Members chubrocker Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Drove by the local church on the way home and saw the scouts doing stuff out in the church yard. One group was doing the scout pledge--and there was definitely one girl in the group. Girls now allowed in Boy Scouts? Did I miss this in the news? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super_Donut_Man Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 What color was their shirts? I am guessing the standard tan? Guess times are a changin. I can see it happening. When I was finishing up with it, there was Explorer Scouts which was coed, and they wore green shirts, and was basically the same thing except not so much on advancement and awards and such, but more on trips and outdoors stuff and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators ThudMaker Posted May 19, 2009 Moderators Share Posted May 19, 2009 Maybe it was AWANA and not Boy Scouts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members s4001 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 There's a girl or two in our extended troupe with their brother. Guess it's easier to have the siblings along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Super_Donut_Man Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 There's a girl or two in our extended troupe with their brother. Guess it's easier to have the siblings along. I remember there were always the sisters of kids tagging along, and participating in all the activities and such. They would go to camp, go hiking, and all that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassman1956 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 This hit the courts back in the late '80's. Same time as the women reporters belonging in men's locker rooms did. The boy scouts lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Venturing is the officially sanctioned coed program, which may have been what you saw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 This hit the courts back in the late '80's. Same time as the women reporters belonging in men's locker rooms did. The boy scouts lost. First I've heard of it. Girls are still not permitted to be members of any traditional Boy Scout troop. There is a nationally sanctioned coed program, as detailed above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chaos5522 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 I know that Scouts in Canada are coed, but I haven't heard anything about that in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members B-Bottom Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 woman are allowed to join the YMCA but men aren't allowed to join the YWCA. Shenanigans!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 I'm sorry but Boy Scouts is a private club, and we should be allowed to say who and what we let into our club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 I'm sorry but Boy Scouts is a private club, and we should be allowed to say who and what we let into our club. Who and What? Are there a lot of wombats or ficus trees making court challenges to become Scouts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members chubrocker Posted May 19, 2009 Author Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 No uniforms--just regular street clothes. The "three fingers up" during the pledge made me think it was scouts. I'm not aware of things like Venturing and Awana, so might have been that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members bassman1956 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Who and What? Are there a lot of wombats or ficus trees making court challenges to become Scouts? It's the crab grass. Damned stuff wants in EVERYwhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Who and What? Are there a lot of wombats or ficus trees making court challenges to become Scouts? What= homosexuals. Whether or not you agree or disagree with that lifestyle (and frankly I couldn't give less of a {censored}), it's true that a private group should be able to govern whom it allows in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 What= homosexuals. They would still be a "who", what with that whole "being human people" thing they've got going on...:poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 What= homosexuals. Whether or not you agree or disagree with that lifestyle (and frankly I couldn't give less of a {censored}), it's true that a private group should be able to govern whom it allows in. Where in this thread has anyone claimed anything but? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Reverend179 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Where in this thread has anyone claimed anything but? Well, the very fact that girls may be allowed to be in Boy Scouts, despite that it's ALWAYS been a male association, says to me that the pressure on the BSA is finally starting to crack some of the stalwarts. KK, you're being a pedantic douche. You know exactly what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Emprov Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 They would still be a "who", what with that whole "being human people" thing they've got going on...:poke: I'm pretty sure he was referring to homosexual wombats and ficus trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chaos5522 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well, the very fact that girls may be allowed to be in Boy Scouts, despite that it's ALWAYS been a male association, says to me that the pressure on the BSA is finally starting to crack some of the stalwarts. KK, you're being a pedantic douche. You know exactly what I mean. The idea that the girls were members of the Boy Scouts was pure speculation, not fact...The Boy Scouts in America is still a male-only orginization. It was however pointed out that OTHER programs, affiliated with the Boy Scouts, have coed membership. And as I pointed out, at least in Canada, they've eliminated the Boy/Girl Scouts and simply have Scouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 KK, you're being a pedantic douche. You know exactly what I mean. I do know what you mean, and that you think it's pedantic and focusing on irrelevant details is precisely the issue; it's not. Referring to a group of people as a "what" is dehumanizing. The Boy Scouts aren't trying to keep out a specific philosophy, they're not trying to keep out an abstract concept or "a behavior". They're trying to keep out people. I think they've got the right to do that, but call it what it is. Don't let your language choices hide the fact that the organization is choosing to reject people based off of their sexual orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members HackedByChinese! Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well, the very fact that girls may be allowed to be in Boy Scouts, despite that it's ALWAYS been a male association, says to me that the pressure on the BSA is finally starting to crack some of the stalwarts. Young women are not, and never have been, allowed to join the BSA per se. There is no "may" about it, and there are legal decisions on the BSA's side that will likely prevent it from ever happening. Considering that girls have the GSUSA, a single-sex organization for females with largely the same goals and commitments, I don't see where any of this nebulous "pressure" would be coming from, since girls aren't being denied anything by not being able to join the BSA (never mind the fact that they have opportunities to join stuff like Venturing if they want to take part in it anyway.) KK, you're being a pedantic douche. You know exactly what I mean. Why the differentiation, then? :poke: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Chaos5522 Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 I do know what you mean, and that you think it's pedantic and focusing on irrelevant details is precisely the issue; it's not. Referring to a group of people as a "what" is dehumanizing.The Boy Scouts aren't trying to keep out a specific philosophy, they're not trying to keep out an abstract concept or "a behavior". They're trying to keep out people.I think they've got the right to do that, but call it what it is. Don't let your language choices hide the fact that the organization is choosing to reject people based off of their sexual orientation. Your argument, while valid, is largely semantic. Yes, they are keeping out people, but people who ascribe to a particular personal philosophy and practice a lifestyle/behaviour which is not in keeping with the orginization's philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Emprov Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 I do know what you mean, and that you think it's pedantic and focusing on irrelevant details is precisely the issue; it's not. Referring to a group of people as a "what" is dehumanizing. You're fighting a losing battle in the wrong venue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members King Kashue Posted May 19, 2009 Members Share Posted May 19, 2009 Your argument, while valid, is largely semantic. Not largely, it's entirely semantic. However, semantic doesn't mean trivial. HBC asks a rather telling question: If it was entirely unnecessary and unimportant, then why the distinction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.