Scouting's Real Gay Policy

[Dedicated Dad]

Sorry for the delay, I just wanted your sophistically reasoned post to hang there a while and let the other Scouters absorb your intent and character. DD -- Your assertion that gays didnt exist and were unheard of before 1960 is naive at best. I never asserted that, come on, reread again. I said the act was considered depraved during that era not unheard of before 1960. Now stop making things up. That line of ignorance Now see what happens when you dont read with comprehension, you waist your time and mine writing all this stuff based on a wrong premise. Ignorance? Hmmm I like your pretty list though, how did you get it to format like that? And look, it has the usual confirmed reprobates and all the customary long-time dead people they try to use to justify their perversion. Too bad theyre not alive to defend against such an obvious debasing. Oops, you forgot one; they usually like to insinuate Jesus Christ practiced their filth and degradation too, you should really do a little more research. I asked you to produce a single piece of evidence that supported your claim that B-P, Boyce, West, Hillcourt or Seton would have excluded gays from Scouting, because this is now the standard bearers that you claim to defend. Nope, wrong again, I only claimed that the author (which is either B-P or West, I forget who wrote which parts) of the Morally Straight clause in the oath would have found the practice of perversion to be immoral. Youre the one who brought in the other guys, dont you even know which parts you write, and you seem to keep struggling to comprehend my statements, is it my writing? Youre making a very definitive claim and speaking for people long gone, Ring, ringHello Kettle, this is Pot, youre black! the burden of proof is upon you to provide some basis for that claim. OK-OK! How silly of me was it to assume that B-P, the author of the Morally Straight clause in the oath, would find the practice of perversion to be immoral. Im sooo stupid, what was I thinking!(Sound of hand slapping forehead) Two of the three most popular biographies of B-P even go so far as to suggest Baden-Powell himself was a closeted homosexual. No, no, noGet it right please! Both Jeal and Rosenthal said he had repressed feelings that he never acted on, and neither had any evidence to support that he did!

Dont you even read the books you quote? All this is circumstantial and based on accounts of B-P letting and watching the boys skinny dip in the lake, how odd he would watch while supervising a lake-swim? How odd he got married, BTW Olave Baden-Powell started the Girl Guides; she must have been a lesbian. Woops, no, Im wrong. How odd they had there chidren, Peter, Heather and Betty, I guess he must have been bi-sexual then hmmm?Granted, I believe all of the evidence that B-P was gay is circumstantial at best, as great care was taken by him and people close to him to discard anything from his personal notes and correspondence that didnt frame him correctly for history. But it was significant enough to warrant considerable ink in multiple major biographies. Well which is it, you float illogically reasoned tripe to bolster your point and then you say its circumspect to the truth. Talk about playing both sides, you are brazen to the point of absurdity. Have you no shame, have you no decency? [it is more important to some, however, that Baden-Powell likely would not have supported the exclusion of gays and lesbians from Scouting programs. His own words at the end of his life make that clear. "[scouting's] aim is to produce healthy, happy, helpful citizens, of both sexes, to eradicate the prevailing narrow self interest, personal, political sectarian and national, and to substitute for it a broader spirit of self-sacrifice and service in the cause of humanity," Baden-Powell wrote in one of his last communications. In a final letter to the general public, he wrote a sentence that suggests the dislike he had developed for useless squabbling and exclusion that seems to exist in modern Boy Scouts. "Looking back on a life of over eighty years, I realize how short life is and how little worth while are anger and political warfare," he said] Wow, you should at least reference the web site you plagerized your quotes from. Here let me help you. http://www.gayscribe.com/readingroom/scoutingfounder.htmSo I ask again, DD, please provide a single sentence that would support your claim that B-P (or any of the founders) would exclude gays from Scouting. (without projecting your definition of moral behavior onto them). Your specious character defamations from gay agenda web-sites is matched only by your ignorance (Im calling the thought ignorant, not you) of the times in which he lived. To think that morally straight in 1910 could have considered the practice of perversion not to be moral is beyond arrogance.

 

This is a direct quote from B-P regarding sex and scouting:this subject has led to the moral and physical wreckage of many lives.

