moosetracker

I never said studies on BSA, I pointed to your study on Savin-Williams, R.C. and Ream, G.L. study, which was not a study on the behaviors of BSA scouts.. The other topic on using BSA as a training of the youth in their for sexual behavior is simply a YPT matter.. YPT is something you don't muck with.. I never said some cult can come create a troop by which they can molest youth and it is perfectly fine.. If a person heterosexual, homosexual, man, woman or child sexually abused another youth in scouts, or were found to be grooming them they are out of the program.. A homosexual would not be able to "convert" children to his lifestyle as you fear, because it is should not be a topic of discussion.. A heterosexual should not try to convert either on sexual matter.. or take their youth out to sexual orientation training camps or whatever.. BSA is to be used to train boys in outdoor skills, leadership skills etc.. I have already stated that children do sexual exploration in other posts, but there is a difference between sexual exploration and sexual orientation.. Those who are just expirementing are having fun and rebelling against authority, and saying things to get a rise out of the older establishment.. If your researches want to call them settling into a normal life a victory, Whoopie, children grow up and grow out of their wild and crazy youth phase, most will grow out of drugs and alcohole, and jumping off of rooftops also.. In that respect I will accept that your reseach findings.. But those whose sexual orientation is set it is set, as firmly as your sexual orientation is set within you.

AZMike : "As LDS troops tend to be largely or solely LDS, the religious component will likely be used to mentor youths with a SSA attraction (using what he described as counseling and gentle peer support, without harassment or bullying), to guide them back into a lifestyle more in accordance with LDS teachings. LDS parents will be likely support this process. I don't think this is an official policy or plan, but as my friend said, it will be the likely end-result of any change in the process." My DE said something like that, not refering to LDS per sey, but maybe he had heard something by them similar.. If they do then those using BSA to change someones sex orientation (gently or not) should be tossed out of BSA.. BSA is not a place for sexual matters heterosexual or homosexual in nature.. It is why homosexuals in the BSA will not be a problem, if they promote their lifestyle, they would be out, they just will be free to bring their significant other to a COH or event, same as other heterosexuals do with their partners.. Likewise if anyone within the relm of the BSA program uses it to promote a heterosexual lifestyle they equally should be kicked out of scouting.. Youth or Adult.. IT IS NOT THE PLACE. I agree with your last comment, BSA better not touch it with a 10 foot pole, except in order to eject anyone who tries to implement it.. As for your scientific paper, you again are holding up the rare study that confirms your belief and ignoring the millions of studies they say that you are wrong.. Didn't you just the other day state something about not putting stock in scientific studies and using common sense instead.. Yet you love to pull these rare finding, ignore the bulk of studies, as well as refuse to use common sense.. Such as could someone with a gentle push or peer pressure get you give up your attraction to females, and start being attracted to males?..

Packsaddle I did see it, I chose not to comment.. Good thing, you probably interepeted it better then I.. I took it as conservatives have stated plenty of time on this forum.. He who has the biggest stick gets to rule over those who don't. So you can have beliefs different those of conservative religions, but as long as they can scream the loudest, make the most obnoxious threats, and pay the biggest bribes, all other religious beliefs must bow to them, and practice their beliefs.. Not very nonsectarian if you ask me.. But, it is what most conservatives believe (at least if things go their way..) If things look like they might be slipping from being the ruling class, well then they will take their marbles and go home. Maybe yours & my interpretations are similar at that.. One religion must conqure the other religions, because there is no way that they can just except each others differences and live in harmany with each other..

