DanKroh

I'm about to Cubmaster my first awarding of the Bobcat badge to our graduating Tigers (including my younger son). When planning this meeting with our committee, the CC says that she has heard of a tradition of pinning the badge on the boys upside-down until they perform a good deed, at which point, they can turn it rightside-up. It sounds like a cool tradition, but I don't remember doing it for my older son when he got his Bobcat. Has anyone else heard of this tradition, and if so, do you know of any history or basis for this practice? Does anyone else have any other "local" traditions about the awarding of rank badges that might be of interest?

Ah yes, Ed's "I'm not going to provide evidence to prove something, but you should provide evidence to disprove it" modus operandi. Here's one for you, Ed. I believe that the universe was spat out of the birth canal of the Great Goddess during Her orgasm. I'm not going to provide any proof of it, because the fact that I believe it is good enough for me. But if you disagree with that belief, I'd like you to provide evidence to disprove it. Ed, matters of faith and personal belief can be neither PROVEN nor DISPROVEN. That's why they are based on FAITH. But if you want to assert that your personal belief is hard, carved-in-stone fact, then you need to be ready to back it up with tangible proof. Otherwise, accept that it is only your personal belief (which may be shared by others), and not a statement of absolute truth.

OGE, if it is, what can I do to "patch" things up? [insert groan here] Anyway, thanks everyone, for clearing that up for me. Guess these patches will go on the boys' patch vests after all. Guess it's time for me to get one, too.

The patches given out to participants in this year's Council Chuck Wagon Derby are shaped like a pocket flap. Not being a member of the OA, I asked the person who ran the derby and handed out the patches if it was ok to wear them on the right pocket flap (keep in mind that these are Cub Scouts, so none of the boys are going to have OA pocket flap patches). I was told yes. So I was going to put mine and my sons' patches on the right-hand pocket flap. Also my older son, who is a Boy Scout but not an OA member, got one that says "Scout Buddy" as a sibling participate, and I was thinking of putting it on his shirt. But then I mentioned it to someone at the troop, and they said that the only patches allowed on the right-hand pocket flap are the OA patches. If we wanted to put the derby patches on as a temporary patch, it would have to be on the right-hand pocket itself. Now, I think personally think it would look kinda dumb to put a flap shaped patch on the pocket. So if putting them on the flap is going to be a no-no, I'll probably just put them on their vests instead. Not sure what I'll do with mine, since I don't have a vest (yet). Anyone ever heard about this before?

I don't believe that an organization can have ethics. An organization has policies, which they have because those policies are (suppoedly) supported by the ethics of their members. But the BSA has not said that their policy banning homosexuals is because the majority of their Christian members believe that homosexuality is wrong. Instead, they have come up with a song and dance about how homosexuals cannot be "morally straight". And once they did that, they opened themselves up to people questioning the basis of the policy. But if they use the former rationale, then they open themselves up to accusations of not being non-sectarian. Right now, the majority of the BSA membership believes that the policy supports their personal ethics. But I personally believe that support is currently in flux. Today, the balance goes in favor of the policy. But tomorrow, six months from now, six years from now, six decades from now, I believe the balance is going to shift the other way, and then the BSA will have to respond to the pressure of the majority of the membership to change the policy. But I don't think we need to force any units who don't want to accept homosexuals into their units to comply. Just make it a unit-level decision.

Brent, I consider the "if you don't like it, leave" argument to be ad hominem in nature. You don't like my message, so you attack the validity of my membership. I gets old really fast, especially when it gets repeated ad nauseum. You are perfectly free to talk about what ever you want, even when I disagree with you. I am not the one trying to shut down the discussion or question its validity because I don't like it. I merely suggested that if you don't find the topic worthwhile, you don't have to participate. As far as your first amendment argument, I'm not arguing that any law be passed to force the BSA (or any organization) to do anything. I think the BSA should choose to change the policy because (in my opinion, and shared by many others) the current policy is unethical and contrary to the true underlying values of the scouting program.

Brent, I'm not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, so I can't enumerate for you the legal basis for equal access and non-discrimination. But I think the inalienable right of pursuit of happiness should about cover it. I agree that the policy is not likely to change in the near future. It is even less likely to happen if no one talks about it. Some of us find this discussion a worthwhile use of our time. If you don't think it is worthwhile, you are, of course, welcome to abstain from the discussion. And when all else fails, fall back on the "if you don't like it, leave" ad hominem. Well, I think the PROGRAM is fantastic, so I'm not going anywhere right now. However, I fulfill the conviction of my ethics and morals by trying to educate people that homosexuals are not the demons that some people would like to make them out to be. Again, if it's a message you don't want to hear, you don't have to listen. But you seem to spend an awful lot of time and energy on this forum trying to tell people what they should and shouldn't talk about, and what they should and shouldn't say while they are doing it. What is up with that?