This is only too true, and I can testify from a fairly wide experience among soldiers and others. The amount of secret immorality that is now prevalent is very serious indeed. Personally, apart from explaining as a preliminary how plants, and fishes, and animals reproduce their species, I have found it appeal to boys, as it did to me when I first heard it, to tell them how in every boy is growing the germ of another child to come from him. That germ has been handed down to him from father to son from generations back. He has it in trust from God; it is his duty to keep it until he is married and passes it to his wife for reproduction. He cannot honourably forget his charge and throw it away in the meantime. Temptation will come to him in many forms to do so, but he has got to be strong and to guard it.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Dad,

 

I am not going to argue the this issue with you.

I am going to argue your style of debate, argument or how ever you wish to charactorize your responses

 

Your postings are logical and well thought out, however I would like to know how your comments about buffonery, slapping foreheads, banging foreheads against a wall, pots calling a kettle black, etc strengthens your argument.

 

Belittling your opponent's mental capacity does not add to your stand or take aways from the opponents argument.

 

If you think the persons opinion is wrong, say so, but your aside sarcastic comments detract from the main issue.

 

Of course I fully realize I can only say the above thoughts are IN MY OWN HUMBLE OPINION, and I fully realize this response will most likely be disected with a diatribe that will make everyone aware of your extensive vocabulary and my intellectual shortcommings and failings as a human being. But after you finish skewering my arguments and words and whatever else you find, pleae answer the following.

 

How can you say you are friendly,courteous and kind when you read your postings ? How can you purport to follow the path of Baden-Powell or defend his life's work when you use such tactics?

[tjhammer]

I like your pretty list though, how did you get it to format like that?

 

It took me a while. Seriously, I just made a HTML table... it seems this board accepts HTML for formatting.

 

at least reference the web site you plagerized your quotes from

 

I did a search on the web for quotes from B-P. The fact that I found two in an article on a gay site makes them irrelevant?

 

Both Jeal and Rosenthal said he had repressed feelings that he never acted on

 

That's correct. I agreed with that in my previous post when I said "closeted homosexual" and that there was nothing but "circumstantial evidence" and that most of the unflattering stuff about B-P was destroyed by him, Olave and Hillcourt.

 

B-P was married and had kids

 

Yes, and that disproves that he was homosexual? Or bisexual? (Of course, B-P was in his mid 50s when he finally married Olave, a girl in her 20s and his relationship with her was the first relationship with any female noted in any of his volumes of diaries throughout his life.)

 

Nope, wrong again, I only claimed that the author (which is either B-P or West, I forget who wrote which parts)

 

OK, I think we're finally getting somewhere. (I'll ignore cjmiam's claim that we're basing the "no gays allowed" policy on all the "founders" of the BSA, and particularly not B-P thats a good claim, though the BSA literature was radically more puritan than B-Ps own handbooks I urge you to read things like Rovering to Success and Paddle Your Own Canoe, books by B-P that were really on the cutting edge for their time, advice to boys on just about any topic (like masturbation, etc) you wouldnt have seen that kind of material in the BSA books, I suppose it was deemed irrelevant to the American Scouting program).

 

I've been trying to figure out from what high source of morality you want to base your reasoning on.

 

I first thought it was God. But once I raised the issue of major churches who disagree with the BSA on this issue, I recognized that God and the Church were not your source. Then it became the "founders" of Scouting, and what their intent was. But you don't want a very broad list of founders... you would rather we focus just on one or two men... B-P and/or West.

 

So, is it because B-P and/or West would have (in your opinion) found homosexuality perverted and in conflict with their membership standards they set that you draw your strength? Is it an oversimplification to say that you are placing all you eggs in their basket, so to speak? Who or what is the "standard bearer" for your statement that homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed in Scouting?

 

Your specious character defamations from gay agenda web-sites

 

You're trying so desperately to typecast me as a radical gay activist (I suppose this is not inconsistent with your desire to typecast in general). I suppose the thinking is, if you can link me to gay activism, then you will discredit me by association.

 

I haven't "lifted" my arguments from anyone... I am not a "wild gay activist" trying to "destroy the organization". Frankly, when people try to cast me as such on this board instead of addressing the reasoning I present, it only serves to weaken their position further.

 

What I am, however, is not unlike a lot of people in this organization. People who love Scouting, who have gained from Scouting, and who have given to Scouting. People who, not unlike you, perhaps even more than you, have helped build this organization into what it is today. People, who look at the BSA's ban on homosexuality and find it completely illogical and immoral itself. People who support the BSA's right to free association (I've said several times that I agree with the Supreme Court decision), but now fear that we are going to die on our own sword.