You have conviently misinterpreted Settle.. I don't wish to restrict anyones religious expression.. ANYONE's... unlike the conservative christion branch who wishes to enforce everyone to thier religious viewpoint.. So go out and pray 5 times a day, I even support you getting that time during work or school hours.. How long has smokers been allowed to take umpteen times with smokers breaks.. Well I think praying is a much healthier habit.. But, don't force me to stop what I am doing 5 times a day.. If your religious group does not want to marry homosexuals.. I will support that.. If you don't want them as members of your church go for it.. Just don't tell me that I must also treat homosexuals a pond scum.. Personally I am fine with local option which means, I will accept YOUR troop to not accept homosexual children or adult leaders.. Just don't tell ME that MY TROOP has to follow YOUR beliefs.. It is both those who insist that all units MUST discriminate against homosexuals and yes the other side that insist that all units MUST accept homosexuals.. These are the groups not respecting other peoples religious beliefs.. BSA, let the CO's decide for themselves based on the IH's beliefs, and HANDS OFF.. And then let parents decide which units they wish their children to particpate in due to their beliefs and everyone HANDS OFF..

Well if all the homosexuals had to worry about was becoming a high profile star with a high profile agenda to speak out in favor of Gay rights, and broadcast their orientation in magazines and on TV, very few homosexuals would have little to worry about because the majority of them run a very low profile life with their significant other, otherwise going to work, raising kids and doing average normal things all of us straight or not enjoy doing.. What we are saying is it does not have to go as high as national to get kicked out.. It does not need to be so obvious a total stranger at council reads about it, or sees you on TV.. All it takes is an uptight conservative ratting you out, because he heard it from Joe, who heard it from Pete, who heard it from Sam.. No way was Takei well known in the hollywood circles and in groups that went to star trek conventions, and it did not reach the ear of one or two up-tight conservatives... Why wasn't it reported?.. Because it was not public policy.. It was simply a statement from some executive at National that was written up and then never left the drawer of his desk after that.. You can not state BSA was excluding gays since this paper was written in 1978, because a paper never put into effect until the 1990's is not a policy at all, it is a piece of paper and that is it.. If Takei was marching in Gay parades or speaking for gay rights on TV, etc.. BSA may have not have chosen him to be spokes person, same as at the time they might not have chosen Hugh hefner to be a spokes person.. But, they were fine with him as long as he ran his private life privately.. The point is someone who was in the know, who have thier panties bunched too tight would have squealed on him to his council, to National, and to everyone else who would listen, had the policy been enforced in the 70's and the 80's..

As stated, it was well WELL known in 1970's by an star trek fan, and all his personal acquantances knew.. The lack of the internet just allowed things like this to be well known, without being WELL KNOWN..Same was true of Rock Hudson, and other stars well know in the community for being homosexual while the majority of the public (except those who followed their careers very closely) where not aware of it.. The magazines during this time also had a little more respect of a celebrities private lives.. Takei just wasn't outspoken about it during his startrek years by making political or public statements about his views, in 1985 he started to be very vocal on the subject.. Still in the hollywood community, it was public knowledge.. He was not in the closet.. He just wasn't flamboyant.. People today are not kicked out because they are arrested for any morals charges.. People are kicked out if someone finds out through the grapevine and goes to council and tells council professionals. The person need do nothing flamboyant. All they need to have is someone point a finger at them and say "Homosexual" in order to be thrown out on their ear.. (I am sure some here think they really should be burned at the stake, and lament the fact this sort of punishment has been outlawed.) Takei was well known enough as a homosexual, not to have been able to moved through the BSA circles so publicly had the secret papers been made public known policy. (Nor would he have chosen to if the secret papers were a publicly known policy.)

Well, it's a statement in a dustbin that was never endorsed and made public until the 1990's.. No one followed it. If they did, the BSA would have not made George Takei a spokes person for the BSA in 1985, nor allowed him to be an assistant SM.. Nor, given George Takei's view on people who discriminate, would he have been associated with the BSA, let alone be a spokesperson endorsing the program.. George Takei being gay was a well known fact among the Star trek fans since the 1970's and with anyone who was a personal friend.. Some non-star trek fans may have been shocked when he stated it more publically in 2005, but his sexual orientation was public enough before then with anyone who knew (or followed his career) closely. The majority of BSA did not know of the existance of that paper until 1990, and therefore it was not followed or enforced.. Even by people high up enough in the organization who scrutinize over who their spokesperson should be.. If a tree falls in the woods, but no one is around to hear it. Does it make a sound??