Brent, As a big fan of the Constitution, I also support the LEGAL right of the BSA to free association. However, I have difficulty supporting a policy that discriminates against homosexuals on an ethical basis. As someone else said so succinctly: Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's moral (or ethical). If being legal is good enough for you, that's fine for you. But pardon me if I require more to satisfy my personal sense of ethics. Every attempt I have ever heard to rationalize this policy has been incredibly fallacious. And without a good rationale, I have difficulty reasoning that the rights of the BSA (an organization) should trump the rights of homosexuals (individuals). And since the BSA claims to be non-sectarian, I agree that "the Bible tells me so" should not be an acceptable reason for forming BSA policy, either.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Brent, no one is suggesting that it is up to Ed to make policy for the BSA. However, given that he has rather vehemently stated that he supports that policy, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask him to why he supports it, and to try to present a rational argument for such support. It has long been my belief that if you cannot present a rationale to support a certain viewpoint, then perhaps it is time to re-examine that viewpoint.

Ed says: "Actually, homosexual couples can't procreate with each other the same way most traditional married couples can." Yeah, well, that's kind of integral to being a homosexual couple, isn't it? However, it is also totally irrelevant. Infertile heterosexual couples also can't procreate with each other the same way most traditional married couples can. Ed says: "And procreating outside of the family is, well, having an affair!" Actually, no. Having an intimate relationship (usually sexual) outside of the family is having an affair. Fertility treatments that allow couples who cannot procreate together rarely involve sex. In-vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc. do not involve having sex. They involve a medical procedure. There may be couples who choose to address their inability to procreate with each other by a sexual relationship with someone else, but I don't see how that kind of decision would be limited to homosexual couples. A heterosexual couple could well make the same decision. And if the *couple* decides to do this, then whether or not it qualifies as an "affair" is really up to them. You also still haven't answered the original question.

Ed writes: "Homosexuals can't procreate." Actually, they can. Just not with each other if they are a couple. But then again, neither can a certain percentage of heterosexual couples where one or both of the individuals are infertile. But they can adopt, or they can use IVF and surrogates, just like many heterosexual couples do. So are families with heterosexual parents that became families by adoption or various fertility options unable to represent "family values"? I think my pastor, his wife, and their adopted daughter would take issue with that. "My definition of family values centers around God being the center of the family." Well, for at least two of the several families I know from church where the parents happen to be of the same gender, I would say they consider God an important factor in their family (possibly even the center of the family), since they are very devoutly religious people. So which of those family values can homosexuals not represent that heterosexuals can?

Ed asks: "Define family values?" Well, there's the rub, isn' it? Lots of people like to throw the term "family values" around as a buzz phrase, but few of them ever pin down a concrete definition. And your definition of "family values" probably isn't the same as mine. But here's what I consider to be "family values" (in no particular order): Loving and caring for one another; kindness to each other and those around you (including being charitable); emotional support and acceptance of each other; teaching children to be ethical/moral, socially aware, and emotionally healthy; honesty; communication There might be others that I have not thought of right at this moment, but I think that is a good representation of what I believe makes a family function as a family. But as you are the one making the implied assertion that homosexuals cannot represent "family values", what exactly is it that they cannot do?

Ed asks: "How do homosexuals represent family values?" Well, other than being loving, caring people who are deeply involved with their children, trying to raise children who are kind, ethical, and socially well-adjusted by being involved in school, church, sports, etc? Hmm. Sounds like a lot of heterosexual people I know, too. So, Ed, what "family values" are homosexuals incapable of representing that heterosexuals do, other than not being a couple that consists of a man and a woman? Keep in mind that I am a single parent, and I consider my family to represent "family values" even though it does not involved both a man and a woman.

No apology needed at all. The explanation you gave of the pressures facing those who try to stay in the closet was an excellent one. I'm just a little surprised that the BSA would value the leadership of someone who, in my experience, was trying to live a false life over someone who was honest and open (in a psychological view) about their sexuality. That's why I was asking if it truly was the case that someone who denied their sexuality (i.e. was not avowed) in this way would be an acceptable leader.

Trev, I suspected that's what was meant, except that I have read of cases where scout leaders who were deep in the closet were exposed by someone else, and were expelled from the BSA. So it seems that "being in the closet" is not sufficient to keep one from being defined as "avowed". I have to tell you, I can't say that being in complete denial about a basic defining characteristic (sexuality) is something that I would value in a leader. People who try to repress their sexuality almost universally exihibit severe psychological distress, most often manifesting as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Any psychologist who follows APA guidelines of standard of care will NEVER advocate to a homosexual to try to repress their sexuality, because to do so is so psychologically detrimental. I know, because I treat many of them on a weekly basis. I would be happy to no longer need to provide services to that portion of my clients.

