping boys who already know how to become men? Isn’t the entire point to teach those who don’t know? I don’t think you’ll find a boy more ignorant of manhood than the one who says he wants to grow up to be treated like a woman.

It’s been said before that the Church is not a showcase for saints but a hospital for sinners. Jesus didn’t come for the whole, but for the sick. Should you stop sending your kids to church because they might pick up the sins of all those adulterers, fornicators, thieves and murderers sitting around them? Should you stop sending your kids to the hospital because they might pick up a staph infection?

How should a Christian Boy Scout troop leader react to a youth who walks in calling himself a “homosexual”? Tell him sternly there are only boys here, and he, along with the others, will be expected to act like one. Give him lots of remedial instruction in the basics. Make it clear you know he has what it takes to do it. Then, give him hell ’til he either conforms or leaves. Call in reinforcements if you need it. The leader is supposed to be fighting for that and every other boy’s masculine soul.

And what if the boy tries to seduce another? He’ll probably get his ass kicked. Come on, do you really think the healthier boys are going to have a problem approaching him as a girl? I think they’ll probably just keep their distance until he shapes up. A deficiency in manhood is like any other deficiency–it leads to sickness. Sickness repulses; it doesn’t attract. And as for its being contagious, it’s at least as likely to “spread” at a church youth group sleepover as around a campfire.

I guess we could completely isolate “homosexual” kids from their peers–ban them from Church, sports camps, after-school hang-outs and well, life. And then when the kid commits suicide–and, as claimed by Chesterton, “refus[es] to take an interest in existence, kills all men…wipes out the world…destroys all buildings…insults all women”–at least he can do so honestly. For after having been thoroughly quarantined and shut out of all but the most banal of interactions with his peers (to keep his “gayness” from spreading), he really will have been “killed” by all men, “wiped” clean from the world around him, shut out from all “buildings”/institutions and “insulted” by all women, and in that case his suicide, his “dynamiting” them all would be nothing worse than their own hostility returned.

I urge you and your readers in the strongest possible terms to rethink your position. You are seriously mistaken if you think you are justified in cutting off any little one from seeking the Kingdom of God, which is, I think, what the “homosexual” youth trying to join the Boy Scouts is, in some feeble, stumbling way, trying to do.

“15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.” Luke 18: 15-16

P.S. One reader wrote, “There is not a dime’s worth of difference between allowing openly homosexual scouts to join the ranks and allowing openly homosexual scout leaders, as unfortunately teenagers can be just as predatory as adults.”

No? What about the difference between student and teacher, layman and pastor, child and adult? There is no way men claiming to be “homosexual” should be allowed to teach anyone else, let alone boys, how to be men. They wouldn’t know what they were talking about. And that’s why excluding them or their confused juniors from the teaching and instruction they obviously need is a sin. For the very same reason we should try to go out and invite “homosexual” youths to our church groups, Boy Scout troops, and yeah, even into our homes, we should keep “homosexual” men (and women) out of leadership and direct them, sternly if need be, back to the pew, the football field or anywhere else men (or women) gather, to listen and learn from their manlier (or more feminine) peers.

 Laura writes:

I think you are mistaken in your interpretation of my position. I never said that adolescents who are confused or who have homosexual desires should be excluded from the Boy Scouts.

The issue revolves around those adolescents who publicly identify themselves as homosexuals. [I agree with your point that there is no such thing as a homosexual adolescent, and it’s an important point.] These individuals should indeed be excluded from such groups not because they are unworthy of help but because they are a danger to others. I’m referring to those whom one finds in almost every high school today who have taken on the full-blown public homosexual identity.

Adolescence is a time of conflict and ambivalence. Adults should treat this ambivalence as what it is: a developmental stage, a form of terror before the prospect of adulthood. As Anthony Esolen writes in the article linked above:

What is the father supposed to do? He can recall that better time, that healthier time, and can name several boys he knew who, if they were boys today, would inevitably be enticed, by loneliness or a trick of the lewd or boredom or a desperate need to be noticed or a despair that they could ever become true men, into the life of the male forever seeking the male…He knows that most of them weathered the storms, precisely because the assumption that a boy is a boy gave them protection, some breathing space, some time to sort out their feelings and to grow up.”

I agree with you that there is no such thing as an adolescent who is homosexual, but there is such a thing, in our time, as an adolescent who calls himself a homosexual and who mimics a whole set of behaviors associated with that label. I strongly disagree that we should “try to go out and invite ‘homosexual’ youths’ to church groups and Boy Scout troops.” We should forbid children who are openly using this label to participate in an organized groups like the scouts (perhaps not all groups, but this one, yes) and help them in other ways. You basically say the same thing when you state, “Then, give him hell ’til he either conforms or leaves.”

