tjhammer

BobWhite, I'll leave my credibility up to those reading my posts to decide. I've demonstrated my "credentials" a few times in the past. You're right, though, I have a personal interest in this debate. You should also correctly assume that my knowledge on the topic and BSA's evolution is deeper and broader because of my personal interest. But if you review all of my posts, you can see that I'm not so concerned about the policy's effect on me (I'm gay and very active in Scouting yet have not personally suffered much; the role of "victim" is not one I have ever accepted, and to complain as such personally would be too selfish of me). I'm much more motivated by the damning effects of the policy on those close to me, those anonymous to us all, and to my organization. (This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Bob, your arrogance is amazing, but we've had this discussion several times before. My understanding and experience with Scouting runs to every level. I have even attended meetings held for the National Relationships Committee (when this discussion was not on the agenda). I have a throurough understanding of national structure and how the agenda is set (both in theory and in practice.) You're own knowledge of Scouting is significant, and your ability to quickly refer to point and prose of policies is impressive. But frankly, just because BobWhite says something with certainty, it does not always make it true. How about instead of simply dismissing me as "clueless", you take a moment to consider that I probably do know something about this? Better still, why not learn more about the Nat Relationships Committee and their role in the evolution of the policy in recent years? Frankly, playing "whose got more training ribbons" with you is tiresome and nothing more than a diversion from the real issue.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

So Rooster... you think this was all prompted by the vast, external homosexual lobby? And that the BSA didn't "strike" first? Tell that to James Dale (the young Scouter for whom the Supreme Court case evolved). He never sought to "change" the BSA or make an example out of them (he never even knew the BSA had a policy against him). The BSA proactively sought him out because they discovered something about him they didn't like. The external lobby that rallied to his support did just that... they responded to be the BSA's aggression, not vice-versa. It might be nice to think that you (BSA) are the real victim here... I suspect it makes the harm done by the "policy" easier to overlook. But let's not revise history. This "policy" came into existence only after pressure from specific chartered orgs called the BSA's hand on it (specifically the LDS and Catholic Churches at the National Relationships Committee meetings). Until that time, BSA's policy was locally set, locally enforced and individually applied on this and all other issues relating to specific character and fitness for membership. (Granted, an unspoken, whisper-based policy may have been in defacto existence for years before anything was written down, but it still allowed for the possibility of local control and individual application.) For the record, I don't deny that there is a homosexual lobby in play here, and I certainly don't support all of their tactics. Both sides of this debate have their extremists trying to set the tone and frame the debate, and in the middle there are a lot of innocents getting trampled (including Scouting itself). (This message has been edited by tjhammer)

BobWhite (Rooster? others?)... The question that TwoCubDad (and others) are still waiting on a direct answer to is:why does BSA see a difference between immoral homosexual behavior and immoral heterosexual behavior? In your words, why is homosexuality a "major boundary" and heterosexual behavior open to local variance?

silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.

silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.

silver-shark -- Actually, I don't find a whole lot of disagreement with what you have said. I, too, believe that sexuality is not a valid topic in Scouting. And if the BSA simply had a policy that stated that, there wouldn't be much problem. But that's not what their policy states, and it CERTAINLY is not how their policy is (mis)interpreted by many. The BSA takes a MORAL stand on homosexuality specifically. The nuances of the policy (including the important "avowed" criteria, etc) are largely lost on many people, including the parents and public outside of BSA, many parents and leaders inside of BSA, professionals who unevenly enforce the policy, people on all sides who mistakenly think they know the real, though unspoken, reasons behind the policy (ie sex abuse, etc), and most important of all, the nuances of the policy are lost on the kids in Scouting. Those nuances aren't clear to a gay boy who thinks Scouting has isolated him as a class of person that is unworthy and immoral, despite what his own church may teach him. And the nuances are lost on the rest of the boys in the program who only hear rumors of the policy and interpret it to mean they should believe and act a certain way against gays. I tend to agree with your perspective on whether this should be a topic in Scouting, and ask why we even need the policy banning avowed gay leaders at all. Regardless of who forced the policy into existence (outside gay activist pressures or inside conservative Christian pressures), the point is that the BSA is now the only one with the power to change it. And they can do so by simply reverting to the existing policies they have followed for decades, which allow for local decisions on the individual character of each member and leader. Reverting to such a position would not result in any massive change of society or even of Scouting, it would be consistent with the principles of Scouting and the BSA, and it would neutralize nearly all of the objectors (on both sides of the debate). silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Bob, see, the biggest difference of opinion we have is that I clearly believe the BSA is compromising its values and going against it's long-stated declarations on how the fitness of members is determined and how all religions are accepted and respected in the program. You think this new policy is just inline with some long standing tradition, and I see that it is contrary (in many ways) to the things Scouting and BSA have stood for since its founding.

