DanKroh

"There is no sound evidence that homosexuality is biological." I completely disagree. There is debate over whether it is "genetic" or whether it is due to maternal factors present during gestational development. But either way it's biological. Slews of evidence about brain structure, hormone levels, etc. being different in gay men and straight men. Hmm. Sound biological to me. "Natural selection would virtually preclude a genetic basis for homosexuality." Um, no, not really. Natural selection doesn't wipe out all genes that prevent successful reproduction. If it did, we wouldn't have cystic fibrosis, as just one example. And what makes you think being homosexual reduces reproductive success? "Unless of course yeh think that humans were the product of intelligent design, eh?" Gods no. But then again, I have a good grasp of what natural selection and evolution really mean. "Even within the homosexual community there is considerable belief that it's substantially dependent on nurture." Not really, unless you are talking about what I mentioned above about genes vs. developmental factors during gestation. "By contrast, polygamy is highly present in nature." So is homosexuality. Many animal species have a minority population that engage in homosexual behavior. "Whether it's the choice to have sex or the choice of the alcoholic to pour himself a Scotch, we can condemn the choice to act, eh?" So homosexuality is like alcoholism, huh? Love for another human being equates with compulsive partaking of a substance that leads to violence, anti-social behavior, and liver disease. Truly sad.

"If gays want to redefine the gender in marriage, I think we should redefine the quantity in marriage. Instead of one wife, how about 3 or 4? You see, we can't always have want we want. No I really don't want 3 or 4, Mrs. Gonzo wouldn't like that." Nope, the whole slippery slope thing doesn't impress me either. Especially the polygamy part. Polygamy is not a biologically defined state. Homosexuality is. So advocating for what you see as a civil right is "forcing" someone to "accept" you, and is therefore, intolerance? Well, it is certainly an interesting piece of reasoning, and I completely disagree with it. Based on your reasoning, I also question your "tolerance" of gays, since you seem to want to force them to accept your opinion over theirs. Seems like a pretty intolerant position to me.

We just had our planning meeting last night for the November pack meeting, for which the Program Helps theme is "Cubs in Shining Armor". I thought it might be nice to pass along some plan ideas. We are having members from the Society for Creative Anachronism (SCA), a medieval recreation group, come to do a demonstration of various activities at our pack meeting. I'm a member of the SCA myself, so contacting and arranging the demonstration was simply a matter of talking to some friends. But if you don't know about the SCA or don't know how to contact them, here is some info which might be helpful. The SCA recreates all sorts of medieval arts, sciences, and martial activities. They have fencing, "heavy list" fighting (in armor with wooden weapons and shields), archery, equestrian activities, youth combat (in armor with boffer weapons), and these martial activities hold a lot of appeal to the kids. But they also do a lot of arts; calligraphy, woodworking, leatherworking, cooking, dancing, games, fiber arts; you name it, if it went on in the middle ages, someone is doing it. For our pack meeting, we are having fencers, fighters (adult and youth), jugglers, someone doing games, and a falconer. I thought these would be activites of most interest to the boys, and also easiest to do in the time and space allowed. If you want to contact your local group of the SCA to request a "demo", a good place to start is www.sca.org. If you go to "SCA groups", that will take you to a list of the "kingdoms" and their geographical correspondences, and from there, to the webpage for the kingdom you live in. From there, you should be able to find a local group nearest you and how to contact them. However, time is getting short if you want to have them at your November pack meeting, as it takes time to recruit people to help at a demo. So contact them today if you are interested.

