Why can't you be (possibly) LGBT and a Scout too?

     By now, you have heard the story about Ryan Andresen, the (now 18 year old) Boy Scout who was denied its highest honor, becoming a Eagle Scout, because he (recently) came out as homosexual. You have heard the uproar over this from both sides. On one side, the Boy Scouts of America have long been against gay (male in particular) rights. They recently reviewed their policies in a two year study before deciding to keep things as they are. There are many who support these views as part of the long-held views of Scouting. On the other are those who support gay/lesbian(/bisexual/transgender) rights who think the Boy Scouts' policy is discriminatory and the denial of Eagle Scout to Ryan is wrong. Both have a argument. My question is: What does one's (possible or confirmed) sexuality have to do with Scouting?
     Here is my thoughts. I was not in Scouting. I respect everything the Boy (and Girl) Scouts stand for, regarding the teaching of life skills, promoting friendship, tolerance and more for young boys and/or girls. However, I do not see where the (alleged or confirmed) sexual preference of the adult leaders and parents of Scouts come into play in this activity, or those like this. Neither organization promotes (to my knowledge) any kind of sexual expression of any kind among its members, who are mostly all MINORS (meaning under age 18). THAT is wrong, both morally and legally. So, with that said, the (alleged) sexual interests of a minor child should be irrelevant. The sexual interests of the adults who work with and/or support Scouts should be irrelevant too, UNLESS that adult, male or female, does something to hurt a child, Scout or otherwise. That is another matter.
    Bottom line, Ryan just turned 18, just like my daughter a few months ago. Both are now legal adults. Ryan's parents cannot tell him to not be gay, any more than I could, because he is a ADULT. Adults have the right to do what they want, as long as it with proper consent, within the law, and it does not involve hurting children! As a private organization, however, the Boy Scouts can have a policy like this, whether the public likes this or not. With this said, Ryan did the work and put in the blood, sweat and tears to earn this honor. His sexuality changes nothing. He earned this honor. I understand the view of the BSA, but he started this journey long before thoughts of sexuality came into his head. What he does in private AS A ADULT, is not the BSA's business. Give him (and others like him) his honor, whether he is openly gay or bisexual or not.
     For the record, the Girl Scouts DO have this policy that differs from the Boy Scouts, according to a Girl Scout website via a Google search I did:

Quote:

    We (the Girl Scouts) recognize the basic human rights of all people, including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. All citizens, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, have the right to housing, employment, and to be free from violence and harassment. While we condemn violence or harassment of anyone, we do not accept that individuals should be given special rights based on sexual orientation or gender identity.
 

   We have provided the information in this section to make parents aware that Girl Scouts of the USA is increasingly promoting LGBT issues to girls by featuring prominent LGBT rights activists as role models at Girl Scout events, in Girl Scout materials, and by referring girls to websites that aggressively promote special LGBT rights. 

We believe it is inappropriate to promote LGBT issues to children. 

   The above is very clear and concise. Lesbians and/or bisexual (women) CAN participate with the Girl Scouts and their activities. Homosexual and/or bisexual men CANNOT currently do the same with the Boy Scouts, per their century-old (rules and) principles which, from what I have read, are opposed to having anyone who does not support their views and principles, which include being "morally straight" and being one who "believes in God and supports His laws". That means no one who is (openly) agnostic, an atheist and/or who is (openly) part of a alternate lifestyle (homosexual, bisexual or transgender) can be involved in the Boy Scouts, as a member or as a adult leader. I guess the BSA is not as realistic or progressive as the Girl Scouts. Too bad.

   Please note, the Boy Scouts of America does also has the Exploring program, which is part of a separate program the BSA offers called the Learning for Life program. That program, unlike Scouting, is open to (young) men and women over the age of 14 and there are no "restrictions" on who can be in or work with (adults) THIS program, meaning one's gender, religion, and/or sexual orientation is irrelevant.

                 The last sentence above should be the one that matters to all: 

Quote: We believe it is inappropriate to promote LGBT issues to children.

     We all should be able to agree on that. We (meaning adults) should not be "promoting" sexual views (in either direction) on minors, in Scouting, in youth activities or sports or anywhere in public, including in church. The policy of the BSA and the children they have excluded from this organization does exactly that. It is a promotion of LGBT issues to children, even though it is in a negative light.      

   The exception to the above should be when parents are talking to their children about "the birds and the bees", or if a teenager (14/15 to age 18) is privately talking to a trusted adult (clergy, adult authority figure and the like, if the parent(s) is not a option). These are private matters discussed in private. Once the child turns 18, THEN they can talk to any other ADULT about these things, preferably in the appropriate time and/or place(s), usually privately, if they choose.