BobWhite -- your post is very misleading. Did you even read the entire article on that poll? Of course 75% of Americans support the Boy Scouts (that's what it says... heck I certainly fall into that camp, as does every other member of this forum that has posted AGAINST the BSA policy on gays). The shame is why 25% DON'T support the Boy Scouts (in other words, why doesn't the amazing value and worth of the BSA trump this one bad policy, or whatever other issue these folks may have with the BSA, and garner overall support from Americans, if not complete agreement?). (Of course, in reality, getting 75% of the country to agree on anything is quite an accomplishment in and of itself.) But yes, all, please do read the poll results on the link he provided. Read it critically, though, and make sure to do the reverse calculations in your head (when you read that 70% of the respondents indicate that their opinion either did not change, or improved -- that's TWO camps of thought -- after the Supreme Court case, reverse that and read that ~30% of the populace opinion of BSA actually went down. But specially, a couple of paragraphs from the poll are all I needed to find some consistency with the Wild A-- Guess I previously posted:Meanwhile, 28 percent said they had a less favorable view of the BSA because of the policy, and 2 percent said they weren't sure one way or the other. Only 29 percent of those surveyed said the BSA should permit homosexuals to serve as scoutmasters, compared to 52 percent who said homosexuals should not serve. Eighteen percent were not sure. So let's see, in my WAG I suggested perhaps as much as 35% believe the policy is wrong and should be changed. And WND (a staunchly conservative and frequently skewed news source) poll says it's only 28%. Actually a lot higher, if you include those people who's opinion of BSA already was poor and "did not change". So my WAG was maybe not so wild after all. Polls can be argued and interpreted in so many ways that they are really pretty worthless. And the way questions are asked (the "are you still beating your wife" format) mean everything ("do you support the Boy Scouts overall, despite their specific position on gays or whatever other specific objections you have"). My point has always been (and I asked this in the specific post I made with my WAG), it really shouldn't matter what any poll results are. Wrong is wrong, whether one person is harmed/effected or a majority. That's not an opinion share by the BSA Chief Scout Executive, who I remind you said that the policy would have to change if suddenly BSA started losing "lots" of members over it.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

DSSteele -- far from scientific, and barely eligible to be called a "wild guess" (but then, since BSA has never bothered to survey its membership on the issue either, its guess is a little wild too), here's my conjecture: 5% of BSA parents/leaders believe very strongly that the policy is wrong, and would/are trying to see it overturned20% of BSA parents/leaders believe the policy is wrong and would enthusiastically support a change, though stop short of being active/vocal in bringing the change about40% of BSA parents/leaders are either middle of the road, have no specific opinion on the subject, or more likely have an opinion but don't feel strongly about it one way or another, and would go along with whatever policy ultimately exists on the topic.25% feel the policy is correct, for a variety of reasons, including religious grounds and also fear of sexual abuse and/or corrupting influence that a gay member may introduce10% feel very strongly that the policy is right and actively defend it on evangelical groundsNow, while these numbers are just conjecture, I think they are more conservative that what general public polls on the subject are (believing that Scout parents/leaders are likely a bit more conservative as a whole than the general public). You can also find forum members to easily group into all of the categories above, especially that large silent majority in the middle who don't feel strongly either way and would except either direction on the policy (those are the folks that read these discussions, but never participate, or even skip over them). What say you of my conjecture? Think it's completely inaccurate? How might you adjust the numbers? Would it really matter to you, if the numbers were accurate, or even if they shifted by 50% in either direction?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