I meant 23 years.. I would have edited that, but sometimes you can edit, and sometimes you can't without adding a title that they won't let you type in, but you can't edit without typing in a title..

AZMike, I agree.. We should return to our time honored values pre-the 1990's.. When we were more welcoming to all, and get rid of this new fangled non-sense of the last 13 years...

Well it obviously is not!.. It means not making rules that favor one religions beliefs over that of another religion.. It means not forcing one religion to follow the belief system of another religion.. It means hands off in the any differing viewpoints of what is moral and what is not, as well as if Jesus is or is not the son of God, or if there are many Gods, or if your higher power isn't even considered a god.. IT MEANS HANDS OFF..

Weird, so though pocket flap shape they are suppose to dangle off the button?.. My son & his friend had one each, NH council didn't use them or sell them, But the MA council camp they did provisional at did.. They did sew on the pocket flap, and were pretty much the only scouts in our area with them. Then they removed them from the flap, but I don't know if there was a reason, or if it was just a personal choice.

AZMike - Considering the MAJORITY of the American voting population has changed thier views on homosexuals, are you calling the majority of Americans immature.. Yes, i guess you are.. After all, if it isn't your viewpoint, then it must not be the right viewpoint. If YPT protects boys from female adult leaders it will work for homosexual scout leaders.. (Sorry, it IS working for homosexual leaders.. We have them with the DADT policy).. Scouts also allows cliff jumping with proper safety considerations followed.. Also for the umpteenth time homosexuals are not pedophiles and your one out of 100 studies that say so, don't prove it..

I have heard also that the scouting rank in some colleges and job applications is becoming a negative. I suppose it depends on the company.. I am sure you will get a welcome for a job at chik-fil-a or HobbyLobby, or any college with a catholic affiliation.. It is just the fortune 500 companies and non-religious colleges you will have a difficult time with.. What a shame.

I kindof think that accept for the LDS who drag their boys into scouting kicking and screaming (or at least put him as a name on a paper, although he never shows), it doesn't matter what the parents think if the youth don't want to be a member of a program. Beside your stats are incorrect, the stats are that 45% parents want the policy to change, only 42% want the policy to stay in tact.. That means 13% have no opinion and will be fine with or without the addition of homosexuals. So where you get your 64% I have no idea, even if you tried to claim the no opinion crowd that would only be 55% and I could equally claim them to get to 58%.. Whichever way you look at it, the majority of parents are for the change, and we are the group that is growing by leaps and bounds as the old geezers are dieing off by leaps and bounds.. In 3 years our side has increased 16%, IN THREE YEARS!.. This means those new parents that BSA want to talk into bringing their first & second graders into the program will not be bringing them in.. Therefore BSA will decline and die. Now add in the stats of youth (the next generation of young parents who will choose to bring their children in OR NOT).. After that, the rest is noise.

You can post on any old thread. No oen can creat a new thread. It doesn't matter if you are 20 years in the forum.. An upgrade busted the forum.. The host (Scouter Terry) I guess is working on moving to a different forum software, we are just waiting for that and posting on old threads until then.

The forum is somewhat broken.. No one can start a thread.. We diehards are sticking around and discussing on old threads.. If you have an issue you wish to discuss, do a search for some old thread that is something like what you want to discuss.. Post a new comment to it, You can start your message, with something like, "this is somewhat like the old issue posted here but not quite.." or "This title sortof fits my issue of.." Then post your issue.. You don't have to read the old posts and then try to compare your issue, just state your issue as a new issue, as if you did start a new thread.. It will save us (and you) from reading up on the old issue.. This should "should" bump the thread into the recently posted area.. Us diehards will know to look at old threads resurrected for some one using it in this manner.. Per stated in this thread about 3 posts up, there may be fixed hopefully sometime this week.. Sorry to new people who are new and trying to navigate through these technical difficulties.

Hardly, as stated my position is in the younger parents and the youth.. My side will win when the old geezers die off, because their voices will continue to grow louder and louder... OR BSA will continue to grow smaller and smaller until it becomes a historical note.. Take your pick.

