----------------------
(Mr. Pitts is a Nobel prize winner for commentary. As such, we should expect flawless logic, devastating arguments, and soaring rhetoric. I dissected one of his previous columns here. He disappoints once again.)
For the record, the Girl Scouts have no policy limiting lesbian involvement. (Neither did the boy scouts ask about sexual orientation from their members.)
Indeed, according to its website, Girl Scouts of the USA has embraced diversity and inclusion from the beginning, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt that group any: It has 3.2 million members and recently celebrated its 101st anniversary. (That is an open question. Historical membership in the girl scouts has been higher than it is now, both in real numbers and adjusting for population growth. After the girl scouts declared themselves a feminist organization in the 70s membership dropped and was flat into the late 80s.)
So Stemberger’s prediction that the boys are doomed for doing what the girls have done for years seems nonsensical at best. (This is why I question Mr. Pitts' rhetorical skills. Boy scouts have stood their ground on their founding principles just as the girl scouts have stood on theirs. The girl scouts have not revised their position, so their members are apparently comfortable with it. The boy scouts, however, have made a substantial change that completely revises the foundation of their organization. Their existing membership base is now faced with a decision as to whether the change is acceptable.
But again, there is little reason this should be celebrated by the rest of us, either. The Boy Scouts’ decision to split the difference — allow gay boys, ban gay men — does not exactly smell of Solomonic wisdom. Rather, it is marked by reasoning that is cockamamie even if taken on its own terms.
If, for example, you buy the notion there is something about male homosexuality that renders men unfit to be leaders, why doesn’t that same flaw render boys unfit to be followers? And if you buy the idiotic canard that every gay male is a pedophile in waiting, (Once again, note the characterization. Who has said that EVERY gay male is a pedophile?) then how you countenance allowing gay teenagers as old as 17 access to boys as young as 10? ( How ironic. Mr. Pitts makes the exact same arguments as the eeeevil John Sternberger quoted above.)
Worse, what kind of message does all of this send gay boys? You’re acceptable until you aren’t?
It is, of course, a mistake to seek logic here. This isn’t about logic, but about a conservative group doing what conservative groups always do when social change comes. (This is a tautology. A conservative group by definition attempts to preserve the traditions and institutions that have proven to be valuable and worth retaining. If it did not do this, it would be a liberal group.) Meaning, they bring up the rear, the caboose on the freedom train lurching belatedly to where the rest of us have already been.
It happened with racism, happened with sexism, happened with anti-Semitism, all of which conservatism loudly and proudly embraced long after the rest of us came to see them as evil and wrong. (This is historically ignorant. It was the Left that resisted the 13th amendment, it was the Left that enforced Jim Crow laws, it was the Left that voted against the civil rights act. Conservatives have always fought for liberty, rights, and self determination. Conservatives have always valued women more than liberals. And conservatives have caught a lot of flack over the decades for their unfailing support of Israel, while it is the Left that continually attacks Israel. Most recent example here.) It is happening now with homophobia.
The problem for the Scouts and other conservative groups (paging the GOP!) is not simply that this change has been definitive (a record 59 percent of all Americans now find gay and lesbian relationships morally acceptable, according to a Gallup poll). It is not simply that this change has been swift (12 years ago, only 40 percent of us approved). No, it is also, maybe even primarily, that this change has been driven by young people, a whopping 70 percent of whom, ages 18 to 29, now believe same sex marriage should be legal — up an also whopping 18 percentage points just since 2010. (So there it is. The very fact that conservatives disagree is reason enough to insist they change. The majority sez so. The majority, apparently, is the measure of morality. So lemme ask. When only 40% approved of gay relationships, that meant the majority found them immoral. Were we then advised to respect the morality of the majority at that time?)
Hello?
The momentum and trajectory are unmistakable: Gay rights are the future. The organization that fails to understand this sabotages its own future credibility. (Why all the concern for the credibility of conservative organizations? And in the Leftist mindset, what exactly might be credible about a conservative organization? And if conservative organizations need to get with the times and embrace gay marriage [along with every other leftist cause, of course], then they cease to be conservative, don't they?