mk9750 said: In your example, the status quo changed.The status quo also changed in the BSA. This was never an issue when I joined Scouting as a boy, and while it may have been brewing at national levels by the time I became an adult, it certainly was not known to be a real issue outside private circles. The BSA specifically drafted this policy banning gay members in the mid to late 80's. Some may argue it was always a policy and only needed to be articulated in recent times because of external pressures that called the question, but I think that is a leap. In reality, this is an issue of moral definition, and BSA has historically and publicly left such definition up to the local units, parents and sponsoring partners. Unfortunately, the rules and status quo most definitely changed. (And even to this date, I still have not had to sign any membership application that states I support the BSA policy on homosexual members, and the policy has only been vaguely defined to me.) Your other point, that the neighborhood is a public accommodation and Scouting is not, is a VERY valid point, and one with which I completely agree. I have said many times that I support the ruling of the Supreme Court that lets BSA define their own membership standards. I don't think anyone should be able to force us to change our position in this issue (or any other similar), but I do think we should of our own volition. To go back to your analysis of my analogy, you're right it's perfectly legal for the BSA to do what they are doing, but that still doesn't make it the right thing to do. Finally, in answer to the question about whether I am "out" any where else in my life... The answer is yes and no. My sexuality is simply not that much of a defining identity for me, at work or in social circles even. It's really largely irrelevant to me and to those I associate with. Some people I associate with know (only because I don't lie about it or take extraordinary means to conceal it and they are so close to me that it is impossible to not eventually know or hear through the gossip circle), and some people don't (only because it's just not pertinent). Yes, Scouting's policy has also played a significant role in my not "coming out" further... I don't feel the time is right in the Scouting arena for me to leave the "neighborhood", when I can achieve more by staying in the "neighborhood" and quietly working to return to the "status quo" I once new.

Rooster... in answer to your question about my possible "hype", I'll excerpt from a previous thread I wrote titled "What it is and why it really matters"... I mentioned some of the personal experiences I have had relating to the policy. For the record, I rarely have been one to exaggerate or use hyperbole in this debate... I try to use logic and reason, not passion and presumption (you know I respect you, but you also know that I would put your debate style more toward passion and presumption).Scouting signals to gay youth who are coming to grips with this fact that they are immoral and unworthy of membership, contributing significantly to the crisis in this young person's life that lead to a foolish attempt of self-destruction (I know, I've seen this happen to one of my dearest friends, a young Eagle Scout) Scouting would eject a 16-year-old member who works on camp staff and answers honestly to a question posed to him by camp leadership and confirms he is gay (another true story, though the Scout was later reinstated because the leadership violated the "don't ask" practice of the BSA) Scouting will eject a member (youth or adult) who publicly disagrees with the BSA Inc. policy (whether they are gay or not) Scouting will eject long-time leaders who grew up in the organization and have served with astonishing contributions back to Scouting, if it becomes publicly known that they have formed a committed, life-time relationship with another man (I know, I've seen it happen to one of my closest friends, an Eagle Scout and 10 year leader) Scouting will pull the charters of a Cub Scout pack whose parents write a letter to their Council Scout Executive stating their opposition to the policy and their willingness to accept a gay leader if one applies (yet another true story) Scouting (for no reason other than leadership believes gays are immoral) teaches all of its youth members that this is a true statement and it is acceptable to discriminate against gays Scouting's policy doesn't ban gays, it just forces them to remain closeted or get out, which is not healthy for the individual or the organization. Scouting violates its own declaration of religious principles, forcing young members to accept the teachings of one Church over another. BSA Inc. has adopted a policy and is forcing that point of few on every leader, sponsor and parent that supports Scouting, forcing them to choose between their principles and the incredible value of Scouting Scouting is becoming very stigmatized and jaded in the view of many young parents with kids coming of age, and is becoming positioned as something we're not (a religious, specifically Christian-only, organization) As for your assertions about churches that differ in beliefs from your own... you have made it abundantly clear in this forum that you will "tolerate" people who don't have your strict conservative Christian beliefs, but you don't really respect those beliefs at all. For the record, we're not talking about a bunch of radical small sects that believe differently than you and your church on the morality of homosexuality. Another excerpt from my thread titled Scouting's REAL Gay Policy:I realize the division is not felt equally throughout Scouting - it is felt more in some areas than others. It is obvious to anyone, I believe, that there is no uniform view among religions on the morality of homosexuality. Amicus briefs filed before the Supreme Court by Scouting's chartering religious denominations are revealing. The National Catholic Committee on Scouting, the General Commission on United Methodist Men of the United Methodist Church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, and Agudath Israel of America, were among those who submitted or joined a brief in favor of the BSA policy. Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy. So really a larger issue that we now face is an inconsistency between this policy and our policy to teach a boy Duty to God. If a boy's religion happens to be one that does not believe homosexuality to be immoral, then we are REQUIRING him to choose between allegiance to the BSA policy and his Duty to God.

BobWhite, alas, it is the 2 : to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame part of the definition that I do not meet. As I have said, I don't feel very courageous by posting anonymously, and I wrestle with the shame not of my sexuality, but of my lack of Bravery. But as I have said before, it was not my intent to "come out" to anyone my revealing this bit of information about myself on the board, and I believe the "cause" is still better served with me working through anonymity for now... that may someday change. The only reason I "declared" anything was so that those anonymous pseudonyms with whom my own anonymous pseudonym has communicated and debated for over a year would have a bit more of a picture of who I am, merely for the purpose of more honest debate. As I have said on prior occasions, my own sexuality is but a small part of my identity (a personal statement) and no real part of my identity as a Scouter, and my passion for this issue has little to do with my own "persecution" (of which there is none really) and everything to do with the very real damage I have seen the policy wreak on those close to me, and can only imagine the ripple of similar effect throughout the rest of the country. Nonetheless, I remain... unavowed, and not particularly proud because of it.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

For more info on the BSA's policy against Zahnada and other's who believe as he does, refer back to a old thread on the subject titled "Scouting's REAL Gay Policy". And since it's been mentioned a few times for new forum participants to refer to old threads, let me highlight a few of my old threads on the subject:Scouting's REAL Gay Policy -- which starts by observing that the BSA would like to stifle all of those that oppose their view, and at the same time have a defacto "don't ask, don't tell" policy 3 million children -- which starts by observing that about 3 million kids are now being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the US, most of whom are becoming Scouting age. What it is and why it really matters -- which started as a good overall summary of all of my thoughts on the policy and its impact. Why it's relevant -- which started out to summarize why this issue deserves the attention of those that would rather ignore it. Don't Ask, I'll Tell -- which starts as the thread in which, after months of debate, I acknowledged to the forum my own sexuality, albeit an anonymous acknowledgement.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

BobWhite, I stand by what I have already said on the measure of "avowing"... you can make up your own definitions, but the truth is they are only your interpretation, and have no basis on an official, definitive declaration from BSA Inc. One area in which we do agree, however, is "You just have to publicly disagree with scouting's membership rules to have your membership revoked.". I must admit, without looking back through the posts, I really recall you disagreeing when I first made this point, but nonetheless, you're right! Reading the text of the argument before the Supreme Court (the text of which was posted here previously) leaves no doubt that the BSA wants to ban not just gays, but anyone who stands before boys that are of membership age and argues that homosexuality is not inherently immoral. By your standards, BobWhite, this would mean just about everyone that has ever posted on this forum opposing the BSA's policy should have their membership revoked. It should also mean that the BSA will revoke membership of all those clergy from chartering partner churches who disagree with BSA (like some of the Methodists, etc). Of course, BSA isn't evenly enforcing their vague policy, so I doubt much of that will happen. It's regrettable that you also, not knowing me at all or having never worked near me in Scouting or seen how I conduct my role in the program, would want to hunt me down and get me kicked out if you could. Thankfully, most Scouters do not share your special zeal, and the "official" policy of BSA is against such.

dsteele, first, let me sincerely thank you for your regular contribution to this forum and the dedication to Scouting that you've demonstrated through so many of your posts. I know that I am not alone in my appreciation of your participation, passion and experience. Youre an uncommon professional that is willing to spend even their limited "off the clock" time by contributing to a resource like this web site. However, I have to acknowledge that on this issue your knowledge of the BSA policy is fundamentally flawed. I am not, by any admission, an "avowed" homosexual to Scouting. The BSA does not ban homosexuals (they ban "avowed" homosexuals, without ever attempting to define what that means), and you most certainly do not have the authority to "hunt me down to kick me out" (a practice that unfortunately you are not alone in wanting to practice, despite the fact that BSA clearly wants to avoid any appearance of witch hunts). The fact that you are such an active and knowledgeable Scouter, and an experienced professional representative of BSA Inc, and still have a weak understanding of the policy and your responsibility just supports my previous points about the vague, arbitrary, unevenly enforced and contrary policy. The BSA policy is a ban on "avowed homosexuals". And both the spirit and letter of that policy is vague enough that I am quite comfortably NOT an "avowed homosexual" (I've explained my thinking on this in previous posts, and admit that I am playing word games just like BSA Inc. At the same time, I honestly don't know to whom I must "avow", and what information I must provide during that "avowment ceremony" in order to qualify, and for now will maintain the fact that I keep my sexuality largely irrelevant to my participation as "non-avowment"). ("Avowment Ceremony"... hmmm, would that be like the OA Brotherhood ceremony conducted by the Village People Indian instead of Allowat? : BSA Inc. is very aware of the fact that their membership includes thousands of gays, they are even aware of the fact that many of these folks serve in very high level leadership roles. But because those leaders (and I fit this description) do not make their homosexuality (or sexuality of any type) material or relevant to their participation in Scouting, BSA is content to operate with a "don't ask, don't tell" approach. Unfortunately, if the mature and experienced Scouters of this forum don't understand all of the nuances of the policy (and I'm not just pointing to you, DS... it's obvious by reading several posts that many people only have a limited understanding of the policy), how can we possibly expect the youth that we lead to make sense of the of the BSA's position on homosexuality... especially if we also try to legislate and enforce the policy "behind the scenes"? We really can't, and many youth are decerning their own faulty, and potentially dangerous, understanding of the situation.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

