Everything's up to date In Kansas City .. they've gone about as far as they can go

[eisely]

Apparently there was a civilized discussion last week in Kansas City on this issue. I can understand the reluctance of the local council to participate, particularly if the forum seems stacked, but I wonder if the issue would not be better served by showing up.

 

______________

 

Forum addresses issue of Boy Scouts policy on gays

 

By JAMES HART - The Kansas City Star

Date: 11/08/01 22:40

 

For generations, the Boy Scouts of America has molded youngsters with its high ideals, its emphasis on honor and loyalty.

 

But during a forum Thursday, several people said they believe barring gays from the group -- a practice enforced by the Scouts' national board and supported by a recent Supreme Court ruling -- betrays that ethic and promotes discrimination.

 

About 30 persons attended the forum, held Thursday at the Central United Methodist Church, sponsored by Kansas City Harmony and the National Conference for Community and Justice.

 

The local Boy Scouts council declined an invitation to the meeting. In a statement, the Heart of America Council said it is willing to discuss its policies with individuals, but the forum Thursday "is not conducive to a fair discussion of this topic."

 

"While we do not expect everyone to agree with our leadership standards," the statement read, "we do expect others to respect them and to keep the politics of the day from interfering with the delivery of the Scouting program for youth in our communities."

 

Many troops across the United States are sponsored by religious organizations, and Thursday night's panel included representatives from Catholic, Jewish and Protestant backgrounds.

 

"We are people with open hearts, open minds and open doors to anyone," said Diane Nunnelee, pastor at Central United Methodist. "That includes homosexuals."

 

The choices in the debate can be tough, she said. She supports the good things that Boy Scouts can do for young men, but she hates discrimination. Working from the inside, by starting a dialogue, might be the best way to cause change, she said.

 

Kenneth S. Greene, a representative from the Catholic diocese of Kansas City and St. Joseph, said the church supports the right of private organizations to set standards for their membership, a right affirmed by the Supreme Court.

 

The Catholic church believes homosexuals have the same human rights that anyone else does, Greene said. But the church also reserves the right to prevent homosexuals who have sex from serving in leadership roles.

 

The audience brainstormed ways to get the national organization to change its policy. Some suggested pressuring donors to stop giving money to the group. Others thought diversity training might help Boy Scout leaders and staff members.

 

But even if the national organization welcomed homosexuals, denominations that sponsor troops -- especially conservative ones -- might abandon Scouting, said Ed Henderson, a former scoutmaster.

 

"It would kill the Boy Scouts of America as we know it," Henderson said.

 

He suggested letting local troops decide whether homosexuals could be members and serve as leaders.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I have waffled a bit on this issue, whether or not is would be ok to have gays as leaders. As is often commented in these discussions most tests of morality are best handled by the scout's family or church.

 

However, I do have an observation I have to make, 30 people met at the Central United Methodist Church, and brainstomed ways to change the Boy Scouts???

 

I have not been to Kansas City for a long time and am glad 30 citizens could take an evening out to come up with ways to change the Boy Scouts. I am glad that all racial issues have been satisfactorally dealt with. I am glad to know all gang related and educational issues along with poverty and crime are no longer a concern. Its nice to know that these concerned citizens were willing to offer advice to an institution, that no matter how flawed I may perceive it to be, represents standards which define an ideal. The entire scout law is not rooted in western, eastern or miltary culture rather it is rooted in humanity and religion. All organizations in Kansas City should be so lucky as to have such a heritage. Or anyplace else for that matter

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[andrews]

If someone from national had attended, they would have been bushwacked.

 

A minority of people in many areas are trying to change things in their own image. Why doesn't the article list the backgrounds of the participants?

 

I suspect they will succeed at some point, and end up killing Scouts, for I believe that to be their true intent.

 

Brad

[sctmom]

I agree that BSA representatives would have felt outnumbered at this.

 

The article DOES give the background of some of the participants (former scoutmaster, pastor). I do not believe for a second that this group or most who oppose the BSA's discrimination policy is trying to "kill BSA".