 

[cjmiam]

Do you mean to tell me that I've been wasting my time arguing with a guy that is stealing other peoples words? For crying out loud! It seems you were able to use quotes elsewhere in your posts. Give me a break.

 

You guys still don't get it and it appears as though you never will. Even if the BSA takes away everything it was founded on. Gets rid of everything it holds dear and starts from scratch, they can still make up any rules they want to. Either agree to them or don't. So if I go start an organization youre gonna join and tell me how to run it? Give me another break.

 

Just because you put time into an organization or are a member of an organization doesnt give you the right to ignore or change that organizations bylaws. The BSA has reaffirmed what they have stated all along. Yet it continues to fall on people with fingers in their ears. Weve stated what we believe now take it or leave it- all or nothing baby. And once again, if it's so meaningful to you, I see no reason why you can't go start the Gay Scouts of America. You could do everything that we do, but allow people to be gay while doing it. After all this is America!

 

[Dedicated Dad]

The fact that I found two in an article on a gay site makes them irrelevant? Nope, your agenda is crystal! I agreed with that in my previous post when I said "closeted homosexual" Your terminology was inaccurate, if you meant repressed Ill concede your mistake that disproves that he was homosexual? Or bisexual? Wow, it just gets better the more you write. Now hes a bisexual huh? Again, have you no shame? I just hope all the silent Scouters can appreciate your unsubstantiated innuendo and debasement of B-P, its ridiculous. (Of course, B-P was in his mid 50s when he finally married Olave, a girl in her 20s and his relationship with her was the first relationship with any female noted in any of his volumes of diaries throughout his life.) What a conspiracy theorist you are, let it go already. In that era it wasnt uncommon to marry well under your age. Further, if you bothered to read B-Ps take on promiscuity it should be admirable that she was his first. Isnt that what we should be teaching our kids? Who or what is the "standard bearer" for your statement that homosexuality is immoral and should not be allowed in Scouting? Its not a who or a what, it is an intrinsic truth that existed before religion and from the time of our creation. Didn't you bother to read anything Ive written? You're trying so desperately to typecast me as a radical gay activist (I suppose this is not inconsistent with your desire to typecast in general). I suppose the thinking is, if you can link me to gay activism, then you will discredit me by association.

 

Uhh no youre doing a beautiful job of that yourself. I haven't "lifted" my arguments from anyone... Heheheno? Except your plagiarism from GAYSCRIBE! Im honestly laughing hardnow reaching for a rag to clean the milk off the monitor which just shot out my nose.

 

 

[Dedicated Dad]

How can you say you are friendly, courteous and kind when you read your postings? OGE, youre welcome to debate evil with kindness, IMHO the tenets of scouting wont mean much anymore if the worst for scouting happens. How can you purport to follow the path of Baden-Powell or defend his life's work when you use such tactics? These arent tactics, they are in the most part, the best IMHO descriptive definitions (sounds etc) to convey my point with enthusiasm and meaning. If you are offended, I honestly and humbly apologize. I hope that you can appreciate that much of the rhetoric I respond to is infinitely more offensive to me and I personally characterize it as profane. Terry says the standard is what you would say around the campfire face to face, I hope you can agree that if it came to this subject I would express myself no differently. BTW, I see many ojections to name-calling. I hope these are not aimed at me because all of my descriptions are directed toward the act and not the person. Hate the sin, love the sinner.

 

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

DD - One of the best tactics in debate is to stay out of the way when your opponent is discrediting himself. It seems we both think that we are doing just that. Perhaps we both are, perhaps just one of us is.

 

I'd like to continue to follow a line of reasoning, though. I have asked you to identify the source of your definition of morality. At first, I was sure that it was based on God and religion (that seemed to be where most were claiming their basis). But now no one wants to stand by that source. Then I thought you wanted to claim that it was based on the "founders" definition of morally straight. After opening that door, you wanted to really just limit it to West or B-P. And now that I have asked you to provide a single sentence that would support your claim that those two men (or either of them) were against homosexuals being allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, you want to move on and say that the real source of your definition is the "intrinsic truth" that existed before religion and was given at the time of creation.

 

So now we're back to God. Can I ask how this can possibly be an "intrinsic truth", if God gave you one truth, and me an opposite, and we both honestly believe our truth is correct? Did God plant in us opposing truths just to create hate? Or is one of us just simply wrong.

