GernBlansten

So Rooster, in the same vane, should my son and I be offended when at a scout meeting or dinner, the name of Jesus be invoked as a diety to be worshiped?

Ya know, stlscouter, you may be onto something. I'm a diest and as a diest believe god is part of nature and the environment. The OA ceremony reinforced my belief. Probably didn't do much for the Christians, but I was very moved. Didn't put much thought into the polythiest theme of the ceremony. I suppose if I was uptight about seeing other religous views, it might upset me.

It may appear that LDS units suffer from poor leadership more, but the difference is that our units stay units more consistently. A ward will continuously maintain its units even during poor leadership, while most non-LDS units will choke off during that time You make my point better than I can. Because of the rotation of leadership and I assume lack of consistancy of that leadership, LDS troops may suffer because of a lack of experienced/seasoned leaders. Sure there are bad leaders in non-LDS troops and those that don't "fix" the problem, naturally go away. Bad troops will fade, strong troops will flourish. But in the LDS framework, leadership is rotated irregardless of the performance of the leaders. The boys are compelled to remain in the troop despite leadership. Leaders are compelled to lead despite their desire. From what I gather, you may be mile wide in leadership but only a few inches deep. Tying this back to the thread, it would not surprise me to link the lack of depth in BSA leadership skills to an increase in safety violations and situations.

Having been tapped out, gone through the Ordeal and ceremony myself, I have not seen anything that would be in conflict with any religion I'm familiar with. However, I'm a pretty easy going guy and don't get wrapped around the axle over much. Oh wait, there is that sacrifice thing I'm not supposed to talk about!!!KIDDING!

Rick, I used the term "conscripted" deliberately to differentiate my impression on the motivation of the individual leader. Someone like me who willfully seeks a leadership role in scouting vs. someone who is assigned the task by the Bishop of his church have different objectives and motivations. One is true volunteerism, the other is not. My motivation is wholeheartedly the advancement of the program and the safety of the Scouts. I beleive in the program and I as an individual chose to support it. Someone who is forced by their church to do the same, may not put the same priority on those values. Its not their individual choice to support the program, but the church's.

I had no idea that LDS troop conscripted their leadership. That to me would be the most likely culprit if a problems does indeed exist. In most troops, leadership is voluntary and long term. I just finished my SM training and its taken the better part of a year to get it fit into my schedule. But I did it because I want to enjoy scouting with my son. I've been in the troop for 18 months and just now feel comfortable leading the boys properly and safely. I plan on being active and a leader in the troop until my boy turns 18, in about 6 years. We have leaders with 10 years adult leadership experience. I've had the pleasure of attending several outings with our much more experienced scouters. I'm in awe watching the techniques and attention to safety they demonstrate from years of experience. This is not something you pick up in a few weekends of training. Our troop just returned from a long weekend of caving, rafting, hiking, bicycling and swimming in the Rocky Mountains. Very adventurous and fun time. But safely ran, the BSA way. Our "old goat" patrol made it that way. If in LDS troops they don't volunteer but are "called" to temporary duty, how do they expect to obtain that level of experience and skill? Are leaders who wish to continue leading the LDS troops allowed to continue, or are they called to another task?

Good on ya TJ. I too think the Christian Right have seized the GOP and are pulling the strings now. That's the primary reason I left the party. For years, the GOP was the only party of reason and fiscal self control. You know, during the Reagen/Bush (GHWB) years. Their hard turn to the religous right flung me out the door, skipping down the highway. I was born and raised a Lutheran. All the way through the confirmation ceremony. After high school, I lost my faith and focused on science for my answers. I was that way until my mid 30s, pretty much a practicing athiest. But there was something missing, something not explained by science. Not to mention I live in one of the most conservative christian regions in the nation, so pressure to follow is constant. In my quest for answers, I came across Deism. The more I studied it, the better I felt, that I was not the only one. Deism doesn't answer all my questions, but so far, its much better for me than any other form of religion I've come across.

Not a Biblical scholar here, but let me take a swing at some of these... 1. Drinking alcohol (The Methodist minister who lived across my street said "Lips that touch wine, shall never touch mine") 4. Lending money at interest (I think this goes to borrowing more than lending, Jewish thing I think) 5. Dancing (Southern Baptists don't like dancing. Ask Ashcroft.) 6. Watching television or movies (Really don't know, but I'm sure there is something sinful about it, especially Jerry Springer) 7. Using buttons on clothing (Well, those Quakers are a little queer) 8. Playing cards (My grandma from the old country said it was the Devil's Picturebook) 9. Reading Harry Potter books (Read today's paper. All that witchcraft and sorcery) 15. Buying insurance (Haven't a clue, but it must be true since its on the internets.) 16. Swearing oaths (Jehovah's Witnesses will not say the Pledge of Allegiance.) 20. Making carved images of Jesus or Mary (Don't have a clue. Must be Catholic deal since they are the only ones hooked on Mary)

Hunt, your last post was excellent. The problem with using sins to decide who may join and who must be expelled, is that sins are not universally agreed on. Just for the record, I have... eaten pork and shellfish. played the stock market, therefore gamble. drank adult beverages. danced, see above. had sex before marriage, see above. used birth control, see above. worked Saturdays, Sundays and even Christmas. lent money at interest. Watching television or movies Used buttons on clothing Played cards Read Harry Potter books Bought insurance Sweared oaths Damaged the environment Called another person a fool I have never... divorced Had more than one wife demonstrated Homosexual behavior demonstrated Racism Made carved images of Jesus or Mary Statistically from your list, I'm not fit to be a scout leader. Who's sins are we to be judged by? The Jehovah's Witnesses? The LDS? The Catholics? The Lutheran's? The HASIDIC JEWS? The Born again movement? BSA needs to establish a policy that members conform to legal behaviors. This keeps the pediphiles and criminals out. Removes them from the tar pit they wandered into. CO's should be allowed to determine non-criminal discrimination as they see fit. Let the LDS have their "official youth program" and exclude female leadership, let the UU church run a scout troop with gay leadership. Let my Methodist CO determine who they see fit as leadership. If they think my day trading in stock options is not in harmony with their values, they can exclude me. I will find another troop that does.

Help me out here. What gay ethics are troubling to you? Specifically, ethics that would normally be displayed or demonstrated in a Scout setting. Ethics specific to homosexuals.

What hetero ethics and role models do you demonstrate to Scouts? I would hope that you don't stand in front a Scout and demonstrate proper hetero techniques or ethics. If you leave the mechanics of sex out of the discussion, what roles or ethics do homosexuals overtly demonstrate to others, that would be any different than heteros? We are all to be asexual when working with Scouts. It isn't appropriate for either hetero or homosexual behaviour to be discussed or demonstrated.

Yes, no matter the evidence, many religous folk will never accept scientific evidence if it contradicts their faith. I'm a scientist by trade, trained in the scientific method. When evidence indicates an alternative answer to my faith, I examine it, verify its validity and make a personal judgement. Evolution is just that. I don't accept the biblical version of creationism, it simply doesn't hold up to my analysis of the evidence. But it doesn't exclude my belief that a higher being had something to do with evolution and the creation of the universe. Same goes for the choice/hard-wired argument. I have never met, spoken to or read a gay person who says it is a choice. They are the experts here. Not me. They all claim it is just the way they are. I am aware of some religous groups that claim to "convert" gays into straights, but I also am aware the recidivism rate of those converted is pretty high. I personally believe that homosexuality is an anomoly in human beings, like diabetes or any number of birth defects. An imbalance in brain and body chemistry. When those chemical markers are identified, perhaps a "cure" will be found. Until then, I will accept them as they are.

You're right Ed. I don't know you from Adam. But you did tell us you don't look good in a dress! My comments to you were more general to anyone who dogmatically believes the choice arguement. I just can't believe that anyone who holds that POV has ever discussed it with a gay aquaintance. I'm not saying they hate the sinner, but their hate of the sin clouds their reason. You are absolutely correct that if the hard-wired arguement was proven, BSA would have a very difficult time justifying the discrimination. Perhaps someday, we will be able to scientically demonstrate this, however, I would bet that some would still reject the evidence.

Prove me wrong! Prove gays are hard-wired. Prove it isn't a choice. Ed, when you want to discriminate, you should be the one proving it's a choice not hard-wired. Actually Ed, I was just like you at one point in my life. I thought gays were repulsive, immoral sodomites. They chose to be that way, just like a drug addict or criminal. Then I went to college and met my roommate Todd. He was kind, athletic, smart and as normal as one could hope. We became good friends had good times for years to come. A few years later, we were talking at a party and he told me he was gay. He was worried I might reject him, but our friendship prevailed. I started asking him why he was gay. He said he didn't choose to be, he just was. For the next few years, he and I had long frank discussions on homosexuality, discrimination, friendship, love, marriage, children, women and men. I met many of his friends, some I liked, some I didn't. We drifted apart and 10 years later, I found out from his mother that he died of AIDS. Anyways, I find people like you Ed, have never had a close, open relationship with a gay person. I think you would find them to be good, moral people, just different.