 

I do not agree with the policy, yet I am a registered Cub Scout leader and will encourage my son to continue to be in Scouting. I do not agree with all tactics that are being used to change the policy. I hate to see some troops are being forced out of meeting places because of this issue. I hate to see troops disolved because of this issue. I also hate to see good scout leaders kicked out for an issue that does not impact their ability to teach the scouting aims to my son. As my son gets older, I will discuss my views with him, teach him to respect the views of others, and talk to him about how to change policies you don't agree with (don't throw the baby out with the bathwater). If another scout approaches me about this issue, I will refer them to their parents and clergy.

 

Personally, I'm much more concerned with the negative attitude, bullying, and non-Scout like behaviors I see at my local District level. Adult leaders that smoke at troop meetings, curse in front of the boys, bully the boys. By the way, these leaders are also the ones who train new Scoutmasters in our District. I've been told things like "boys put up the adult's tents and get up early to fix the scoutmaster's coffee". I don't care about their personal sex lives at this point, I am trying to figure out why they go completely against ALL of the aims and methods of Scouting.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

sctmom, you are not alone...

 

In my Council/District a few fellow scouters have identified a class of scouters we like to call "knot heads". They are scouters who have risen to a position of authority and want everybody to see how much power they have. They chase after knots the way a toddler goes for a christmas tree. Perhaps they are compensating for low self-esteem, no one will ever know.

 

The problem is, they often render immeasurable service to the council/district and not many professional scouters want to risk offending the core of the work force. For however crude and unscoutlike they are, they do get things done.

 

The answer? Get as involved as they are, volunteer for all you can and show them, through example, how its done. Most likely you wont change many of them, but you can start a new culture, one that is more scout like and over time it will change.

[Rooster7]

sctmom,

 

I can't support the adult leaders of which you speak. They obviously do not believe in the Scout Law and/or the Spirit of Scouting. However, contrary to you, I agree with BSA's policy towards homosexuals. These are two separate issues to be sure. A mere glance at nature tells us that God does exist...and he is obviously a great and wonderful God. That same glance at nature also tells us that homosexuality is wrong. If this behavior is not perverse than we might as well give in to everything else. Morality is not subjective. Regardless as to who agrees with my last statement, this much is true - BSA, as a private organization, has the right to set its own membership criteria. Thank God.

[Glenn]

Sctmom,

 

I also cannot condone the actions of the leaders that you mentioned. Luckily, I have not witnessed any of that type of behavior in my 6 years of my son's participation in Scouts. If I did, I would have to say something to these people.

 

Like Rooster, I totally support the BSA policy. As a Catholic, I believe that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin. However, I am also told to hate the sin, love the sinner. Therefore, if the gay leader is not openly practicing, I have no problem with their continued leadership. I believe the BSA policy is directed to those leaders who actively show/promote their homosexuality. In this case, they are teaching immoral behavior and should not be leaders of boys.

 

In the same vein, I believe if a heterosexual person is living with a girl/boyfriend, and actively promotes this behavior (by sharing a tent on campouts), then they should not be leaders either, nor allowed to attend campouts.

[sctmom]

Even though I do not agree with the BSA policy, I do agree with the BSA's right as a private organization to choose their members. I think much of the disagreement in thinking revolves around if you believe homosexuality is a choice or is born within people.

 

From what I've heard, this is not a new issue in BSA. My mother said that over 40 years ago there was a big hoopla in a local scout troop about homosexual leaders. I do have to wonder how much was real and how much imagined since it was assumed that all young unmarried adult men with no sons that wanted to be in scouts at the time were assumed to be "in for the wrong reason". I hope that such "witch hunts" are not happening today.

 

There are many situations that make a person unfit for youth leadership. I hope that heterosexuals are not boasting of their personal behaviors in front of the boys, even the married leaders should not discuss what happens in their bedrooms. I also hope that parents and leaders are not focusing so hard on the sexuality issue that we overlook the whole person in determining if they are fit to be a leader.