 

Before you fire off another missive to me, can you consider how you would answer a Scout if he asked you that question?

 

[Weekender]

Levitcus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

 

How much clearer can God make it?

[sctmom]

I don't have my Bible handing but read a little earlier in Leviticus. It says that after a child is born, that the mother must take a sheep to the priest as a burnt offering and a turtledove as a peace offering.

 

 

[Weekender]

And mesiah did away with the need for any further sacrifice. However, he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it. The "heart" issues remain but the sacrificial duties are no longer needed. Jesus said as much.

[tjhammer]

Gosh, I'm not sure I can sustain my "activism" much more.... I'm going to have to eventually get some work done at the office. But this is a worthy debate, and I recognize more eyes are upon the discussion than are participating.

 

Weekender your morality is based on what it says in the Bible (which Bible, by the way? It seems that with each new edition of NIV, etc the Bible's language evolves). That's fine, and and worthy source for you.

 

But in Scouting we don't require our members to accept the Word of the Bible. As I first said above:Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions. All Scouters have religious convictions because all of us agree that the Duty to God is a pillar of what Scouting is about.

 

But in defining what we mean by "Duty to God," we have - after long and hard thought - said it is not narrow, it is not Baptist, Presbyterian, Mormon, Episcopalian, Catholic, or even Judeo-Christian. It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

 

So you can not use God's Word as the basis to exclude members from Scouting. Agreed?

[Rooster7]

Okay...TJ now you're starting to get me irritated. I know you've heard this line of reasoning presented, but you have yet to respond to it using logic. Here it is:

 

If morality is based on one's faith,

 

Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions.

 

and no one faith can drive BSA's definition of morality,

 

It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

 

then what immoral behavior can BSA deem as unacceptable?

 

It can't be done. Your logic does not allow BSA to deem anything immoral. Name one thing. How about prostitution? What if it was discovered that an ASM was working as a prostitute? You find this acceptable? Should BSA find it acceptable? According to your pretence/logic, it cannot be deemed immoral.

 

So you can not use God's Word as the basis to exclude members from Scouting. Agreed?

 

Actually, I disagree. It is my belief that BSA was founded upon Christian principles. All major religions are accepted, but I'm confident that the founders never intended to sacrifice those principles. Until recently (the past 30 years), those principles or their origin were not questioned. It was understood. Whether you agree with me or not, I want to know - per your definition of morality - or rather the definition that BSA is suppose to subscribe to (according to tjhammer), how would they claim any behavior to be immoral? Give me some specific examples. Unless you utilize some very strange reasoning, I don't think you can make a case.

 

[tjhammer]

OK, Rooster. We seem to have come full circle back to hypocrisy in the BSA policy.

 

You claim (and I don't agree) that the BSA is a Christian organization (and not just Christian in general, but a specific flavor of Christian that believes exactly like you), and we tolerate participation by non-Christians just as long as they act according to our Christian beliefs.

 

Of course this is completely untrue. Scouting has never been sectarian... quite the contrary, the goal has been to rise above that.

 

If, in fact, that is the type of organization you want to belong to, then I would suggest the Royal Rangers.

 

 

 

http://royalrangers.ag.org/royal-rangers/index.cfm(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Rooster7]

I never said it was a Christian organization. I said it was founded on Christian principles, just like this country. It's not the same. You do know the difference? As DD has exclaimed occasionally - Please read my previous post.

 

Regardless, by detracting this discussion to a non-existent statement, you have avoided my question. One that I am confident that you cannot answer...Please prove me wrong.

 

If morality is based on one's faith,

 

Nearly everyone who takes a strong position bases it upon their understanding of morality as defined by their religious convictions.

 

and no one faith can drive BSA's definition of morality,

 

It encompasses many views of God, including the full range of Judeo-Christian beliefs, Eastern religions, and Islam, to name a few.

 

then what immoral behavior can BSA deem as unacceptable?

 

Please be specific.

 

[tjhammer]

And lest I be accused of ignoring your reasoning...If morality is based on one's faith, and no one faith can drive BSA's definition of morality, then what immoral behavior can BSA deem as unacceptable?... I would answer the question by posing the same question another way...If our legal system is based on mores, and mores are based on faith, yet no one faith can drive the laws of our society, then how do we ever come up with laws?By plurality and relative perspective on mores. And by mutual respect for each other, tolerance and standing on common ground. Ironically, that's the same argument some use to kick gays out of Scouting.