More to the point, why do leftists like Mr. Pitt fear irrationally conservative organizations? Why is he threatened by their existence? Why does he insist that they must conform to his idea of morality?) So there is little reason to celebrate the Scouts’ half-hearted attempt to compromise with change. Might as well attempt to compromise with a locomotive.
Last week’s decision is a mere way station en route to a destination that seems increasingly inevitable. One day, and it probably won’t be all that long, the Scouts will concede this. On that day, this absurd decision will fall and scouting will be open to all boys and men regardless of sexual orientation.
That will be a milestone worth clapping for.
Hold your applause. As milestones go, this one is disappointing.
It is, at best, half a milestone. Or a down payment on a milestone. If you are of a more cynical bent, you might even call it an effort to forestall a milestone.
Whatever you call it, last week’s decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly gay Scouts, but not openly gay Scout leaders, to join, is unlikely to please or appease either side of the gay rights struggle. (True, but it is worth noting that if the Boy Scouts had not only approved of gay scouts, but also validated gay scout leaders, made donations to gay advocacy groups, and made the scouts a gay-only organization, the gay-rights leaders would not be satisfied even then. These people are not, and have never been, about equal treatment and fairness. Their agenda is to completely dismantle the traditional moral structure and root out any vestiges of opposition, whether public, private, or religious.)
Predictably, that shrinking coterie of individuals for whom homosexuality and Satanism are synonymous greeted the decision with howls of anger and pain. Matt Barber, an attorney and blogger, accused the Scouts of having “betrayed its own constituency, mission, oath and laws.” (Note the characterization, followed by jumping to a quote from the opposition, which implies that Mr. Barber made such a comparison. He did not. In fact, I doubt that Mr. Pitts can locate a single "individual" of national prominence that has made the claim that homosexuality and satanism are synonymous.
It is, at best, half a milestone. Or a down payment on a milestone. If you are of a more cynical bent, you might even call it an effort to forestall a milestone.
Whatever you call it, last week’s decision by the Boy Scouts of America to allow openly gay Scouts, but not openly gay Scout leaders, to join, is unlikely to please or appease either side of the gay rights struggle. (True, but it is worth noting that if the Boy Scouts had not only approved of gay scouts, but also validated gay scout leaders, made donations to gay advocacy groups, and made the scouts a gay-only organization, the gay-rights leaders would not be satisfied even then. These people are not, and have never been, about equal treatment and fairness. Their agenda is to completely dismantle the traditional moral structure and root out any vestiges of opposition, whether public, private, or religious.)
Predictably, that shrinking coterie of individuals for whom homosexuality and Satanism are synonymous greeted the decision with howls of anger and pain. Matt Barber, an attorney and blogger, accused the Scouts of having “betrayed its own constituency, mission, oath and laws.” (Note the characterization, followed by jumping to a quote from the opposition, which implies that Mr. Barber made such a comparison. He did not. In fact, I doubt that Mr. Pitts can locate a single "individual" of national prominence that has made the claim that homosexuality and satanism are synonymous.
But what about Mr. Barber's statement? Is it egregious in any way? Is it outrageous, insulting, a misrepresentation? No, not in any way at all. Mr. Barber's statement is a reasoned, accurate assessment of the organization's action.) John Stemberger, an Eagle Scout and anti-gay activist, predicted the Scouts will “probably be destroyed” by this decision.
For the record, the Girl Scouts have no policy limiting lesbian involvement. (Neither did the boy scouts ask about sexual orientation from their members.)
Indeed, according to its website, Girl Scouts of the USA has embraced diversity and inclusion from the beginning, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt that group any: It has 3.2 million members and recently celebrated its 101st anniversary. (That is an open question. Historical membership in the girl scouts has been higher than it is now, both in real numbers and adjusting for population growth. After the girl scouts declared themselves a feminist organization in the 70s membership dropped and was flat into the late 80s.)
