tjhammer

Good question -- I'll let a homosexual answer it himself: Now see, for a second I thought he might be ready to quote from one of my previous posts. Like this one or this one. "Let's ask ourselves why homosexuals want to have access to other people's children." Why are you in Scouting with access to other people's children? That's an absurd insinuation. BTW, more than 3.4 million children live with gay and lesbian parents in the United States today, and the number is rapidly increasing. I'm in Scouting mostly because I owe a greater debt to the movement thanI will ever be able to repay, for shaping me into the man I am today. (This message has been edited by tjhammer)

>Now who said that? You better become more familiar with the "policy" you support, the way it has been enforced, and the implicit impact it has on kids. This policy is not just about keeping "flamboyant gays from being Scoutmasters", as I sense a few of you believe. It extends to kids, and kids have been kicked out. But it also impacts many, many more kids than just the ones that are booted. I have already related the very personal and very troubling story in this forum of a young man who grew up in the organization and was honored by the organization on many levels. Secretely, he was also dealing with the fact that he was gay (a tumultious inner battle regardless). All of those around him that he admired, all of those around him that had "cared" for him, were publicly endorsing a policy that said he was the ONE kind of person that was just not worthy of their association, and this one "flaw" was enough to overcome all of the "good" for which he had been honored. I have already spoken to how incredibly painful this must have been for this young man, and how it brought him to try to take his own life (a sad but common scenario). See, I'm much less concerned about "injustice" or "fairness" on this issue... for me it is not about whether gay men should be Scoutmasters. For me it is about boys like this one, who are very widespread even within our organization. If you have been a Scout leader for very long, I would wager that a boy like this has already been queitly suffering in your midst, and if you doubt that, then pause for just a moment and think back over the faces that have come through your program. Outwardly, you would have thought this young man, this boy that Scouting had built, was one of the most confident, capable products our organization had ever produced. He was a leader, and courageous. But in the end, his quiet suffering became too much, and he tried a very foolish thing. (BTW, much like my previous personal reference, I can assure you that this boy also does not recall a specific day when he chose to be gay. No amount of "influence" will "turn a boy gay", and no amount of influence will "turn a boy straight". If you continue to believe that is a concern, tell me what it would take for me to influence you to be gay?)

>Current national figures show that 40% of Tigers >drop out and 25% of Webeols 1. Solve the retention >problem and you solve the membership loss. It is >unrelated to the membership restrictions. BobWhite, those are interesting (and sad) statistics. I agree we have a retention problem. I wonder, do you have the statistics on whether new member recruitment is up or down, specifically? It would seem we would agree that is the salient fact to this discussion. >quite offensive that you had to catergorize the states that >voted against the gay marriage referendums and at the bottom >of the education levels. No personal offense intended. Though that's not my categorization, it was based on the pretty common survey responses that show a 2 to 1 difference in how educated people view this issue versus non-educated people. As for where the states rank in education level, I think that's also a matter of fact. One result of the survey I found interesting suugests the "education level" has even more to do with opinions on homosexuality than just age/generation:College graduates age 65 and older are more than three times as likely to favor gay marriage than are seniors with less education (33% to 9%). Among those age 50-64, college grads are twice as likely to favor gay marriage as their less educated counterparts (43% to 21%). By comparison, education makes relatively little difference among those under age 30, where support for gay marriage runs highest. Since younger generations are more likely to have college degrees than older, this education gap contributes to the overall size of the generation gap on gay marriage. Interesting how broad the gap is in older Americans who are eductated. At the very least, this would not support assertions that younger America is just being inculcated by "liberal education". But you're right, I don't believe that everyone who thinks gays are immoral is just uneducated. I realize that many good and decent people believe in their hearts that they are right, and I certainly don't begrudge them their belief. >Blacks were denied rights because of the appearance they were >born with. Homosexuals choose to behave differently. They have >the same rights that I do but are trying to use the government to >force others to accept their lifestyle. Do you recall the day you chose to be a heterosexual? I can't remember the day I chose to be a homosexual. (I do recall many, many days that I tried to choose to be a heterosexual, though.) >Should the BSA sacrafice/change its moral values that it believes >is right just for the sake of numbers? Of course not. (Unfortunately, that's not the opinion of the Chief Scout Executive, who as has been pointed out here many times before was quoted as saying the BSA would revisit this issue if the parents started walking away from the organization.) But I would argue that the BSA set its "moral value" on this issue BECAUSE of the numbers. When the LDS church specifically threatened to pull its membership (some 40% of Scout age kids) from the BSA if it budged on the matter, BSA chose to side with them instead of many other (and smaller) churches and sponsoring orgs that wanted local options. This is not a matter of numbers, and at the end of the day, the numbers that are impacted (pro and con) will not make or break our organization. I will grant you it is a matter of morality, though, and I find it extraordinarly immoral to prejudge a 15 year old gay Scout as "incapable of being the best kind of citizen", and reinforce in his mind that he is unworthy of your association.