I have a lot of mixed feelings about the use of these books in public schools. On the one hand, I think that gay couples and gay parents are part of the reality that all children have to face, even young ones. My 2nd grade son has a classmate with two mommies. But then again, he's been raised on my knee to understand that love isn't and shouldn't be bounded by gender. I read "Daddy's Roommate" to him myself when we were visiting his (married) godfathers. I guess what it comes down to is that, however distasteful I may find it personally, parents do have a right to teach their children to be prejudiced. And I don't think it is up to the school to tell them that their parents are wrong. Parents should have an option to not have their children read these books, although I don't think they should be banned from children whose parents think they are just fine. Anymore than I think it should be up to schools to teach Christian mythology in a science class, especially when they put a thin coat of paint on it and call it "intelligent design". However, there are a couple of statements made here that I would like to comment on: "These types of books prove once again that the love that once dared not to speak its name is now the love that won't shut up." Interpretation: Hey, you gays-shut up and get back in the closet! I thought this the first time you wrote it in another thread (and didn't think it was witty enough to bear repeating a second time, but that is neither here nor there). Even if that is not what you are intending to say, Gonzo, that is what it comes off sounding like, at least to me. "I submit that tolerance is indeed a virtue, but it seems that gays can't (and won't) be tolerant of heterosexualtiy." Now that is a completely nonsensical statement. See a lot of gays trying to get laws passed to redefine marriage to exclude heterosexuals, do you? Or maybe it is all those gays who beat up heterosexuals, then try to use a "Straight Panic" defense? There is a difference between being intolerant of heterosexuals and being proud their own gay identity. Similar statement were made (and perhaps continue to be made) about the "Black Pride" movement, that it is really anti-white racism. While there are no doubt a few individuals who do feel that way (surprise, having a certain skin color or sexual orientation doesn't make one immune from being a jerk!), it is unfair and untrue to paint the vast majority with that brush.

Thanks, Packsaddle, for the vote of confidence! As I said, I'm looking ahead a couple of years on this, both because the current Chaplain is still doing the job, and because I'm still getting comfortable in my Cubmaster role with the pack, which I will be doing for another 3 years or so until my younger son crosses over. But maybe after I finish Wood Badge (starting that this spring), I might be ready to take on a role in the troop as well as the pack.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

No, I don't mind at all Fuzzy. Sharing knowledge is the only tool we have for defeating ignorance, after all. There are many, many belief systems that fall under the umbrella of Pagan. My particular beliefs are Wiccan-ish (big debate in the Pagan community I won't bore you with, but I'm not a traditional Wiccan because I'm not in the British Tradition). I believe that the creative force of the Universe has male and female aspects, which we generally refer to as the God and Goddess. The particular gods I name generally are from the Welsh pantheon. Wicca beliefs do include a duty to those gods to be good stewards of the gifts we have been given; the Earth around us and the living things on it (including the people). I think I would be a good Chaplain because I have studied many different belief systems, even if I never followed them myself. I was raised as a Protestant (UMC), explored Catholicism in high school, studied Buddism, Hinduism, and Islam in college, married a Jew, and now worship as a Pagan at a UU church. I feel that I would be able to encourage any boy to follow their own particular path, even if I don't follow that path myself. I would also be able to educate any boy who was interested in what the differences are of faiths other than his own, while encouraging him to respect all other faiths without prosletyzing for any one set of beliefs. As far as the BSA, I think the religious emblem program is admirable, and I would love to see it expanded to include emblems from more faiths. I think learning about religion is a worthy goal, and would encourage all boys to earn at least one religious emblem during their tenure as a scout. I love the idea of the scout's own service, and have participated in some beautiful ones in our unit that have been inclusive yet meaningful. As a registered clergy, I have some experience preparing liturgy, and I would be happy to share that experience with the boys who are leading their own services. What do you think?

Pack, the folks in the units I am associated with (a pack and a troop) have been very welcoming, for the most part. Most of the people I've encountered in the BSA who actually understand my faith (as opposed to what they have seen in bad horror movies) are pretty tolerant. I have had some scouters look at me like I have two heads; some obviously have a pre-formed negative opinion of what a pagan is and aren't about to let anything as trivial as facts change it, because that negative opinion are dicated by *their* religion. But I live in a pretty tolerant area of the country that has pretty low density of fundamentalists. I did have one incident with a boy in my older son's troop, who was taking archery merit badge with me, look at my pentagram ring and tell me I must be an evil devil worshipper. I think he was mostly just smarting off a bit rather than being really serious, to see if he could bait me. The SM (whose son was also in the MB session) did his next SM minute on respecting religious diversity I've been told on the QT that the troop Chaplain doesn't have a high opinion of Pagans, but he's never said anything overt to me or my son to indicate it. An interesting test of the tolerance of the troop leadership will be when he leaves in a couple of years, I am actually interested in taking over the Chaplain position; I am registered clergy, after all. But even with all the UUs on the troop committee, it will in interesting to see if they be able to accept a pagan Chaplain for the troop.

"The tent is pretty diverse as is." Perhaps in theory and by policy, it is. However, in the practice of many of the people who are members, not so much. I've had to explain to a not insignificant number of people that no, the BSA is not a *Christian* organization. I've even had questions come up from Jewish families about whether they would be welcome in scouting. As a pagan, I've had people react very negatively to me within scouting (not within my local unit, but even at my Council level). Did I feel welcome in the "big tent"? Again, sometimes not so much. There are a number of pagan religions that, while they believe in the existence of gods, do not believe that they have any sort of "duty" to those gods. Also, it would be interesting to see how the BSA would react to members of religions that do not have a positive reputation in the general public, like Satanism, Vodun, Santeria, Hare Krishna, etc. Are those included in the "big tent"?

John-in-KC, By "what faith groups are outside the BSA tent?" do you mean faith groups that do not have a religious emblem registered with the BSA (since you referenced the PRAY website)? Or do you mean religions that the BSA don't "approve of" (which is *technically* none of them)?

Thanks, pack and Trev for you responses. Since I think the answer to the second part of my question (Can a non-BSA approved religous emblem fulfill Bear and Webelos rank advancement requirements?) is a yes, that brings up another question as well. In the Webelos requirements (this is #8, btw), it says "if you earned your faith's religious emblem earlier in Cub Scouting, and your faith does not have a Webelos religious emblem, you must complete requirement 8e. Can a boy complete a *different* religious emblem for the Webelos requirement if he already earned one for Bear? In the case of my son, if he earns Love & Help (UU) for Bear, can he earn Over the Moon (Pagan) for the Webelos requirement? My gut says yes, but I would like to hear other opinions.

"Dan, I asked my council guy and he says that the patch, if purchased from the official BSA supplier, can ALWAYS be worn on the uniform. There is no way for anyone to know which specific religious award it represents. However, BSA does not (and this is important) RECOGNIZE the official UU religious award. Therefore at ceremonial events, the medal may not be worn." Ok, not to hijack this thread away from the UU award, but this has brought up another question in my mind that is related. If my son completes the curriculum for the Over the Moon or the Hart and Crescent emblems offered by the Covenant of the Goddess for pagan children, can they wear the knot? Obviously the medals would also not be kosher since the BSA doesn't recognize those awards either. Furthermore, would the Over the Moon fulfill the Bear (or later, Webelos) requirement to earn the religious emblem of your faith?

Hi Zarah, welcome to the forum. I'm sure Trevorum will have something more to say about the UUSO program, but here is an opinion from a UU member who is not involved in the UUSO. While the idea of the UUSO emblem program for Boy Scouts is all well and good, you should be aware that the UUSO emblem program does not have the approval of the UUA. On the other hand, the UUA emblem program does not have the approval of the BSA. While the difference is currently moot for Cubs, since the UUSO Cub program is still in development, it is something you might want to keep in mind. As far as wearing the emblem and the knot, my personal feeling is, they are awards given by your religious organization, not the BSA. I think it is inappropriate for the BSA to dictate to you whether or not you can wear an emblem from your faith on your uniform, when other faith emblems are allowed to be worn. When my son earns his Love and Help emblem next year as a Bear, he will wear it proudly on his uniform, I'm sure. But I'm in a unit where most of the leadership goes to my UU church. None of them are going to say he can't wear it. And any adult who *did* would get quite an earful from me. As far as the official BSA policy on the knot, I've seen it presented both ways. All the knot represents is that he has gotten a religious emblem, and since it doesn't show *which* emblem, it can be worn even if the wearing of the emblem itself is frowned upon. But I've also heard opinions to the contrary, that if the emblem isn't approved by the BSA, the knot isn't either. I'm as interested as you to see if anyone can cite "official" policy on that.

"Its not the price its the price point!!!" I agree totally. And here's some evidence to support that. Last year, the best selling item we had was the tin of caramel and peanuts, which in our Council, sells for $8. Aside from the "singles" that we sell for $1 each. However, this year, they offered a microwave variety pack which consisted of 5 smaller boxes that contained 6 bags each. We broke the case apart and sold each of the smaller boxes for $6 each. Sold like crazy. Sold out of it, got some more from council, and sold out of them again, and this year still have tins of the caramel left, even though we ordered the same amount as last year. The next price point on microwave is a box of 15 bags for $13. So even though it's the better deal per unit, people still bought the $6 for a 6 pack more.

We also use that tradition in our pack. However, our new Bobcats usually stay to help clean up after the pack meeting where they get there badges, so they can get turned right side up pretty fast.

mtm, sounds like your new pack is off to a good start. Our September pack meeting used the "Shipbuilding" theme (actually from October helps). One of our former leaders is a naval architect, so he did a presentation to the boys about what make big ships float. The boys then put that into some practice by building boats using aluminum foil sheets. They tested how well their boats floated by counting how many pennies the boat could hold before it sank in a tub of water. The boys had a blast. October is going to be a Halloween party with each den creating a "street fair" type game for all the boys to do. November, we are going to be having a group of medieval recreationists visit to support the "Cubs In Shining Armor" theme. We are also having a sleepover that month at a local armory museum, complete with a medieval feast. We generally try to have an "outside" pack event each month in addition to the pack meeting. It might be a hike, a sleepover, bowling, or something else informal that the boys do together as a pack. But I agree with you that successful pack meetings have to include fun, hands-on activities, not just a lot of sitting around and talking. Keep up the good work!

