Why does this debate keep coming up over and over again.
It does not matter what you gay supporters think. The law is the law; and, it has already been decided by the Supreme Court that
Boy Scouts of America et al. V. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allows a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints." In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message. It reversed a decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court that had determined that New Jersey's public accommodations law required the BSA to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale, who had made his homosexuality public and whom the BSA had expelled from the organization.
So, there is no need to keep having a debate on this nonsense.
And, all gays are sick and perverted. Man is meant to be with woman. Darwin explains this in his evolutionary theory. Man and Women are meant to propagate the species.
Anyway, the Boy Scouts does not have to accept gays.
All you gays can go form your own gay scouts and have fun teaching children about gay sex and raping them, you sick pukes.
The Boy Scouts Of America's base is the holy bible, “But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’”
God made parts to fit, BSA, once again is based off the bible and kids in it believe in the bible. Kids and most leaders respect God's word, it should stay this way forever and always.
I would feel weird being under the care of a homosexual boy scout leader. I am a boy scout, and I do not approve of homosexual leaders in a troop. This is why, a homosexual leader can cause straight boys to most definitely feel uncomfortable around gay adults. I know I wouldn't want an older man thinking of me sexually, it's just not normal.
If you ban homosexual leaders, you are teaching the boys that homosexuality is wrong and something to be ashamed of. A boy scout leader is not going to put "moves" on a young boy. Just because they enjoy sex same people, doesnt mean they are going to flaunt it on to others. Many times you can't even tell if a man is gay.
People are people and just because someone is in love with someone of the same gender does not mean they are any less capable of leading children. Sexual orientation is only a very small portion of a person and it doesn't define someone so why should it make a difference?
There are no good reasons for the Boy Scouts to ban homosexual leaders.
One of the most common arguments used is that homosexual leaders are more likely to engage in inappropriate sexual conduct with the children. Some even claim that those who would do this are by nature homosexual whether they identify as such or not. This is simply untrue, as research has found; the prevalence of such abnormal behavior is no more prominent in homosexual men as in heterosexual men, and they are not homosexual simply because they target boys - that is, if they identify as heterosexual, they are unlikely to be interested in adult men.
Another argument might be that a homosexual leader would cause those under their care to become homosexual. Sometimes this may be taken to the extreme to be about the recruitment of young individuals into the homosexual lifestyle. It would seem ideal if the issue of sexuality was kept out of the picture altogether with regards to the Boy Scouts, making this a non-issue as it should not need to be discussed.
Actively banning homosexual leaders, on the other hand, demonstrates prejudice that reflects badly on the Boy Scouts and their values, sends a negative message to Boy Scouts that grow up to be gay, and risks alienating individuals who could benefit from the Boy Scouts in general.