Bob, try this logic: 1) the number of kids available to join Scouting is growing faster than the number of kids actually joining Scouting. 2) the most likely age in which kids join Scouting is Cub Scouts, which has not only not kept pace with the TAY, but has actually shrunk by 10% in the last four years. 3) parents of Cub Scout age kids tend to be people under 35. 4) people under 35 tend resist prejudice more and view homosexuality more favorably than those over 35, and a generational trend that seems to be widening. Can you draw any hypothesis from this information? One that I draw is that there may be a correlation between BSA affirming its prejudice in 2000 and the significant drop in Cub Scouts (especially as a percentage of TAY). Is that not worth discussing?

One survey, Bob? Come on, this is not just one survey (I've actually referenced two separate ones in this thread alone), but the majority of all surveys with real representative samples show the same thing. To deny that is to continue to be obtuse, and prefer we as an organization stick our head in the sand. As for my "hypothesis", I'm merely asking how one could be true ("Scouts Canada is losing members because it dropped its prejudice against gays") and the other could not be true ("BSA is losing members because it affirmed its prejudice against gays"). Far from scientific analysis, I realize. But certainly worth discussion. As for your other point, I completely agree we should be out asking Scout age boys who like camping to join our program, and I am not shocked that the main reason they aren't in the program is that no one asked them. But that's not the point we've been discussing. Cub Scouting is the primary way kids first get involved with the organization, and when you are eight years old, it has every bit to do with your parents wanting you to be involved in something. Since a growing multitude (a "plurality") of these young parents oppose the BSA's prejudice, and since we've seen this part of our organization shrink by 10% in just the four years since BSA affirmed its prejudice, it doesn't seem out of line to question causality. >BSA would not need The 50% to 60% of the families who accepted homosexuality. >If we just made sure every eligible scout was invited to join, we would have >a larger membership Bob, as you know, the TAY ("total available youth") is a key measurement in Scouting's growth. It's not enough to say that BSA adds x% to its membership, if the TAY is growing exponentially faster. That's not a recipe for long term health and relevancy.

OGE... some random, quick thoughts. Those referendums were about extending the institution of marriage to homosexuals, which people opposed for a number of reasons (including "morality and religious concerns", as well as legal concerns, etc. As you may recall, I have been in a committed relationship for more than five years, and our routine daily life is just about identical to most married life. I thought the push to extend marriage was too much, too fast, and there was some backlash because of it. I thought the religious conservatives did a magnificent job rallying their base to the polls on that single issue. I thought that the moderates and progressives (where the huge group of people who either strongly support gay rights or are just generally in favor but don't see it as a pressing issue) did a lousy job of recognizing how aggressive the conservatives were organizing. I thought that the 11 states that were involved in the referendum also show some trends of their own, in that they are mostly conservative, Christian strongholds, many of them appear toward the bottom of the list of education standards, and many have slower population growth than other parts of the country. (Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and traditionally religious Oklahoma, Missouri, Utah, and traditionally conservative Michigan. Oregon, and perhaps Ohio, are the only one that seems surprising to me.) There's no doubt the vote reflects strong push back against gay marriage in those states today, but I don't believe it reflects the trend. Mostly I thought that this issue is not a battle to win only in the courthouse or legislature. Much like the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, laws can help some, but the trends toward what people know in their hearts and minds of wrong or right will ultimately prevail. So, I'll repeat... if we have a hypothesis (with no supporting analysis) that Scouts Canada is shrinking because it dropped its prejudice, what are we to make of the hypothesis (with actual supporting analysis) that BSA is shrinking because it showed its prejudice?