 

I know I will not change your minds on this issue, but am glad I can express my opinion and I do respect your opinion. I can understand the problems that would arise if a 11 year old sees his leader in a news article boasting about immoral behavior. Children this age are do not have the life experiences to know how to handle this. Many adults do not know how to respond to this. I also have to stop and decide is this a person I want to associate with, do I agree or disagree, what is the price for agreeing or disagreeing. It's hard to figure these things out as an adult.

 

Not so many years ago some of us would not be allowed to be leaders for many reasons --- gender, race, religious affiliation, marital status, etc.

 

 

[andrews]

I would agree that all who want to change the BSA's policy in this area are not hostile to the Scouts, but many of the activists who make this an issue would love nothing better than to kill the Scouts. If it survived in a water-downed version, they wouldn't mind, but that would be effectively killing it.

 

We never got active in Girl Scouts with my girls because the PC influence is so strong there. If that happens for Scouts, I would probably change my focus elsewhere.

 

On the note of other "imoral" leaders: They should all not be allowed to be Scoutmasters/leaders. Certainly we need to not get into a witch hunt, but neither should we ignore heterosexual imorallity or cursing. Either is inconsistent with the Scout law.

 

Brad

[Rooster7]

sctmom,

 

I'm only 42 years old, so I can't say with any certainty what the climate in BSA Troops were 40 years ago. Per my memory of the 60's, there was not much talk about homosexual leaders being a problem. It wasn't until the 70's, when there was a rash of incidents involving homosexual leaders that it became a focus of concern. I have never heard nor read of any incident (past or present) whereas a male leader was pushed out of Scouts merely because he was single. In short, I think many stories like these are created by people with an agenda, to present a false image of BSA. By creating such an image, it is easier to gain support and pressure them into "changing their ways". Because of their stance against homosexuality, I have heard BSA compared to the Klan and other white supremacy groups. When these kinds of stories and comparisons are not dispelled, people who mean well join the forces of change. Consequently, when I hear such stories or comparisons, I feel obligated to speak up.

 

As to the "choice or inborn" issue, this is a very slippery slope. Assuming, you're right - the homosexual is born with this tendency. If this is the criterion for acceptability then we will be in for a rude awakening. What about alcoholics? Pedophiles? Do we accept these behaviors? Of course, we do not. I'm not suggesting that we abandon these people. I am suggesting that we don't normalize the behavior.

 

I agree that heterosexuals should not be discussing their bedroom behavior. This too would be good reason to expel an adult from leadership. You suggested that we should not be "focusing so hard on the sexuality issue" and concentrate on the whole person. However, this infers we should overlook homosexuality as if it is a minor issue. To most faiths, this is not a minor issue. In the eyes of most religions, this behavior is very offensive to God, and his people.

 

As to your last statement - "Not so many years ago some of us would not be allowed to be leaders for many reasons --- gender, race, religious affiliation, marital status, etc." I cannot testify without a doubt that BSA never practice discrimination based on race, religion, or the like. I can't image that they had such a policy, but that doesn't mean it never happened. Regardless, comparing sexual behavior with physical characteristics and/or matters of faith is not a reasonable argument. Clearly, discrimination based on such things as race is wrong. Behavior is an entirely different matter.

 

By the way, I did notice that you included gender. I strongly believe that women are capable beings, as capable as any man. I also believe that women are different from men. Not less or inferior, just different. As to women being BSA leaders, I feel it is great that they have stepped forward and filled the void that so many men have left open. It's a shame that more men do not feel compelled to spend time with their sons. With that being said, I believe BSA created their organization with boys in mind (pretty obvious I know). To my point, since boys become men (yet another obvious point), who better to mentor them, but men? In a perfect world, I believe BSA should be dominated by male leaders. Do I resent women for being there? No. They're doing a great job. Do I feel a man would be better suited for the job? Given the above explanation, I believe the answer is obvious.