[See further response to this comment below.]

Carolyn writes:

One must be very careful of what they mean when they say “gay.” There are gay older men who have adopted the lifestyle, who engage in homosexual sex, and there are confused young boys who love scouting, who need healthy association of other boys and “straight” men to teach them how to be men. Would you tell the little boy who is a great scout and also has feelings for other boys, that CAN go away, to get out of scouts? Better yet to have some procedure where they know they can go to a leader for help. I understand no leaders are allowed to be alone with boys now, so if you fear that, let it go!

Laura writes:

Would you tell the little boy who is a great scout and also has feelings for other boys, that CAN go away, to get out of scouts?

 Of course not.

I would tell a boy who is openly calling himself homosexual that he must leave until he can cease acting in an offensive way.

N.W. writes:

I was in the Boy Scouts in the late nineties in a troop lead by a good-to-go, hard old vet from the Korean War. Mr. Hank, our  scoutmaster, dedicated a good amount of time to the troop and it was because of his commitment that we were able to go out and do a lot of really neat things, from caving in West Virginia to camping in the North Carolina dunes to canoeing and hiking around a lake in the Canadian wilderness. I was about 11 when I joined this particular troop and stuck with it till I was 14 when my family moved out of state and I transferred to another troop.

During my three years with this troop I learned a lot from the men who volunteered their time to lead us out in the woods. I also learned a bit about how screwed up the wider world is.

When I was 12, my troop went on a camping trip through North Carolina and down to the naval base in Charleston in S Carolina. One of the boys on the trip was a fifteen-year-old who had just transferred to our troop from another troop in the area. During the course of the trip, this individual attempted to seduce some of the younger scouts by offering them cash money to perform sexual acts with him in his tent. None of us ever told our leaders what was occurring, but a few of us beat the hell out of him a couple of times over it. That didn’t stop him from seducing a couple of the younger boys all the same. His parents put him in another troop shortly after this due to the “bullying” he had suffered in our troop.

While the incidents that occurred then were unfortunate, sadly, they weren’t the only ones that occurred in my three years there. A year later we had another incident in which a 17-year-old scout sexually assaulted a 12-year-old. One of my best friends was hanging out with the perp and the victim that night, totally ignorant of the depravity the older scout was set on committing. He left the two of them to rack out for the evening and to this day he still beats himself up for not seeing what the older kid was trying to do to the younger boy.

It is incidents like these which really illuminate the idiocy of the decision to allow flagrantly homosexual individuals to be members in good standing with the Boy Scouts of America. When your 11-year-old boy goes off to summer camp, do you really want to worry about his 17-year-old patrol leader taking a fancy to him? When something does occur are the Boy Scouts just going to say, “Well that’s just kids being kids”  or “Ah, young love, I remember those halcyon days back when I was a young’un getting my chimney sweeped for the first time.”

No. the Boy Scouts of Americas decision to allow homosexuals to join is the death knell of a once good and proud organization. I just hope folks are able to form an organization which carries on Lord Baden Powell’s vision of forming boys into good-to-go, hard-charging men. God help us.

KR writes:

I enjoy your perspectives on the Boy Scouts. It is another marker on the road to national perdition. Have you looked at Tom Fleming’s perspective at the Chronicles website, along with the comments? I think they have the right focus. Boy Scouts should know that they have always been losers. They are future Boehner/McCain/Bush boring mainstream Republicans, who largely go to mainstream Protestant churches and are glad to have this all “behind” them. It’s quite boring and mainstream, and these folks are the ultimate enemy of true American culture. They deserve to go down hard and take their chances with hard-core sodomites, a la the New York Times, agreed?

They have never been our friends and now their evil is revealed. I for one didn’t miss out by not being a scout. My Dad hit grounders to us and threw the football around with us, and if there is one thing I recall it is how badly Scouts played American sports. Let the gays have the scouts. Decent people should give them the contempt and derision they deserve.

Our side needs to divorce itself from Cultural Marxism.

Laura writes:

I agree with Fleming that the Boy Scouts of America was founded on worthy ideals, and also that it’s growth and transformation is partly a result of the weakening of family and organic ties.

Laura adds:

Bartholomew wrote:

I urge you and your readers in the strongest possible terms to rethink your position. You are seriously mistaken if you think you are justified in cutting off any little one from seeking the Kingdom of God, which is, I think, what the “homosexual” youth trying to join the Boy Scouts is, in some feeble, stumbling way, trying to do.

Please follow and like us: