GernBlansten

maybe its regional, but our council doesn't have an outbreak of boy on boy sex. You fellas in Georgia seeing a lot of it?

Of course you think we HEAVILY DOWNPLAY the negative aspects of homosexuality. Conversely, I think you HEAVILY EXAGGERATE the negative aspects of homosexuality. We all agree, we have homosexuals already camping with us, don't we? We don't have a problem with boy on boy sex. Those scouting organizations who don't have the ban also don't have a problem. Who's exaggerating and who's downplaying what?

"That's the best you can do - dig up a quote from one of her detractors?? I'm sure he didn't have an axe to grind, with that political blog - Progressive Alaska. BTW, what does her religious views have to do with science? Keep religion out of the science classroom, and vice-versa, right? " Well Brent, your more than welcome to dig up something something to dispel those rumors of her views. Doubt you will. Just sayin'. BTW, I do think religious views cloud people's ability to objectively view science. Especially when its contrary to their politics or beliefs. Don't you?

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/nation/na-palinreligion28 "Soon after Sarah Palin was elected mayor of the foothill town of Wasilla, Alaska, she startled a local music teacher by insisting in casual conversation that men and dinosaurs coexisted on an Earth created 6,000 years ago -- about 65 million years after scientists say most dinosaurs became extinct -- the teacher said."

"I have lived all my life in the evangelical community, and except for my mother, I've never personally known anyone who believed that. I know some must, but I haven't encountered them personally. Who do you do know who believes that? " Sarah Palin.

So Brent, am I a coward?

I have a very difficult time engaging in any scientific discussion with those who hold the belief that the earth was created in 6 days and is only 5-10 thousand years old. Just sayin'.

Is it a coward who speaks up against his brethren when he feels they are not behaving to the values they preach? Is it a coward who points out the logical flaws in their arguments? Or it is the coward who just shakes his head quietly and allows them to continue?

On second thought, I think BSA would see a dramatic decline in membership if they lift the ban on gays. Its clear that the BSA is filled with narrow minded bigots who would simply walk away from an outstanding youth program if they couldn't exercise their bigotry openly. It's probably best to placate them. Someday, America will evolve to the point that they don't treat a segment of their people like second class citizens. At that time, perhaps BSA will be mature enough to lift the ban.

"It creeps my 14 year old out just as much. He's friends with the gay guy at his homeschool academy, but would never get in a tent with him! " Why? Has your homophobia infected your son also?

"In reference to a double standard, no there isn't. We had a male approach a female staffer, and he was dismissed as well. Don't knwo what happened after he left camp. " The double standard comes from you bringing up the gay situation to make your case, without recalling the hetero one. Yet when I brought up the fact that either situation should result in the same dismissal, you conveniently remember the hetero one and try to side step the double standard.

Isn't it kinda funny that celibacy isn't a requirement? I've never seen a rule that says a married couple can't engage in their carnal obligations while camping with the troop. So I guess its OK. Right? Yet, y'all are getting all worked up with over imaginative speculation on how the gays will engage in sex while camping.

"As for gays in our midst, yes it happens. We had a youth on summer camp staff that was gay and was sent home b/c he propositioned several members of the staff. Tried to work staff again the next year, but was declined. Don't know what happened to him after that. " I would think the same standard should have been applied to hetero staff too. If a male staff member is propositioning female staff, he should also be sent home and asked not to return. Why the double standard? As for the celebacy of the gay, isn't that what we really want from all scouts? At least while they are youth? And as for the adults, don't we expect we remain celebate during our scouting trips? So if its OK to to be gay if your celebate in the eyes of the church, why is it different for BSA?

Thanks Pint. Always welcome to have a dose of reality when we prognosticate on things like this. Since we already have gays camping and tenting with us, I doubt anything would need to change. Dropping the ban would not increase the ratio of gays in BSA. I do understand the argument that the LDS and Catholic COs might drop the BSA program. Do the LDS and Catholics welcome gays into their church? Or are outed gays excommunicated? Couldn't they apply the same standards to their youth programs?

So did UK Scouting increase or decrease due to dropping of the ban?

Thank you Pint. I'd rather hear from those who actually went through the Rubicon than to put too much credence in those who speculate. So Pint, did the dropping of the gay ban help or hurt scouting in England?

Did that occur in England?

I guess we could ask our brethern across the Atlantic how they handle camping with gays. Fellas, do your campouts turn into Roman orgies?

Pack, I take offense that you think my religion is rather weak or confused. My religion is rather weak AND confused. Just the way I like it.

But how many COs would suddenly become eligible or at least amenable if the ban was lifted? Especially if it was left to the CO to decide.

In reality, the gays are already hiking amongst us. So nothing from that standpoint would change. But from a public relations angle, removing the prohibition would reduce the friction the BSA faces when interfacing with the public and in utilizing public resources. Eliminating one of the three G's from the argument would definitely benefit the BSA in the long term.

Happy ChristmaHanuKwanzaakah

"The UN guys seem to me to be proposing "environmental religion", not as something they personally consider fact-based, but as a tool for social manipulation. " This is great. In arguing your point that environmental religion is bunk, you make the case that all religion is bunk. Let me swap out a few choice words.. The Vatican seem to me to be proposing "Catholicism", not as something they personally consider fact-based, but as a tool for social manipulation. Here's how I use reverence: honor or respect felt or shown; deference; profound adoring awed respect Does your definition differ?

Exactly Kahuna. Your definition of religion coincides with my idea of environmentalism. It is a religion. It has a set of ideals, rules, faith and reverence that every organized religion does. Yet we have people who ridicule it, mock it. These same folk would never ridicule another sky god based religion.

I'm a little confused. If my faith is based on a reverence for the earth and all things natural, it is not a true religion because it doesn't focus on a single sky god. And to practice that faith, I'm really just an atheistic evolutionary, much like the Nazis, the Chi Coms and the Stalinists. As Spock would say. Fascinating.