ohadam

I forgot to say-- I don't know where my SE got his numbers. At the "our council is folding" meeting he said [paraphrased], "Nationwide, BSA membership is down 400,000, or 10%, from 2004, and 25% from 2000."

Im swayed by Merlyns (perhaps incorrect) numbers in a general sense (he may have changed them, by now) only because they have not been falsifiedhe made them available and gave the opportunity for rebuttal, but received none. Im not saying there isn't rebutting information, Im just saying that if it is not revealed it can have no persuasive effect. (I know youll agree, Mr. Scott, that unrevealed information can prove no case.) When someone makes a proposition that would tend in reason to draw a response, and response comes there none, Occams Razor encourages me to infer that no response is possible. Other inferences can be made (enter "agenda" here), but they require that I multiply propositions unnecessarily, which Occam discourages. Im willing to be swayed away from Merlyn, but only open facts will do. That doesnt mean I buy the conclusions Merlyn draws from the data. (Actually, I dont know what those would beI suspect theyre more complex than has been characterized here.) As a 3-year Cubmaster of a pack that has doubled in size three times in the last three years (9 to 17 to 35 to 60+ boys) in a council that on April 30 folded due to dropping enrollment, I have my own sense of pack-level organizational sociology and the causes of membership drop-off or gain. And I agree with what someone here expressed very well earlierthe causes are multifold and deep.

We should always be concerned about how people see us. The ALA thing disturbs me a little--not because the ALA will adopt this position (it won't), but because the author does. A thoughtful condemnation and appeal will always give me pause, will make me step back and reconsider whether I'm still doing right. And though in the end I may not agree with the condemnor's evaluation (as I don't with this one), I'd always take it seriously. We don't need to be cavalier about it.

A 400,000 member drop from 2004 is what my SE told me, too. It doesn't prove anything, but . . . Ed, I say this with all love: Your saying "This is 2006" and putting up 2006 numbers doesn't answer the thesis posed--"BSA mebmership drops by over 400,000 in 2005." To answer it, you need to subtract 2005 numbers from 2004 numbers. I may have missed it, but I don't recall any of you doing that. And of course, refusing to put up any numbers at all tells me the prospective author (I forget his name) doesn't have any that are favorable to his position. (I'm interested in reading that future book of his, though.) Fellows, I gotta say, with respect to the numbers, Merlyn's convincing me. Adam Cubmaster California

Careful about using this one. It's probably not true. http://www.snopes.com/music/artists/perlman.htm

I'm a cubmaster who will probably be a scoutmaster and Venture Crew advisor some day. I don't see the benefit of the Order of the Arrow. It seems elitist and unnecessary. It seems that if you elect 2% of scouts to a separate group and make them undergo special ordeals that you're implying the group is special and, concomitantly, that the troop is less special. The OA tells 98% of scouts that they're second best. Why do that?

The First Amendment right at issue here is freedom of assembly, not freedom of speech. The Sea Scouts argue Berkeley is infringing on their right to associate with the BSA. But that raises the question: How do the Sea Scouts, as a program within BSA, have legal capacity to sue anyone or standing to sue over a subsidy granted in the past to the BSA? And even if they do have standing and capacity, how can depriving the BSA of a berthing subsidy (the subsidy was granted to the BSA, not the Sea Scouts) infringe on the Sea Scouts' right to associate with the BSA?

As a cubmaster, the gay/straight issue is not pertinent to the kids so I ignore it. If my kids become boy scouts and the issue comes up, I'll invite them to abide by the scout law as interpreted by their conscience, not by the dictates of either the right or left. I will advise that "obedience" does not mean obeying the established leadership but rather accepting the consequences of disobeying it. I'll explain that the BSA's position is that homosexuality is not clean or morally straight (see www.bsalegal.org) but that BSA refuses to explain this position or support it with evidence. (Which makes me suspect the position is adopted not in the interest of values but in the interest of membership.) I will let them decide for themselves whether BSA's position deserves their support. By that time, I hope to have trained them to examine the issue intelligently and make an informed, mature decision. Maybe it's a pipe dream.

Nope, fgoodwin, I can't. This is me shooting from the hip and putting up my dollar. I don't even know which traits are genetically determined (beyond the obvious--eye color, etc.), which traits are only hormonal, and which are genetic but depend on triggers. I am continually dismayed by my widespread ignorance. Sorry to hear about your son, Trev. My son was diagnosed in December 2003 (on the same day he completed a Polar Bear swim with his Wolf den). My source for the virus-trigger hypothesis is my son's physician's speculation + a genetic predisposition for diabetes in my wife's extended family (1 of 8 have it, compared to the 1 of 20 average nationwide) + the fact that sympoms appeared after my son was ill + the scientific speculation that diabetes is an autoimmune disorder. See the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation's statement at http://www.jdrf.org/index.cfm?page_id=101982: "Scientists do not yet know exactly what causes type 1 diabetes, but they believe that autoimmune, genetic, and environmental factors are involved." I have not reviewed or tabulated the research. Yet. Make sure you look into diabetes Summer camp--I highly recommend it.

fgoodwin, I think you may have an incomplete understanding of what genetically based means. As DanKroh said, its not only what genes are there, but what factors influence them. (DanKroh, I dont think its just in-utero factors, either.) Not all genes become expressed. In other words, even if the hypothesis all homosexuality is genetically caused is true, it does not follow that every homosexuality gene causes homosexuality. Therefore, a less-than-100% correspondence in twin studies does not negate the hypothesis. I tend to think of it this way: A gene is like a ball on a mountaintop. It might sit there forever or it might get nudged and roll down the hill. If it rolls down the hill (i.e., becomes expressed), the mountain (i.e., phenotype) will look different. Things that can trigger the gene are hormones (in-utero and ex-utero) and, I maintain, viruses. For example, I think a gene codes for juvenile diabetes. However, merely having the gene is not enough to actually get diabetes. Something has to come along to trigger it. I wager its a virus that does the triggering. (Id like to know whether twins have been studied in this context and, if so, what resulted.) I wager the same is true for homosexuality. We already know there is a continuum of gender psysiologymost men possess male genetalia and reproductive anatomy and most women possess female, but some possess both or a blend. (You can look it up.) It is not so hard, then, to infer that sexuality follows a similar continuum. I agree with Trevorumin ten years well know a lot more than we do now about this issue. If I turn out to be right about viruses triggering the diabetes gene youll all owe me a dollar. Adam Cubmaster and retired clinical chemist