Many other aspects of this discussion have already been debated in different threads, so I would like to keep the topic on the specific question regarding trends toward acceptance of homosexuality and how that has/will impact the future of Scouting. We can argue the statistics, I've already opened the possibility that surveys can be skewed (in both directions). But is there any argument of a definite trend? http://people-press.org/reports/images/197-23.gif http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=764 There's no denying that the country's opinion on this matter is shifting; the younger generations have dramatically different opinions than the older generations. (True, it is also influenced by the region you love in, with those in the South being nearly twice as likely to oppose as any other part of the country, and it's influenced by education, where those with college degrees are nearly twice as likely to support). The Civil Rights struggle in the 60's saw the same sort of divide among generations, regions and education levels. Even though huge progress was made in relatively short periods of time on that issue, it was the "trend" that took over to really change opinions over time (those that so strongly opposed the Civil Rights movement eventually died off or are now sitting in nursing homes, and their legacy is not nearly as strong among the generations they raised). So whether it is a majority of young parents, or just a growing multitude ("plurality"), it's sticking our head in the sand to believe this growing trend won't affect our organization (or perhaps already has). Snake... I have no doubt your Southern friends share the opinions you've outlined (though I do doubt seriously they would react as strongly as you expect). But Scouting allowing a troop in Minneapolis to accept a gay 16 year old member will have no impact on your troop or the Scouting delivered in the Southern region. Back to the original question... if these trends continue (and there's little to suggest they will not), how long before Scouting is mostly lead by uneducated, Southern, Christian grandfathers? (Excuse the hyperbole.)

Unc, come on, you're better than that. (BTW, I do meet the membership requirements.)

Bob, "obtuse" was one of the options, and your response seems to reflect which camp you choose to join. I gave you "facts"... 60% of those under 25... 54% of the "GenX" generation.... by just about any definition or interpretation, that's "a plurality of young parents with kids just entering Scouting age oppose the BSA's prejudicial policies". >If that does not bother the BSA then why let it bother you Because I am the BSA, every bit as much as you (and apparently more so than the top executives on the payroll). And I'm not in favor of this prejudice, nor in seeing my organization shrink into irrelevancy because if it. Back to the question at hand, if one hypothesis says Scouts Canada is shrinking because it dropped its prejudice against gays, what would the hypothesis be for Cub Scouting shrinking 10% in this country since BSA affirmed its prejudice against gays?

Data? Well, I imagine we could find "stats" to say just about anything, huh? But you would have to be either very out of touch or very obtuse to not realize the attitudes toward homosexuality are different between generations, and there is a definite trend. If you want some stats, a quick Google search gave me this (though frankly I have no opinion of the reality of this study, I would say it's not at all unexpected): Researchers at George Mason University, Rutgers University, and DePaul University have completed a study entitled The Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Generational Portrait. Sixty percent of "DotNet" generation [15 to 25 year olds) agree with the statement "Homosexuality should be accepted," compared to GenX (54% accepting homosexuality), Baby Boomers (50%), and Matures (39%). The original post responded to an unfounded claim that Scouts Canada membership was tanking because they allowed gays. If that were true, would anyone care to similarly hypothesize why Cub Scout membership here in the USA dropped more than 10% since 2000, when BSA decided so publically to not allow gays?

SnakeEater - the author of that article http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/040812 is trying to tie Scouts Canada's great decline in membership to their accepting gays is drawing his on conclusions based on no real fact, actually (and has been

They are driven by morals, not by the "changing views of society". If they happen to coincide, so be it, but morality is not a function of popular opinion. Fortunately, the BSA recognizes this. Fortunately/unfortunately (thus my confliction), they don't necessarily agree with you. As discussed before, it is about the membership numbers. These rare public remarks were made shortly after the Supreme Court decision, and I suspect that this kind of candor has not been uttered much in public since. Roy Williams, the Chief Scout Executive: The "single most important person" in this controversy is the parent, he said. "They chose Scouting to help their children be better people, and when they start walking away from us, that's the signal to tell us to revisit the issue," he said. "I don't see that on the horizon."So the BSA's policy on this "value" will be revisited if parents start pulling their kids from the organization. And while Roy Williams and others might not "see that on the horizon", it's pretty blind not to understand how differently the younger generation of parents with kids entering Scouting age feel about this issue than Rooster. It's disingenuous to think that all parents in the organization today agree with this "policy", and are "voting" by keeping their kids involved. (This message has been edited by tjhammer)