mk9750, thank you for your honest words. I respect your difference of opinion, and the question that you pose. Allow me to extend your analogy a bit. The analogy of the locker room won't fit, because the space and rules of such a small accommodation are clear and not comparable to the "space and rules" of the largest youth organization in the United States. How about instead of a locker room, let's say I live in a neighborhood? I've lived in this neighborhood my whole life... I've grown up in it, served my neighbors admirably, and was even elected to represent and lead my neighborhood on the town council. There are lots of types of people in this neighborhood, with lots of different beliefs (religions, prejudices, etc), but we've managed pretty well to live and grow together, making our neighborhood a wonderful place to live... the envy of all the other neighborhoods in town. We're all good moral people, and in our neighborhood we've got several religions living in relative harmony. Like any neighborhood, there's a few people who just don't get along, just don't see things eye to eye, especially on religious beliefs. But even they agree that the neighborhood is a great place to live, and there is common ground upon which they can stand. Then one day, one group of neighbors (a majority, but not all the neighbors) decides they just don't like the religious beliefs of one of the churches in town, and I happen to belong to that church. This majority decided to take over the neighborhood, and run out all of the "undesirables". I get the message that I'm unwelcome, despite the fact that I follow all the rules of the neighborhood. The neighbors start to exert their will over me, and even make up new laws... laws specifically designed to isolate me and people with similar beliefs, and run us out of the neighborhood. Laws that are even contrary to all the other "rules" of the neighborhood. What should I do? What's the honorable thing here? Who's acting dishonorably, me or the neighbors that are changing the rules arbitrarily? Should I leave the neighborhood and hope some day they will come to their senses? Should I stay in the neighborhood and continue to act like a model citizen within the system to repeal the new rules and convince my neighbors that I am no threat and a good person? If I run away scared, what message am I sending to the kids of the neighborhood? Am I not telling those kids that are like me to abandon their courage and hide what they believe to be right? Am I not signaling to the other neighborhood kids its OK and quite effective to be a bully and hate? Being a gay man is not an immoral decision... I believe this to be true, and several churches and many "good and decent" members of Scouting believe the same. I support your right to believe different, and all I can do to convince you that you are wrong is show you through my own behavior. I believe my honor is intact by remaining a Scout. It is the honor of BSA Inc. and those that push an arbitrary, vague, unevenly enforced and contrary policy that I must question, given the ramifications of such.

You are asked if you accept the ideals of the Oath and Law, that is a moral decision. You are told to be a member you must accept the religious obligation of scouting, that is a moral decision. Your use of drugs and alcohol as well as your ability to set a good example is considered, that is a moral decision.Bob, my point stands... I said that this ban is the ONLY special or specific policy that defines morality and takes a stand from a limited and specific point of view. In the case of homosexual members, Scouting has adopted a specific point of view driven by specific religious beliefs (and has done so contrary to its stated mission of being "absolutely non-sectarian"). Use of drugs is a legal issue, and on that ground BSA prohibits it. They don't even have to consider the morality of the issue. Use of alcohol may be a moral issue, but BSA leaves it completely up to local control to interpret the character of the user and their fitness for leadership. Yes, of course members accept the ideals of the Oath and Law, and yes, that is a moral code. But BSA has NO SPECIFIC policy that interprets what those ideals mean and don't mean, and sets no arbitrary "line in the sand" for any of those tenants (with this one exception, of course). It's an "ideal", as you say, and one that is completely left to interpretation and fit at the local level. What the Mormon church units interpret to be moral or immoral can in fact be quite different than what your unit may believe. So, can you give an example of another area where BSA Inc. has drawn a line in the moral sand based on an interpretation of morality shared by only a percentage of their members, and specifically excluded an entire class of people from membership?