"The avowed homosexual[ity] leader is banned..." Just out of curiosity, is there such a thing as a non-avowed homosexual? And would such a person (if he/she existed) be acceptable to the BSA? And if so, what quality does a non-avowed homosexual possess that an avowed homosexual does not that makes them more acceptable?

"Has this topic ever come up in your daily scouting life in your unit?" I'm not sure what you mean by "come up". Have I ever witnessed a gay scout or scouter being kicked out? No, not that I know of, but then again, I wouldn't always expect that kind of reason for leaving the troop to filter down to everyone. Have I ever known a scout or scouter who voluntarily left because he came to the realization that he was gay? Yes, my 16 y.o. nephew, when he was a Life scout and well on his way to Eagle. Again, there may be others, as I am not privy to the private reasons why every boy or leader decides to leave scouting. Have I ever had a discussion about the policy in a scouting context? Oh, yes. I have had new parents ask about the policy, and I know of at least two families with heterosexual parents who have declined to join because of the policy. Of course, if you define everyone who has an interest in changing the policy as a "gay activist", then yes, it is only brought up by "gay activists". Perhaps the issue might come up more if people were not concerned about retaliation for bringing it up. Or perhaps asking why the topic is not more of an issue in our daily scouting life is like asking why there aren't more vegetarian dishes served at a cattleman's association cookout. Since gays are "not allowed", and everyone in scouting presumably knows about that policy, I wouldn't expect the topic to come up much, especially if the majority of the leadership belongs to conservative Christian churches. Those in scouting who ARE gay are so deep in the closet from fear of exposure that I can't ever imagine them participating in a discussion of the topic, even if someone else brought it up. LongHaul, the flaw with your analogy is that when the Roman Catholic troop rejected non-RC members, there were other troops to join. If units can set their own membership standards concerning other criteria, why can't they decide on this one, as well?

Our town has a Memorial Day parade every year that usually consists of the town's veterans, the Boy Scouts, the Girl Scouts, the Cub Scouts, the Brownies, and the local baseball league. This was the first year I marched, since I am now the Cubmaster for our pack. My older son marched with his troop (and the town's other troop), under the guidance of one of the ASMs, since his Scoutmaster (former Navy man) was the Grandmaster of the parade. The two packs decided to march together, and the young cubs did a great job carrying the American flags as well as our pack flag and a Cub Scout banner. At the half way point, we stop at the firestation for drinks. When we formed back up again, all that was left in the parade were the veterans, the two troops, and our pack of Cub Scouts (the other pack dropped out). I was very proud of our boys as they continued to carry the flags the second mile of the parade route, and stand very respectfully at the cemetary during the short service for our veterans. Especially since probably half the boys there were Tiger Cubs. What a great experience for them.

SueM wrote "I have one boy who claims to be a Wican..discussions with him are always interesting!!" Just out of curiosity, Sue, why do you think the boy only "claims" to be Wiccan (as opposed to Wican)? Do you have some reason to think that he is insincere in his profession of his chosen faith?

karent, Thank you for the link, but I already have all the information and forms for applying for an alternative requirement with Council. What I am looking for is suggestions for accommodations that have worked for others in the past. The best idea we have come up with so far is to let him do the requirements in a PFD. But I am interested in things that have worked for others in similar circumstances.

Do you know about the US Heritage Awards? They are awards for learning about the heritage of our country, and include a service project. Most of the other requirements for the Cub Scout level award (Silver Award) are things that the boys have probably done as part of their other rank advancements. Here is a link to the site with the information: http://www.nationstrails.com/awards/index.html

"The I'VE GOT A CLUE card." Is that the opposite of Bill Engvall's "Here's Your Sign"?

EagleInKY, thanks for the information, but you addressed a different issue than I am asking about. I'm asking about the swimming requirements for RANK advancement to second and first class, not the swimming merit badge.

Eagledad wrote: "The only requirement we had to change was the swimming requirement for an autistic scout who was deathly terrified of water, even in a glass." Not to sidetrack this thread too much, but Eagledad, can I ask what the accomodation you made for this scout was? My son is a high functioning autistic, and he is in a similar situation; in his case, not that he is afraid of water, but because of coordination issues, he will probably never learn to swim. Our troop has been tossing around ideas for the second and first class swimming requirements, and I'm interested in what others have done. Thanks.

Actually, yellow_hammer, aren't the only two of those that would NOT be possible now the gays only and girls only? Satanists: If the CO was the Church of Satan (a registered church in the US, btw), couldn't they say, we only want a troop with members of our church? recovering addicts: is there currently anything to prevent Al-Anon from sponsering a troop of recovering addicts? Marilyn Manson fans: if the CO wanted it, would national be able to nix it? Whites only/blacks only: again, if the CO wanted it and was willing to put up with the flak and threat of lawsuits, would national be able to say, "no, you can't"? Vegetarians only: if the CO were a religious organization that allows only vegetarians, couldn't they have a vegetarian only unit?