 

[sctmom]

I wish more men would step forward too. I have yet to determine my role when my son crosses over to Boy Scouting. I do not want to accompany my son on every camping trip. He does need male leadership and example. Unfortunately, his father does not give him that, and he sees few male school teachers. I'll be the first to tell you that children can push mom's buttons very quickly and respond differently to a male role model. As a female and a parent of a boy, I think Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts should remain separate -- It is best for each. We ARE different and we should acknowledge and celebrate those differences. I can't tell my son what it feels like to be a teenage boy.

 

My comment about focusing too much on the sexuality issue was more about I'm afraid some people may ONLY look at a person's sexual preference, assuming that if they are heterosexual then they are ok. (I don't think anyone on this discussion board does that.) We also have to look at other attitudes and behaviors. There is a LOT to being a good role model and leader of young men. We should look at all qualities of leadership with the same passion we do this one issue.

 

I'm glad this discussion board exists, a place for logical and intelligent discussion. You guys make me think! :-)

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster, we have had many agreements over the past few months as well as disagreements, this will fall into the disagreement category:

 

I do not think it accurate to lump homosexuality into the same classification as alcholics and pedophiles. Just as a heterosexual man is not guaranteed to be a molestor of little girls, a homosexual is not guarenteed to be a molestor of little boys.

 

An Alcholic is a danger to himself and others. Again, I do susribe to the belief that a homosexual is a de facto danger to others.

 

But, I also beleive the Boy Scouts have the right to set crieria for membership. I have said before, the true mettle of a man or woman is established under pressure and we will see what BSA is made of.

 

If BSA is diluted, we will have the program we deserve

[OldGreyEagle]

Dang I hate when I do that

 

I DO NOT suscribe to the belief just because you are honmosexual you are a de facto dangerous person

[Rooster7]

OldGreyEagle,

 

Just to clarify my position a little more...

 

My main point was not to say, "A homosexual leader will become a pedophile". I am tempted to debate this topic as well. Nevertheless, my main point was, don't justify behavior merely because a group of scientists claim it to be an inborn trait. If we justify homosexuality based on that pretence, then we must accept all sorts of other behavior as well (i.e., pedophilia, alcoholism, etc.).

 

As to the homosexual not hurting anyone by his behavior. This may be true, but it doesn't mean it should be accepted as normal or moral. I didn't want to go to this illustration, but it's the best comparison I can make...On second thought, lets just leave this to your imagination.

 

One can do all sorts of grotesque acts of lewdness within the privacy of his home (homosexuality aside), but if we knew that such behavior was occurring, would we trust our children to his care? Even if that person never touches my child, I would not view him as having good moral character. His behavior (inborn or not, in private or not, victimless or not, dangerous or not) is indicative of an immoral person. Once I become aware of that behavior, I would feel compelled to either remove my child from his care or seek his removal from leadership.

[eisely]

A number of interesting points have now come up. I want to respond to two of these points.

 

The science supporting the view that homosexualtiy is biologically determined is very poor. I have been looking into this and the science is very poor indeed.

 

Concerning women as scout leaders, I have encountered occasional negative comments from some men about this more often than I have encountered comments on the gay issue. This is an unfortunate set of attitudes. The need is too great to turn away interested and qualified women volunteers just because they may be women.

 

There was a situation in Southern California about ten years ago involving a troop that had no male leaders whatsoever. It was a small troop in a small town and there were a lot of single moms involved in the unit trying to do something positive for their sons. This was before council run camps had adequate facilities for females and the local council used the lack of facilities as an excuse to prevent this unit from going to summer camp. The women had to sue to get their sons to camp. One suspects there was more behind the attitude of the council than just the facilities question. Fortunately this is no longer an issue most places.

 

sctmom also makes a point similar to this. Many boys grow up without fathers around or other responsible male adult role models in their lives. I have found it extremely flattering in the past when a single mom commented to me that she was so glad to have scouting as an option for her son so that he had an oppportunity to be around positive male role models.