Scout's Dishonor

While our issue of the month has moved on from homosexuality, there were a couple of other things I wanted to note related to this topic. The first is some reflection on the recent, and saddening, decision of the Boy Scouts. On May 23, 61% of the 1,400 members of the Boy Scouts of America National Council voted to allow openly homosexual youth into the organization. The ban on homosexual adult leaders remains intact, for now, but I have little doubt this current move is simply one step down yet another slippery slope.

Why is this such a terrible thing? After all, if we believe homosexuality is wrong, shouldn't we encourage young men who are struggling with wrong behavior to be involved in a "good" organization like the Boy Scouts? That logic sounds valid until you examine in more detail what has taken place. The Boy Scouts' oath says, "On my honor I will do my best...to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight." Obviously, every young man who is part of Scouting struggles with making wrong choices just as you and I do. But notice that no one was ever banning boys who struggle with homosexual desires or any other vice. The ban was on openly homosexual young men. In other words, these young men are not fighting desires they view as wrong, rather, they are embracing their homosexual desires and more than likely fueling those desires and identifying themselves with their perceived sexuality.

Now, with that in mind, read the Scout's oath again. The vote has essentially concluded that a homosexual lifestyle equals a morally straight lifestyle. The decision of the Scouts sends all kinds of mixed messages to our young people. I hope you understand by this point why homosexual behavior is actually immoral, regardless of what a vote decides. If not, I refer you to the previous two blog posts about this issue. One could no more vote homosexual behavior into the category of moral uprightness than one could vote that a geometric figure with four sides is a circle. But more than that, the leaders of the Boy Scouts have sent the message that morality is not objective, that moral values can change as the times change, and, essentially, that morality is decided by popular opinion. How on earth can our young men hope to live morally straight lives when the road to the good is seen as a multilane freeway with changing traffic laws rather than a oneway street?

Moreover, this ruling will not help young men with homosexual desires. If anything, it will fuel it. First, if "morally straight" and "openly gay" are compatible, then why should a young homosexual feel he needs help with his desires in the first place? Acting on his desires is not immoral according to the Scout's vote. Plus, as Doug Beaumont points out HERE,

Ironically, the notion that being "openly heterosexual" or "openly homosexual" is morally equivalent actually creates a new problem. The Boy Scouts of America is not just a social club or a bunch of guys collecting rocks or stamps. Scouting often involves shared, close-quarter activities like sleeping, bathing, changing clothes, etc. that young boys and girls are not allowed to practice together. So if someone subscribes to the moral equivalency of heterosexual and homosexual behavior, it actually makes the ruling as problematic as allowing young boys and girls to camp together would."

This post is not about telling those of you involved with Scouting to stop being Scouts. That decision is up to you. My goal is to simply help you think well about these issues and why they are important. I hope I have succeeded in that. There is one more issue I want to address before switching topics. Look for it in the next few days. - Adam T.