I haven't posted in a long while. Those new to the forum and curious will find a great deal of thought and background on this subject by reviewing my previous posts. I do still read the forums often, I just ran out of energy having the same circular debate, recognizing that I wasn't out to convert the zealots, and that I was comfortable with the "body of thought" I had previously posted to give those non-zealots some perspective to consider. I'll only reiterate now: "Scouting" was the single greatest influence in shaping my life as a young man (a constant presence from 8 years old). As much as my family, a surrogate and supplement for my good parents, more than my church, more than my "peers" and more than the countless activities and orgs in which I participated, Scouting made me the man I am today. My contribution back to Scouting has been significant, at most levels of the organization, from one-on-one mentoring to international committees. I owe a greater debt to this movement that I could ever repay. I am a gay man, living and loving the same partner for several years. Our life together is as routine in every way as most married couples I have met, and there's not much different in my household or bedroom than most of you (shocking as that might be for a few of you, it's true). I consider myself conservative (though admittedly the debate with some folks on this forum over the past two years has made me want to disassociate from that label more than embrace it... I grew up recognizing the extreme left for some of its absurdity, but didn't fully appreciate the same affliction in the extreme right). I'm certainly flawed and acknowledge my foibles. It took me several years to accept that my sexuality was neither a flaw or a foible. Most who know me would say I have strong character and ethics, and I believe I've demonstrated that in my life far more often than not. Most people who know me probably would not list my sexuality on the "top ten" list of things they would mention when describing me. I'm not a "gay activist". My participation in this debate on this forum is more because I am a "Scouting activist". I've seen the harm the "policy" causes some kids, and I believe the effect is more negative than positive on our organization. I also believe the simplest solution (local option) could have easily avoided consequential damage, and recognize we're now in a quagmire and only reason and honor will release us.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

And in just which sect NJ do you claim the BSA trains its members. Obviously one which does not include some of the Episcopalians, Methodist, Reformed Jews, Universalist, Wiccans or members of several others churches.

Bob, you're mixing your arguments and avoiding the point. Of course the only reason those churches can't charter a BSA unit is because they won't succumb to this one new BSA policy. That's not the point of my last post, and your indignation is just misleading. The salient point is this: a boy who sits in the Episcopalian congregation of Bishop Gene Robinson, or who has a parent that is gay, or is himself gay, must subjugate the teachings and beliefs of his family and church to the BSA's position that "an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model". In order for this boy to get the amazing, life-shaping experience that Scouting can offer he's asked to accept that the BSA (an "absolutely non-sectarian" group) is correct and his family and church are wrong.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

My point was the poster suggested that UUA, Wiccans and others could not be members. That is not true, the BSA restricts a few organizatins as COs for their refussal to abide by BSA policies but that does not restrict individuals of those organizations from joining. True. All these boys from any of those churches can join, just so long as they are willing to subjugate the teachings and beliefs of their religious leaders and families to the policies of the BSA. "Absolutely non-sectarian."

But you hide in a program where you disagree with their values and whisper your disagreement in anonymity. Regrettably, I don't see much honor in that either... on that, we agree and I've previously acknowledged. And it's not the "organizations values" I disagree with... it's one policy that I see as inconsistent with Scouting's real values and that is also inconsistent with the organization's stated declarations. And since my own sexuality is completely irrelevant to my lifelong role in Scouting, my overwhelming passion for the movement, and the good that I do for the organization and boys we serve, I've reconciled my relative dishonor. And of course, I see even less honor in the BSA policy itself, the wild and uneven interpretation and enforcement of the policy, and the disheartening and real consequence of the policy on the lives of boys in our midst. (This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

It's not like there is a mass of homosexuals who fell that they HAVE to be scout leaders. It's that there is a political agenda among social activists who are using the image of scouting to validate their lifestyle choices. They have no concern about the ideals or goals of the program, only to see their cause "socially cleansed" through the acceptance of the BSA. Certainly doesn't apply to me, or ANY other member of the BSA I have ever met, gay or straight. BobWhite, there is no denying that activist have rallied to tear the BSA in both directions on this issue. But what you refuse to acknowledge is that within the BSA there are many gay boys and leaders, like myself, who are not a part of the "vast conspiracy" you see.