So Stemberger’s prediction that the boys are doomed for doing what the girls have done for years seems nonsensical at best. (This is why I question Mr. Pitts' rhetorical skills. Boy scouts have stood their ground on their founding principles just as the girl scouts have stood on theirs. The girl scouts have not revised their position, so their members are apparently comfortable with it. The boy scouts, however, have made a substantial change that completely revises the foundation of their organization. Their existing membership base is now faced with a decision as to whether the change is acceptable.
However, Mr. Sternberger didn't go far enough. The boy scouts, by abandoning their foundational formative philosophy, has already been destroyed. This organization, going forward, is a different organization with a completely different mission. This is not to say that the replacement organization won't flourish. It may well do so. However, it is nonsense to suggest that tearing down the old house and building a different one is going to be good for the house. That house is gone.)
But again, there is little reason this should be celebrated by the rest of us, either. The Boy Scouts’ decision to split the difference — allow gay boys, ban gay men — does not exactly smell of Solomonic wisdom. Rather, it is marked by reasoning that is cockamamie even if taken on its own terms.
If, for example, you buy the notion there is something about male homosexuality that renders men unfit to be leaders, why doesn’t that same flaw render boys unfit to be followers? And if you buy the idiotic canard that every gay male is a pedophile in waiting, (Once again, note the characterization. Who has said that EVERY gay male is a pedophile?) then how you countenance allowing gay teenagers as old as 17 access to boys as young as 10? ( How ironic. Mr. Pitts makes the exact same arguments as the eeeevil John Sternberger quoted above.)
Worse, what kind of message does all of this send gay boys? You’re acceptable until you aren’t?
It is, of course, a mistake to seek logic here. This isn’t about logic, but about a conservative group doing what conservative groups always do when social change comes. (This is a tautology. A conservative group by definition attempts to preserve the traditions and institutions that have proven to be valuable and worth retaining. If it did not do this, it would be a liberal group.) Meaning, they bring up the rear, the caboose on the freedom train lurching belatedly to where the rest of us have already been.
It happened with racism, happened with sexism, happened with anti-Semitism, all of which conservatism loudly and proudly embraced long after the rest of us came to see them as evil and wrong. (This is historically ignorant. It was the Left that resisted the 13th amendment, it was the Left that enforced Jim Crow laws, it was the Left that voted against the civil rights act. Conservatives have always fought for liberty, rights, and self determination. Conservatives have always valued women more than liberals. And conservatives have caught a lot of flack over the decades for their unfailing support of Israel, while it is the Left that continually attacks Israel. Most recent example here.) It is happening now with homophobia.
The problem for the Scouts and other conservative groups (paging the GOP!) is not simply that this change has been definitive (a record 59 percent of all Americans now find gay and lesbian relationships morally acceptable, according to a Gallup poll). It is not simply that this change has been swift (12 years ago, only 40 percent of us approved). No, it is also, maybe even primarily, that this change has been driven by young people, a whopping 70 percent of whom, ages 18 to 29, now believe same sex marriage should be legal — up an also whopping 18 percentage points just since 2010. (So there it is. The very fact that conservatives disagree is reason enough to insist they change. The majority sez so. The majority, apparently, is the measure of morality. So lemme ask. When only 40% approved of gay relationships, that meant the majority found them immoral. Were we then advised to respect the morality of the majority at that time?)
Hello?
The momentum and trajectory are unmistakable: Gay rights are the future. The organization that fails to understand this sabotages its own future credibility. (Why all the concern for the credibility of conservative organizations? And in the Leftist mindset, what exactly might be credible about a conservative organization? And if conservative organizations need to get with the times and embrace gay marriage [along with every other leftist cause, of course], then they cease to be conservative, don't they?
More to the point, why do leftists like Mr. Pitt fear irrationally conservative organizations? Why is he threatened by their existence? Why does he insist that they must conform to his idea of morality?) So there is little reason to celebrate the Scouts’ half-hearted attempt to compromise with change. Might as well attempt to compromise with a locomotive.
Last week’s decision is a mere way station en route to a destination that seems increasingly inevitable. One day, and it probably won’t be all that long, the Scouts will concede this. On that day, this absurd decision will fall and scouting will be open to all boys and men regardless of sexual orientation.
That will be a milestone worth clapping for.
No comments:
Post a Comment