Well, hi to you, too, Barry. Let me try to cut through the hostility here a little and address some of your points. "I didnt ask if you were religious, I asked if you have ever heard of the religious left. The term religious right which is not used to suggest a good person unintentionally doesnt give any option either. Youre either religious and a republican, or you are not religious." Yes, I have heard of the religious left. However, in my experience, they are often not acknowledged as being religious by those on the right exactly because many on the right seem to believe the last sentence in your statement above. "It is interesting that its OK to be intolerant or inclusive if it is on a liberals terms, but is that really intolerant? Lets look homosexuality, have you ever personally told someone they were homophobic? Fear of gays, what is that? Lets be truthful here, that word was invented to intimidate people from admitting that homosexuality is a moral sin. The word was intended to censor an opinion. If we cant change their mind, we will at least shut them up, right?" Yes, I have personally told a few people that I thought they were homophobic. And "fear of gays" is a very literal definition of the term, usually brought out by those who are desperate to prove that they are not, in fact, homophobic. Interesting that you think the word was "invented to intimidate" and "censor". Can't say I'm interested in "shutting them up", although I am interested in preventing them from telling homosexuals that they should just shut up and take their seat in the back of the bus. "You dont wear what on your sleeve? I read a lot of your post and you wear a lot of your sleeve. You are also intolerant of those who differ with your ideals, so what? ... Hey, remember when the Boy Scouts were booed at the Democrat National Convention? That made the Democrat look warm and welcoming. Lets admit it, democrats and liberals wear a lot on their sleeves." Most people who know me, with the exception of close friends, do not know my specific religious affiliations. They probably assume that I am some stripe of Christian, since I try to live my life by Wiccan ideals that are similar to those that most Christians value. As far as "wearing a lot on my sleeve" here, this is a discussion board. Sorry if my expressing my opinions distresses you so. As far as me being "intolerant of those who differ" from my ideals, I try to be tolerant of the opinions of others. However, my tolerance does tend to end when those opinions are being used to restrict the rights of a minority, or to promote hatred and violence towards anyone. As far as Scouts being booed at the Democratic National Convention, I wasn't there, nor am I a Democrat. I am not responsible for their actions, even though I am a liberal. Are you responsible for those conservative Republicans who say things like "God hates fags"? Saying and doing nasty and stupid things is not a trait confined to one side or the other of the political spectrum. "My point through all this is that the Democrats have painted themselves into a corner with religious folks. You may say that religious people are welcome, but the words and actions of non Republicans that we hear and see TV or in the news papers is not inviting." And Republicans are warm and inviting to anyone who isn't the "right kind" of Christian? Sorry, but they haven't exactly made me feel warm and invited. "At best your terms are its OK to be religious so long as you keep it to yourself. Well it doesnt work that way around here. Religion is a way of life for many folks and one way or another a discussion of what happen at church, or Sunday school, or some kind of church sponsored social event comes up." Ah, so because I don't go around telling everyone about my religion, or trying to convert them to it means that it is not important in my life? "Right or wrong, religion around here is a way living life bound in morality and accountability. Its not talked about a lot because it is just part of life. I think that is what you call wearing it on your sleeve." No, what I call wearing it on your sleeve is insisting that your way of believing is the ONLY way of believing. Such as your assumption above that only those who are religious can be moral and accountable. "It seems liberals way of answering to moral accountability is to stand up and shout your wrong, follow with a little name calling. But it is a way of life and as long as the Democratic Party wraps its arms around those who spout anger against that way of life, the party will suffer." Interesting. In my experience, that is what I see a lot of the more vocal neoconservative Republicans doing. Claiming that liberals cannot be morally accountable because they are obviously "goddless". The name calling happens on both sides of the political spectrum. You think the Republican Party doesn't "spout anger"? Haven't heard much of Ann Coulter, have you? "You may be thinking of Pat Robertson when you say religious right, but around here many think of themselves because there is no other option." These days, more like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, Rick Santorum, and on my more pessimistic days, the wonderful Fred Phelps. "Im not sure what vision pops in your mind when Christian is mentioned, but you should think of my mother or mother in-law who are proud children of God and think of most of their friends that way. Calling them names is not going to make them your friend. Maybe you should set and example and try a different tact. Maybe try a little tolerance and understanding. Next time a gay discussion starts up, you initiate your part of the discussion with Jesus second commandment. It doesnt change debate, but it does set the moral tone of the discussion that should follow." And what names did I call them, exactly? I know plenty of wonderful Christians, who I often discuss religion, politics, and philosophy with in a civil and thoughtful manner. I even go to church and worship next to some Christians, as well as Jews, Buddhists, Deists, Agnostics, and even atheists. As far as me initiating my part of the discussion "with Jesus second commandment", I'm afraid that you have me at a disadvantage, since I am not a Christian. However, I do try to follow the Wiccan Rede in such things, and it has usually held me in good stead, morally speaking. As far as setting an example, and trying a little tolerance and understanding, to quote another old adage, perhaps you should practice what you preach. Because the vitrole of your post is far from a good example of tolerance and understanding.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Have you ever heard of the religious left?" Hi! I'm a religious person on the left. And there are a lot more of us. We just don't tend to wear it on our sleeve. "We are a county where religious beliefs are accepted as a part of our way of life. The democrats have just made their party look hostle to religous people in general, so where else can a believer go? You only have to look at the homosexual thread to see posters telling other posters that they shouldnt take their bible so seriously. That is friendly?" Actually, I think the Democratic party is mostly hostile toward fundamentalists, who (in my experience) think that they are the ONLY believers. However, currently, the fundamentalists seem to be the most vocal faction of religion. As I said above, the more moderate (and left-leaning) believers don't tend to wear it on their sleeve or try to tell everyone else that their way of believing is the "one true way". There are lots of believers in the Democratic party, just as there are lots of believers who are Independents. I just think the nature of belief differs somewhat on the left and the right. But that's just my $.02.

Wow, too much misinformation in tominrichmond's post for me to let it slide on by. "The reply to the original question "why no homosexuals in boy scouts?" is simple: no sane parent would entrust his child to a group that allowed people sexually attracted to him to be in close quarters with him." Actually, homosexuals are not attracted to my son or your son, or any other CHILD. But to follow your reasoning, we should obviously do away with female leaders (at least, the straight ones), because they are the one attracted to our sons, right? "If, as has been suggested here, the scouts change this policy, expect to see a flight from the organization. No, I am not saying that all homosexuals are going to act on their attractions. I am saying that the BSA policy is rooted in common sense and understanding human nature." That's an interesting opinion, one which is shared by others I'm sure. However, my opinion is that the policy is rooted in appeasing the religious conservatives who make up the majority of their constituents. "Aside from this very practical reason, homosexuality is not morally straight conduct. Regardless of what some religion or other may say about acting charitable towards homosexuals as people, homosexuality is literally abnormal-- only one percent of the male population self-identify as homosexual. It is therefore by definition not normative behavior for men. Even denominations that support homosexual "rights" usually do not approve of homosexuality in the abstract." One percent? No, actually, more like 5-10%, depending on your sources. But again, by this reasoning, lots of things which we consider morally straight (or morally neutral) are abnormal. Being left handed (also about 10%). Being an Eagle scout (1%?). You are trying to equate "abnormal" in the sense of being outside the majority with "abnormal" in the sense of pathological. Have you met yellow_hammer yet? As far as denominations approving of "homosexuality in the abstract", the United Church of Christ does (or at least the UCC congregations I've seen in my area). So does the Unitarian Universalits. I think the United Methodists are moving in that direction. Also, were you speaking strictly of Christian denominations, the JCI religions only, or all religions? Many non JCI religions have no moral judgement about homosexuality either way, actually. Oh, and welcome. I'm sure you will find many others here who share your opinions on this subject. Hopefully, you might also give thought to the opinions of those who don't.

"the loops can only be earned once - so running through them the first year can mean boredom later in scouts when others are learning" Actually, beltloops can be earned more than once. Hence the requirement for some Webelos Activity Pins to earn a certain beltloop "as a Webelos". That said, our pack (and I've read the same from others) will not buy a beltloop more than once for a scout. If the scout wants to wear multiple art beltloops, f'ex, then they will have to purchase the extras himself. In fact, unless earning the beltloop again is a requirment for another advancement (like Webelos Activity Pins), we generally don't even track or recognize earning of multiple beltloops at our pack meetings. There are plenty of other things for scouts to do to get recognition besides earning the same beltloop over and over again. After all, a scout who plays soccer in the spring and fall could earn the beltloop twice a year! But you are right that scouts should be encouraged to expand on what they are doing to earn the beltloops, since the Academic and Sports Program spans their entire Cub Scout "career". We do this by encouraging older Cubs to go beyond the three requirements for the beltloop to earn the pin. In my experience with "enthusiastic" parents who sign off on requirments without reading them or "fudging", I diplomatically (I hope) ask the parent to bring something that the boy made or kept a record of to be part of the den's showcase at our pack meetings. For the physical fitness beltloop, the Cub is supposed to improve on physical skills. Did they keep a record of those skills? Could they please bring it in to display, so others can benefit from how they might have done it? For more tangible beltloops, like art, geography, etc., ask them to bring in something that the scout drew or wrote for the beltloop. Again, in my experience, parents who might be fudging things quickly get the idea that they can't just willy-nilly sign things off. But in the end, the Cub Scout program is designed so that the parent has the final say in whether the Cub "Did His Best", so we are really counting on the honor of the parents.

All the requirements are available online at http://usscouts.org/advance/cubscout/a-s.html The other thing we do is if a group is going to work on a beltloop together (as a den or as a pack), we copy the pages for that beltloop/pin from the manual to distribute to the parents.

"First, we are not talking about a kid asking a question about why his gay parents aren't included in a book. We are talking about a book being sent home to ALL families. Why, again, did the author write the book? If you don't see the problem with this, then I can only assume you are a member or supporter of GLSEN. GLSEN goes in to schools under the premise of protecting gay kids from abuse, and then turn into recruiters for the homosexual movement." Oh, so the children of gay parents should have been given a DIFFERENT book about "What is a family?" than the children of heterosexual parents? Last year, a lot of books were send home with my 1st grader, about one a week. This particular book was not one of them, but no, I don't see a problem with this, and I am neither a member nor particularly a supporter of GLSEN. I am familiar with their work to protect GLBT youth in schools, not so much on the "recruiting" thing. Please tell me that you don't mean by that that they are going to "turn kids gay". "Second, I don't know where you read that the "Students asked very specific questions, which were answered in a factual, neutral way (at least, looking at the transcript from the person who recorded the session and "broke the story" in the news)" but you couldn't be further from the truth." Well, this line was a good clue: "There was a five minute pause so that all of the teenagers could write down questions for the homosexual presenters. The first question was read by Julie Netherland, "What's fisting?"" Since the fisting thing was the splashy headline for the article, I thought it was worth mentioning that it was a student's question that led to that particular discussion. I have more of a penchant for using correct medical anatomical terms when discussing sex in my work, and the counselors chose to use slang. But then again, they were probably more understandable to the teenagers and young adults there. "Now, I don't know how you read that, but it is pretty clear who is asking the questions and who is leading the discussion." Actually, the thing about orifices was the tail end of a discussion about what constitutes sex. Since that is something that seems to elude even adult politicians, it seemed like a reasonable topic of discussion. So the councelors used "slang" instead of all the proper anatomical terms for human body parts. I'm sure that's never happened in a heterosexual sex ed class! "Decorum prevents me from posting the rest of the discussion. You can read the entire disgusting transcript at http://www.massnews.com/maygsa.htm Just let me warn you - it is very graphic." Actually, that's where I read the transcript, and I was able to read beyond the obvious bias of the authors (who kept refering to them as "children" to invoke the image of kindergardeners, rather than young adults aged 14-20). Sorry, but I just wasn't shocked or disgusted. But then again, I don't get overwrought at the mention of male and female body parts, or sexual acts that both homosexuals and heterosexuals often engage in. I'm not disputing the fact that counselors probably did not read their audience well and presented material in a way that was probably a little too graphic for some of the people who attended, although, again, anyone who attended a discussion with such a title and DIDN'T expect a rather graphic discussion was incredibly naive. And unless someone was standing there blocking the door, they were free to get up and leave once they discovered the nature of the discussion. However, since that particular seminar was targeted for GLBT youth from 14-20, presumable it was "well-attended" because the topic interested most of them. What I was mostly disputing was that this was an example of something that happened in a public school or school setting. Again, the entire seminar was optional, no one was forced to attend, especially since they had to register and pay money to attend. "If you can't see this as pushing an agenda, then you are so far left, you have fallen off the edge." Just can resist getting in that little dig, can you? (This message has been edited by DanKroh)

"Softball questions?" Not really; I was truly curious what level of activities you considered "pushing the homosexual agenta". "An ongoing struggle in a Boston suburb over homosexual material in elementary classrooms has culminated in a lawsuit between parents and the school system. The Parkers were upset over a book sent home with their five-year-old son in January of 2005, Whos in a Family, that presents families with gay or lesbian parents as normal. Robert Skutch, author of Whos in a Family, says that the whole purpose of the book was to get the subject [of same-sex parent households] out into the minds and the awareness of children before they are old enough to have been convinced that theres another way of looking at life. So what is the teacher supposed to say when the child who comes from a same-sex household asks why their family is not represented? "Sorry, you are a homosexual activist, and you can't talk about your family here?" I remember the book. It shows the different types of families. It doesn't advocate the propriety/impropriety of the relationships of the parents. Yes, it makes them aware of same-sex households, most likely because they probably have classmates who come from such a household. I personally don't see that as "advocating a lifestyle". "Ever heard of GLSEN? Among their gaols: GLSEN calls upon public policy makers to remove any prohibitive laws that forbid or discourage in-school discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity/expression." Yes, I know about GLSEN. Their main purpose is to try to stop harrasement of GLBT students in public schools. I guess it's bettr to allow GLBT students to be harrassed, bullied, and in some cases, physically assaulted than to expose their fellow students to any "positive" messages about homosexuality. "More Mass. news: "The Commissioner of Education, David Driscoll, has apologized for the explicit teaching of homosexual sex to teenagers at a conference which was sponsored by a homosexual organization, GLSEN, at Tufts University on March 25. He said, "There is no question that the comments of the Department of Education staff and the other consultant in those workshops go beyond the boundaries of what our staff should have done." I actually hadn't heard about this one (which in itself is surprising); but I looked up a little more info. The controversial comments were made in during the "question and answer" portion of the class, which was clearly labeled "What They Didn't Tell You About Queer Sex & Sexuality In Health Class: A Workshop For Youth Only, Ages 14-21". Students asked very specific questions, which were answered in a factual, neutral way (at least, looking at the transcript from the person who recorded the session and "broke the story" in the news). Presumable, the students who attended were GLBT youth. So first, this was not done in a "public school". It was done at a conference that people had to register and pay money to attend. The only thing I would criticize would be that if the conference organizers did not require parental permission slips for minors who attended, that might have been wise. But given that the sex education that students receive in school does not include anything about homosexuality, how are GLBT youth supposed to get information that would allow them to make informed and hopefully safer sexual decisions? Again, from looking at the transcript, I don't see anything here that wouldn't be told to a GLBT youth who went to a free (gay-friendly) clinic to get sex education information. Other than the last you mentioned, which didn't actually happen at a public school, most of what you seem to be objecting to is acknowledging that students exist who are GLBT, or who have parents who are GLBT, and to try to find ways to prevent them from experiencing discrimination and harrasement. Again, what you see as "pushing an agenda", I see as trying to keep those students safe.

"But many groups, homosexual activists included, view public schools as their best avenue for creating long-term social change." Can you give some examples/instances of how "homosexual activists" are pushing their view in the public schools?

"There is no resistance to people with other abnormal sexual desires such as S&M, spouse swappers, toe-suckers, etc. Largely, people with such proclivities keep their sex lives private and don't organize politically." I guess you've never heard of the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, then.

Can you speak to the outgoing SM as a friend (not in an official scout capacity, whatever that is) and tell him about the situation? Or would it be too awkward to reveal to him that you know about this aspect of his personal life? If your committee still wants to get him a some sort of recognition, let him know that, but that you are concerned about the wife showing up and making a scene. He might know better than you whether she is just blowing smoke or is actually likely to follow through with her threat. It will spoil the surprise of the recognition (if you intended it to be a surprise), but might help avoid a nasty surprise instead. Is it at all possible to try to reason with her, to let you know you understand her hurt, but that bringing this up in front of her boys (and other boys and their parents) is only going to be more traumatic to them? Can she imagine the embarrassment she will cause her own sons by airing this situation in front of their peers and their parents? It is a sad situation all around, I must say. Good luck in dealing with it.