"A decent, ethical gay leader" is an oxymoron. Present company excluded, right? TRUTH is, you have no idea whether I am a "decent, ethical leader" without knowing me, and to know me you would need to be around me. Those in Scouting that do know me well, some who also know that I am a gay man, can all testify to my decency and ethics. Which is the best argument for local control on the matter of membership eligibility... those closest to the boys (parents, unit leaders, charter partners) should be able to determine the "fitness" of any member (boy or adult). Those people that I work with regularly in Scouting (whether in my roles at the local or national levels) judge my fitness before they appoint me to every leadership role, and they do it based on much more insight into me than you have Ed or Rooster, regardless of whether they know I am gay or not. Such local control is exercised daily by units throughout the country, on a variety of criteria (including sexuality, gender of leaders, religion, personality, experience, motivation and hundreds of other identifiers). In fact, there's no SPECIAL and SPECIFIC policy to exclude any member for "moral" reasons BESIDES this "policy" to exclude gays. Lots of Scout units would discriminate against Rooster as a unit leader because of his religious zeal and need to evangelize. Lots more units may discriminate against me as a unit leader for no reason other than the fact that I am a gay man. The BSA allows the Mormon church to discriminate against women unit leaders, yet at the same time allows the Methodist church to have all the women unit leaders they want (it should be noted that this specific scenario only came after years of wrangling and final compromise). Remember the telling quote from the Chief Scout Executive shortly after the Supreme Court case, when he said something to the effect of 'the BSA represents our parents expectations... If we started to see really significant drops in membership over this policy, we would have to reconsider it' (the exact quote and source was previously posted in this forum). The BSA's national exclusion policy is changing; it may take many more years or it may happen more swiftly. This debate has been had on this forum many times before (those that are new to the forum and curious, I encourage to read through the old threads on the subject for a THOROUGH articulation of many points of view). Philadelphia is NOT alone... they are one of nine major metro councils that long ago agreed to strongly oppose the national position. And many more councils have supported the effort from behind the scenes (lacking both the political clout or local pressure to take a public stand against BSA Inc.) Sometime near the end of my rather vigorous participation in these debates in the forum many months ago, I realized that most everything I cared to say on the subject I had said, and more importantly I came to believe that a change in the policy was in fact a matter of time. I only regret how many boys we all are harming (either by demonizing them in their own minds or in the minds or their peers) and the damage we are allowing to our organization's reputation during this clumsy coming to terms.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

BobWhite --- I assure you, Bill Hillcourt NEVER said anything of the sort... I defy you to back that claim up. Hillcourt often said that Scouting was out of step from the "norm", but he never suggested that kids were disposable or beyond our reach. You should retract that statement immediately, for it is ridiculously attributed.

That's an excellent question BobWhite. I think we may all agree on the true answer.

Rosa Parks took responsibility for her actions. She didn't try to hide from anyone. She did practice civil disobedience, but she did so nobly - out in the light, not in the dark. Ignoring BSA policy while pretending that you are not, is something other than civil disobedience. It's cowardly and dishonest. If you say the Scout Oath, add hypercritical to that list.You've discovered the one area for which I do agree with you and I don't feel very Scoutlike... while I have said I feel my "Trustworthiness" is fully in check, I don't feel very Brave. That bothers me a great deal more than you might imagine, as my confidence and courage are among the greatest gifts Scouting gave me. I'm smart enough to know when and how to pick my battles, but I'm also selfless enough to know the time and place must eventually come when there are others in harms way. I'm not violating the BSA policy as it's written, nor do I feel obliged to "guess" at what the spirit of the policy really is. And while my silence is compliant with the policy, it bothers me greatly to think my silence can be interpreted as support for the policy. I'm bothered enormously by the pain BSA inflicts on young, gay boys, and that I am complicit through my silence. So far I've convinced myself that I can accomplish more to change the policy from "the closet" than I could if I were no longer in the room at all. But more and more, I doubt how courageous that really is, and how my approach may be inconsistent with the lessons Scouting taught me. I'm not Rosa Parks, but Scouting did create me to be a leader.It is not an easy journey. Sometimes friends will mock you; test your resolution often. All the world will seem against you, and the path seem dark and lonely. All your strength will be required, as you face the isolation that a leader often faces. -Kichkinet, the guideI must have said those lines in a hundred OA ceremonies as a Scout, and they meant more to me each time I delivered them. Not because I felt isolated or alone, but because I felt like a leader, and because I understood how tough that sometimes becomes.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