     I do not know how many young men (or women) who participated in Scouting, Boy or Girl, are now (or have been) involved in a alternate lifestyle as a adult (or even while they were in Scouting as a minor or as a adult leader). Judging from the fallout from Ryan's situation, it appears to be FAR more than one might think. So I ask, why is one's sexuality, which should be private matter, whether you are openly LGBT or not, matter so much when one is involved in NON-sexual activities outside the home? I am no prude...but there are some things that should be private and some things that should have no bearing on what one does in public. Who you love, your religion and your sexuality (in general and in specific) are three of them. People are people, regardless of race, gender, religion, what they wear in public or to bed, or whom they love (or do not).

    I feel that if you work with and/or know and/or are friends with someone, whether it is in office, in a social activity (Scouting, fraternities, sororities, sports, etc), or ride the subway with, you should respect them, at the very least on a personal level, if not also professionally. It DOES NOT mean you have to agree with everything the next person believes, feels or does. I feel that whom you share your house (and specifically, your bed) with for whatever "intimate" activities that go on there (or elsewhere) is not my concern. Nor is your religion. Nor is how you spend your off-work hours, even if some of the things you do conflict with your values (alcohol, gambling, and other "alternate" activities for some) as long as it doesn't conflict with what I do, believe in and the like, directly. We are all part of one big family...the human family. Having differences over small stuff like this is a waste of energy. I will have a intelligent, civil discussion with anyone about whatever subject, even the uncomfortable (for me) ones. If there is some mutual respect between us, why not talk and debate things? We don't have to agree at the end. We may not. But we may learn something from one another, or at least get food for thought. That food for thought may help you (or help someone else) down the line. Pay if forward (or backward) if you can. Why not?

   

 

"Full-figured is just rude"? Get real!

      For those of you who don't have cable or watch TV, Christina Hendricks is a actress in her late 30s who has had a prominent role on the award winning TV drama Mad Men, set at a 1960s-era advertising agency for several years. She is known in Hollywood for her role on this show, her red hair (which I like) and her.....curvaceous figure. Okay, more specifically, for her rather large (allegedly natural) breasts. She has gotten much notice in the last 3-4 years those...assets, which cannot be totally....hidden no matter what she does. Earlier this year, a couple of photos were "leaked" that were allegedly of her bare breasts. She denied it, but I don't know.....lol. It is hard to disprove such without actually showing such, unless such occurs in a movie role. No such role is forthcoming, to my knowledge.
    More recently, she cut a interview short when the interviewer asked her about being a "inspiration to full-figured women." She ended the interview, saying "I think calling me full-figured is just rude". Really? So what should people say about your physique? Big-breasted? Big-boned? Top-heavy? Just talk about your hair? What would you prefer?
     Truth be told, I am a breast man. I also have always been more attracted to...fuller figured ladies. Fuller figured ladies are usually women who have more curves (as a whole) than most women, especially in the breasts and/or rear and/or hips/thigh areas. I have dated petite ladies too, in the distant past, but you prefer what you prefer. Many (if not most) of the women I know and/or are friends with are fuller-figured ladies, due to curves, weight, height and/or some combination of  the above. That is in addition to most of the women I have been and/or currently involved with romantically.
      Ms. Hendricks is a attractive woman, with or without her assets, but men (and certain women) will notice certain assets first, irregardless of anything else. Her reaction may be saying that she is offended by not recognizing her as a true actress first, which is understandable. If so, that is fair. But to get mad when told that  other (larger) women look up to her as a role model? That shows ignorance and lack of confidence on her part. We live in a country (and in a world) where, despite there being more women that are "larger" (meaning either having larger breasts and/or having larger....proportions elsewhere, like rear end and so on), virtually all TV shows, magazines and the like promote and seem to "prefer" petite women and often...diss larger ladies for no good reasons.
     Simply put, women who are (obviously) larger up top, whether naturally (as she claims) or due to artificial enhancement (which is another story for another blog), get a lot more attention than their smaller counterparts. Those who make sure to show a lot of cleavage all the time in public get even more attention. Ms. Hendricks does NOT needlessly show off such in her role (especially considering the era her show is in and the job she has), but she does show off a bit at other times.
     However, she carries a size where she cannot escape attention...notice no matter how much she tries to minimize things. She needs to have a thicker skin and realize that the paparazzi will work hard to catch her and her...assets in a exposed moment at any time. She also should realize that she is a rarity in TV (and movies) as well and not diss women due to her discomfort with her celebrity. If the attention bothers her that much, get a breast reduction down to a A or B-cup and never wear anything revealing in public. That would solve that (for the most part). Otherwise, chill out, Ms. Hendricks! Being full-figured is NOT rude! Those who diss those who are such IS rude!