I also have to agree with others... How can the majority of scouts & scouters under 50 be for inclusion of homosexuals, yet the poll of All scouts & scouters are anti-inclusiveness, if we have THAT many scouters over 50 then the BSA program has more problems then just this!.. We are a youth organization who the majority of members are 50 and over.. I am in this group of old geezers, but in my area don't see my age group as the majority.. And I will also say, we are the last group that our opinion should matter.. We no longer have kids in the program, or are the parents who have the kids in grade school and under who we need to recruit, in fact if all us old geezers walked out tommorrow, scouting would continue just fine without us. The scouting program is #1 for the youth, #2 for the parents who wish scouting to help them teach their kids the values they wish them to learn.. Us old geezers, should have the least impact on this decision.

This just will tick off everyone, and will fix nothing. While I agree that youth shouldn't be kicked out, and the majority of us have up to now considered this to be their stance already, so basically this proposal is proposing what they are already doing.. Even with this some SM will deny signing eagle rank to gay youth (they will need to appeal to council & national) or kick gay youth out of their unit based on their units rules.. My DE was talking to it yesterday.. He just recently tried to get some jewish churches to sponser a BSA they read him the rite act on their exclusive ways, and as long as we have it they will not support a BSA program.. He also has very little corporate donations for FOS but 2 lists one group that will donate if policy is left alone, the other which will donate if it is changed to be inclusive.. As he says this solution will mean he will get no donations from either group.. National may think they are done for a few years, but the in-fighting has escalated over their latest muck-up, and it will not die down because they proclaim this as a solution and tell everyone to cut-it-out.. Sorry, both sides are now up in arms and will not lay down their weapons over this wimp-out solution.

Thanks guys.. Would be nice if it was fixed next week, but even if not, just the word that Scouter Terry has a plan and is working on it is substainance enough for now.

Would be nice to hear what the game plan in.. Perhaps we don't see anything going on as Scouter Terri has heard of software running this forum has promised a fix within the week, and he is waiting for it.. Or perhaps he is working on changing the software platform, so isn't working on fixing this.. But then it could be because he is simply not interested in keeping the forum going, and so is ignoring it until we give up using it and it dies a natural death.. We just don't know, 'cause there is no communication.. I do hope it is not the last one.. This was a great forum, I think the best on the net. What I do note is, I haven't seen any really nasty messages about this (perhaps deleted, before I saw?) Some tame frustration, but that is as bad as I have seen. I see on other sites some nasty postings for things that are very small issues.. I would like to think that shows our boyscout curtesy is alive and well...

Funny, my son & fiancee had a run in with someone while deciding who would perform the wedding ceremony.. They didn't have too much problem with this guy, but kindof walked away laughing at his black & white view about religion.. When asked what religion they were, fiance said "stay-at-home Christian".. to which she was told she couldn't be as Christian meant society oriented... (First I heard of that, I thought it only meant a belief in Christ.).. My son also has some beliefs that I don't know if they conform to any organized religion.. Sort of a little bit this and a little bit that.. He couldn't do that either, per this guys view of religious beliefs.. But, this guy was just black and white on everything.. My son also said he asked about their favorite color.. My son said it was green, although he didn't like this shade of green.. To which he couldn't do that.. If he liked green he had to like all shades of green.

If you find an old post in the archives that is sort of what you want to ask, then post to it, which will bring it back to life, we know to look for a new topic in an old post due to this snaffooo... But, I wish we got word as to why there is just nothing happening that looks like someone is trying to fix it.

Oh sure re-start a thread with this title and have us all doing cartwheels only to find out it's an old post.. NOW how to undo those cartwheels???

I don't think traffic will resume until we can start new threads.. You can only work with old threads for so long, then when you have a conversation going and loose 10 to 15 days of it, it just disappears the continuation of it is stymied.. It's a shame, I fear the longer this continues, the harder it will be to get everyone to come back.. I come here periodically to see if any new threads are started, or try to start a new thread myself..