NJCub, you are absolutely right about the psychological dance concealing sexual identity can sometimes be. I can assure you, coming to understand and reconcile my own homosexuality has been a lifelong struggle. Concealing it from those around you is one thing, trying to conceal it (or deny it) from yourself is quite a bit more complicated still. In my own case (and I admit, I am not "typical" of all gay men), my sexuality is not a major aspect of my life; at least it has not been. I am confident, strong and very outgoing. I run multiple businesses; have an active professional and social life. Ive achieved well for my age (and Ive been humbled by many failures). I have a lot of things on my plate, and many people around me that relate to me and rely on me for things completely unrelated to my sexuality. Those things more definitely shape my life than sexuality. That being said, I do admit that the issue of "openness" has weighed on my mind more in recent years. (Lest I add to the tendency to stereotype, I can tell you that I've been called "one of the least-gay-acting gay men in the world" by those in the know. In other words, you'd be pretty surprised if you knew me, not because I act particularly masculine (though I am a slob, live for sports and lack any discernable lisp ). I have "felt" gay since my earliest recollection (7? 8?). And I struggled with this all my life. It's not until recently, that I have really questioned and started to understand why I was struggling so. It's not that I felt "wrong" or "sinful" or "immoral", it's that I feared the judgment of others who might think those things of me. In other words, my turmoil was not within me or between me and God, it was reactionary to standards other people set for me. So I just started questioning whether those standards were anything that I considered valid. I'm now in my early 30's, but I've been in a relationship (my first long-term relationship with a man) for 2.5 years. I'm reaching the point in my life, and my relationships, where I can at least start to consider children of my own. There's never been a doubt in my mind that I would be a father, and a damn good one at that. But taking that step, indeed, even the presence of my long-term relationship, is starting to (quite rightly) put more pressure on my mind about "openness". Not because I feel a need (psychologically or otherwise) to proclaim anything, but because such steps start to make my sexuality MORE relevant to those close to (where it might not have been before). (This message has been edited by tjhammer)

NJCub, I would be surprised if this thread runs on and on (though not disappointed either way). I think that the context of the debate has been changed in some peoples minds (which is why I waited a year to reveal this, and only do so now because I, too, felt that I had said everything I could say on the subject, and would only start repeating myself from here on)... Suddenly, we're not discussing theories, but a real example... a real example from a known (as best as one can be known on this board) associate, who's still standing in the room. I fear some people might withhold their opinions a bit more now, if for no other reason than their momma's taught "if you don't have anything nice to say, whisper it..." (or something like that). Honestly, I'll be disappointed if the more vocal proponents of the BSA position do not take this opportunity to apply it to me, ask me questions or challenge me on any angle. Of course, the nave and arrogant part of me still sometimes expects a thread to end when I hit Send on a post. "Well, that should do it... I can't imagine that this won't be the final word on that subject. How could anyone disagree with me?" :-) (OK, let me get my tongue back out of my cheek.) I know there are few easy answers to this whole situation... I can honestly relate to the perspectives of my opponents, however much I find disagreement with them. But the answers are a bit clearer, I think, when the situations become more personal and real.

I'm unlikely to ever "prove to you that homosexuality is not immoral"; that's determined by your opinion, your religion, your relationship with God and your reality. There's just nothing in BSA that says I have to accept "your opinion", "your religion", "your relationship with God" or "your reality" on this subject. The fact that I (and many, many others) am gay and still very active in Scouting seems to not have affected you or your Scouting one bit. And my continued involvement will have no effect on you either. So why not solve this matter right now by encouraging the BSA to return to where it stood for nearly 100 years by allowing chartered partners and local parents to decide for themselves whether a kid or adult has the "morality" to be a member in their group? Why don't those of us who oppose the BSA policy have the same right to association and self-determination as those of you who support it? Is it solely because there are more people in BSA that think the way that you do than the way we do? Is that really a valid standard for legislating morality? I don't seek to impose my morality on you, nor do I seek to change the organization in a way that affects you. Why can't you say the same?