noskad

Who is this wheeler dude, anyway? It seems like no matter what the original topic of a thread was, it is changed to a bizarre argument over "socialist pedagogy" and feminism and "androgenizing boys." LOL Yes, I know this thread was started by wheeler, but...I don't think it really matters. This wheeler is obviously (as others have pointed out) someone who knows nill about Scouting, its motives, its methods, and least of all, its values. Those of us who actually were or are Scouts and Scouters know better than that. My advice: give it up, wheeler, because you'll never convert anyone here. Your posts serve only as minor comic relief. LOL

My apologies for not allowing the thread to die. I just joined today, and began reading from page one all the way through. Until I reached the last page, I was not aware that I was "resurrecting a 13 page thread that no one possibly remembers the details of." "I imagine we all have our views on this issue and will probably not change them based on on some post on the internet. Therefore further posts on this issue, while perhaps entertaining, serve no legitimate purpose on this forum." It may be correct that internet postings may not bring about change, but they do give an outlet to share opinions and, thus, maintain a dialogue. Those who were 'fence-sitters' may now be leaning to one position or the other, and not scared away. No matter the length of the thread, or its span of time, there will doubtless be new members popping in all the time, reading something to which they cannot resist a response...and so the thread continues. Dialogue is good. It is part and parcel of our democratic process. Without dialogue and intelligent discussion, where would we be?

Let me clarify my previous comments: My assertion that forming a new group doesn't make sense was because it does not make sense relative to this debate. It is akin to "I don't want you on my team, so why don't you go form your own team...but you still can't play with us." I made no comments of suggestions that anyone should be "chipping away" at the ideals of the BSA. While I was quoted as saying, The BSA is a wonderfully beneficial organization and should not exclude any boys for any reason, if the post from which this quote came is re-read, there is another quote. "The BSA is a private organization with autonomy to decide for what it stands and whom may join." These seem to be the two opposing viewpoints that form the basis of the debate. As other posters have said, there are a lot of opinions and a lot of information being expressed in these 13 (so far) pages in the current thread. The thread seemed to be drifting to off-thread topics, and I was trying to return focus (for myself more than anyone else). "Scouting has a reputation of providing the world with strong leaders of high moral integrity. The term Eagle Scout has meaning for a reason." I agree, as an Eagle Scout. "And by the way, what you call starting another exclusionary organization is what many people would call the free enterprise system and competition. It is the reason our country is so great" Free enterprise is not really applicable, unless we start thinking of the Scouts as a business with the goal of making money off dues, instead of what it really is. There's no reason to go into what it is, because we all know what the BSA is all about. As far as competition is concerned, two similar groups differentiated by a single issue would divide up the resources of supporters, potential charter partners, and (most important of all) boys/potential members. Not an insurmountable task, but yet another issue to overcome.

I agree 100% with OldGreyEagle's post of RE: Scouting's Real Gay Policy Posted: Sunday, March 17, 2002: 10:48:24 PM: "...sexuality is something best left out of scouting and in the scout's family or church whenever possible." A boy's sexuality, regardless of gay or straight, should be kept completely out of the BSA. The family home is the proper forum for the discussion of human sexuality between a boy and his parents.

I am not completely sure that cjmiam gets the point of this whole debate. He continually suggests that "if it's so meaningful to you, I see no reason why you can't go start the Gay Scouts of America. You could do everything that we do, but allow people to be gay while doing it." The debate can be summarized by two opposing viewpoints: 1.) The BSA is a private organization with autonomy to decide for what it stands and whom may join; and 2.) The BSA is a wonderfully beneficial organization and should not exclude any boys for any reason. Suggesting the someone go start "the Gay Scouts of America" would not solve the situation, because the debate centers on EXCLUSION. Forming a second exclusionary organization would not make sense.

As I have not read all 13 pages of posts yet (still working on it), forgive me if I am about to make a redundant response. In response to the posting by DedicatedDad, RE: Scouting's Real Gay Policy Posted: Monday, February 11, 2002: 4:10:33 PM: "Of course morality is linked to religious principle... not any one specific religion, but a teaching that there is a higher power outside ones self, represented in many forms. No, you got it backwards, religious principle is linked to morality. Morality existed before there was religion. When man first walked upright and became endowed with reason, morality existed. Lying, stealing, murder, etc was immoral before any religion ever existed or any law ever written. If morality is only linked to religious principle, then human sacrifice was once moral." and ...Bring it on, I love history my good professor... Recall that human sacrifice was a vital part of Aztec religious ritual. In our predominantly Judeo-Christian society, morality is not even something we can all agree upon. Religious denominations espouse differing moral behaviors. The issue of divorce is but one example. Are Protestants less moral than Roman Catholics, because divorce is allowed in most Protestant faiths? (Please, no extraneous threads about the current sex abuse scandal...it's separate issue.) Certainly not. One thing is certain, though...a discussion of morality cannot be held exclusive to the religious views of those who hold particular moral beliefs.