I think I have managed to sum up my thought in a lot less lines.
The parents that have their kids enrolled in the BSA sent their kids there under the premise of a judeo-christian ethic. Most likely non-acceptant to homosexuals. Now the organization has accepted them and is forced with the task of teaching their members, whose parents won’t agree with this, that homosexuality is okay.
So what are the heterosexual kids to do?
They either have to accept it or at the very least tolerate it, or be tasked with leaving the BSA.
As opposed to promoting understanding, it enforces acceptance.
“and that ain’t right.” - papa was a rolling stone - the temptations
Here’s my counter argument:
What point are you trying to make by making a judgement call about what the BSA chooses to do or not. They were pressured by outside forces somewhat, yes, but their decision to do something is their decision alone.
Are you simply making commentary ABOUT the situation, or are you trying to make a point to reverse BSA’s decision?
take a chill pill and watch your caps lock.
I’m trying to point out the hypocrisy of how people tell parents that “you are in control of whatever your kids do, but then society comes in throws something at you and says, well you either have to accept it or get it.”
It is identical to when groups of people say, “if you don’t like how this is in the US, then get out.”
I emphasized one word, man. If you think I’m heated you definitely missed a giant chunk of my blog.
The thing is, are the people who say that any more right than what those who tell parents to “just accept it” are? Not in the slightest. The biggest difference being that while the BSA might be the biggest boys-only club, if someone else wants to form a BSA-esque thing, then have them do it. Just because the BSA is changing doesn’t mean that change is good, it just means that the BSA has changed direction.
The biggest difference between the BSA and the US is that a lot of us don’t have the option of up and leaving the US. You can choose at any time to leave the BSA without giant penalties and a bunch of red tape. So when you talk about “enforcing acceptance”, sure they are. But that’s because that’s their own organization’s decision. You surely cannot be arguing that just because one group of thinkers gets the shaft that everyone has to be happy. Because then nothing would ever get done because everyone gets shafted at one point or another in decisions.
What I’m trying to say is that the way it feels you’re trying to argue is for a reversal of the decision to enforce the status quo because you have a problem with people saying “that’s how it is, deal with it”. But the thing is, BSA changed their decision and they’re within their right to because they’re appealing to what appears to be a broader audience (LGBT vs “Conservatives”). If they weren’t appealing to a broader audience, then they have poor decision making skills.