Society and the law have already answered that question in all fifty states, with age of consent laws. Found this handy chart on the Google: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

we all believe in you and support each and every Scout of Cradle of Liberty CouncilExcept, of course, the gay one.

TP -- no denying your scenario, present day. It certainly mirrors my own troop experiences of recent years. But that's not what my post pointed to... I'm looking ahead a few years, as the generation (my generation) of today's young parents bring kids toward the program, and as a growing gay family demographic becomes a significant percentage of the TAY. No doomsday looming, but more and more families will be dealing with the this issue, not less and less.

Phil, alas, you're not alone. There are more than 3 million kids being raised in gay and lesbian homes today, and the number is sky rocketing. I, myself, will one day sit and make the decision you have had to make, and it will be especially poignant for me, as Scouting has been such a fundamental part of my life, and played the single most significant role in making me the person I am today. I will so desperately want my child to have the same opportunity. I honestly don't know what I will do, when faced with that decision. When you consider the huge number of kids and families that fall into the above category, along with the very strong statistics that show how generational the opposition to gay families is (the fact that those under 25 to 30 statistically tend to oppose the BSA policy, or other gay discrimination like it), you can see the inevitable likelihood of BSA's real "Total Available Youth" shrinking (which, on a positive note, is the most likely reason this policy will eventually go away). These young families are just starting to deal with similar questions as you, as their boys enter Cub Scouting age: "Is my son's participation in Scouting a vote in favor of the policy I oppose?" Unlike those of us already in Scouting, or with extensive experience with Scouting in the past, many of these young families are likely to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". Ironically, it wasn't the lawsuits (there were plenty) that forced BSA to accept women in leadership roles. Ultimately, it was the same experience you went through last night: in gyms all across America, there just wasn't enough men willing to step forward to volunteer, and ultimately, most everyone accepted the absurdity in pushing the women leaders away because they were "unfit role models". Until that policy was changed, women served in unofficial roles, regardless. And I'm sure there were a lot of grumbling "ol' timers" that made it uncomfortable for them (outside their units, of course). Unfortunately, the same role is not likely for you or me. If you do decide to participate, even with the full support of the parents in your unit, you'll face (almost inevitably) not just "grumbling ol' timers", but official ridicule. And if the Cub Scout Pack stands by you, it too, will be destroyed by BSA's response, and in the end, your son, and his friends, all end up the biggest losers. Maybe it's a bigger loss for them than if they never had Scouting in the first place, and had no adult ever stepped up to volunteer at that first meeting.

Vigil Honor Member

Rooster -- your strictly utilitarian view of sex is no less surprising than your consistent rhetoric. You suggest that sex is either for procreation or for selfish pleasure (the first practiced by you, and the latter practiced by me, in your not-so-humble opinion). The absurdity of your view is that it ignores the most common role of sex: Sex is an expression of love. Sex is one of the highest ways that we become intimate and close to one another. Sex is about respect. Sex is selfless, not selfish. Sex need not be utilitarian nor debasing... that's true in my relationship (and most)... perhaps not in yours. But in reality, I'd guess (though I can't be sure with you ) that you would agree with these simple and axiomatic statements. But see, I understand that you can not relate to me, nor apply these statements to my relationship. Your pious view prohibits you from even understanding the love I have, or considering for one moment that it might parallel your own. I don't begrudge you of your opinion or your demons. You're certainly correct that we'll all be judged soon enough, and the Truth will become clear to us both. Your view of how the scorecard will be tallied is so much more complex than mine.

I think the point that many in this forum contend, acco40, is that homosexuality, much like an 8-month pregnant unwed mother, is a "condition" ultimately impossible to conceal. Of course, those that stand and make proclamations are one example, but I think it is the belief of some folks here that being gay (at least anything but a heaviliy closeted gay) would just be too obvious to the boys and an automatic disruption.