How does creating policy to exclude gays from Scouting equate with hatred. These policies are in place to protect children against any, however unlikely, threat. Having leaders who are by nature attracted to young men simply violates the basic tenant of this protection.

It makes no sense to me that gays have to be in such an uproar over this. If you truely wanted to give gay boys the opportunity to enjoy the benefits that scouting avails, then you would get off your butts and create your own organization.

And shame on the city for this action. Scouting is one of the few organizations left where boys and young men can learn and grow to be responsible members of society, and to be leaders among men. The right thing to do would be to give the building back to the scouts, and show support for this excellent organization.

Vastly more "straight" men, often with marriages (to women) molest boys than openly gay men do. So I assume, by your logic, that only lesbians should be allowed to Scoutmaster for boys?

And what's shameful about enforcing a policy of non-preferential treatment and no government welfare for private institutions that support bigotry? If gays did indeed setup a "gays only" scouting organization, they would indeed need to pay their own way, in my opinion.

Shame on the BSA for refusing to help gay young men, and for contributing to an atmosphere of ostracization. With all the problems young gay men face in society today, they could really use a level-headed and responsible program to help them integrate into society, and straight young men could really use the lesson that there's no such thing as gay cooties.

Both camps on either side of this issue are obviously entrenched in their opinions, and there have been solid points made all around.

My only wonder is this - if the situation were reversed, and a gay organization was being thrown out of a building that they donated to the city, what would then be the result. I suspect that the streets would be full of gays.

I can't speak for all gay people—we really *don't* have a super-secret club where a cabal works up its agenda against the straight population—but I for one would expect the gay group to pay full rent or GTFO, just like the BSA. Then again, there never would be any gay group, with a 'gay members only' rule especially, that could EVER get preferential treatment from a city.

So you can stop wondering. Every community, oppressed communities especially, have small vocal factions that make things worse for everyone. I'm sure most gay people, like most people in general, would be reasonable enough to realize that a private club is not entitled to welfare in the form of free rent.

They seem to have no problems with a fully inclusive policy.

On the other hand, what kind of "leadership" is being taught by a group that excludes a discriminated-against minority from its membership? What if the Scouts excluded Jews? Would you think they should have access to city property then?