Thats good to know Bob, but I think they (the Mormons) have a pretty strong voice at national too. They (the Mormons) have a profound influence on our district activities like Camporee. Our Camporees are basically one day events. They start Friday night late and end Saturday at sunset because of deference to the large Mormon population of scouts that cannot participate on Sunday. Don't know how Camporees work in other regions but it seems silly for our district to "offically" end the camporee because some of the troops must leave early.

In my council, over 50% of the units are LDS units. I think they (the Mormons) have a very large voice on setting policy in my area. They (the Mormons) have stated that if the rules excluding homosexuals were laxed, they would pull their boys. Who do you think our council listens too?

I would label Anne Heche as a confused bi-sexual. Ever read her writings? So Ed, With your statement -- "Plus what about those gay people that "turn from the lifestyle" and become straight and visa versa?" Could I get you to change to the "lifestyle"? What kind of program, training, torture, cohersion, payment, or threat would divert you from your straight ways? I doubt any. You are hard-wired straight. I could put a dress on you, but you will still be straight. Doesn't the same go for gays? BTW, Angie Dickenson in Rio Bravo gets my vote on swinging me to hetrosexuality. Good thing that came out before Dr. No. Sean Connery could have swung me the other way!

The hard-wired arguement is incredibly important. It elevates discrimination of gays to the same level as racial discrimination. Imagine the argument that blacks are bad role models because of the behavior of some members of their race. Therefore, they are not fit for membership in BSA. Those arguements were used 50 years ago, thankfully in 1974, BSA stopped that type of discrimination at the national level.

So Ed, you chose to be straight didn't you?

"If gay parents don't produce/raise children who are gay - that fuels those who say sexual orientation is biological (nature) and not learned behavior (nurture). (GernBlanten postulate?) " I stated that most children of homosexuals are their biological offspring, either from a previous marriage or hetro relationship. Very few are adoptions. So these children share the genetic code of their gay parents. If gaiety (I love that word) is learned, then children from a pro-gay household should have a dramatic increase in homosexual identity. That is not the case. The distribution of gay identity offspring is the same as in "straight" households. Tell me acco40, if you were say 90% hetro, and 10% gay, was that biological? So if I was 50/50 biological, and I chose hetro, I'm OK by BSA standards. If I chose gay, I'm out. I just don't remember the day I chose. I always liked chasing skirts over trousers. Do you remember your choice day?

I assume the majority of gay parents are lesbians who either had children out of wedlock or from a previous marriage. Certainly some gay men could also have children from previous hetro relationships, but in most custody cases, women prevail. I also assume adoptions are pretty rare in the homosexual community. If the stats are to be trusted, sounds like a strong argument that homosexuality is nature, not nurture. If growing up in a gay household has no increase in the rate of homosexuality, then can it be claimed it is learned behaviour?

BW, Your application of the membership rules and rights of BSA is spot on. However, your arguement, without modification, could legally justify exclusion of blacks from BSA. If BSA stated blacks where not fit to join, that same membership arguement holds water. Imagine the outcry from society if BSA practiced such bigotry? Just for the sake of arguement, lets say BSA had such a policy. If I as an adult leader, decided to attend a civil rights march or allow a black to marry my daughter, could I be expelled from the club? Sounds like Matt was expelled not for praticing homosexual behaviour, but for starting a club that taught tolerance for homosexuals. He was celebate. He was no different than many other 14 year olds who don't practice sex. Yet he was expelled due to a label being applied to him. If an avowed gay is to be expelled, should a dis-avowed gay be allowed to join? He is still gay, but is celebate (I assume thats what the antonym for avowed gay is). Is he now granted access to the greatest youth educational program in the US?

gaiety - The belief in fairies, light loafers or women in comfortable shoes.

Thanks for the clarification madkins. I think BSA called itself a religous organization to justify its policy on discrimination with Gays and Athiests. I think it has backfired and driven a wedge between BSA and a significant portion of America. When I was a scout back in the 70s, never was my faith or sexuality even an issue.

Madkins, Curious, are stating you want BSA to be more religous or less? I think if BSA pushed religion much more than the occasional non-demoninational grace at meals or a simple prayer at meetings, it would become far more fractured than it already is. Our scoutmaster is Catholic. I'm not. If he ran his troop as a youth group for Catholics, I would have to find another troop that aligns with my beliefs. I don't want him to impose his belief system on me or my son, just scout values. I live in a rural part of the country and not many troops to choose from. I think the LDS has already imposed their religous values on their troops and I don't think further division within the BSA is a good thing.