Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[ScouterPaul]

Rooster,

Are you in favor of slavery? It would appear by your logic that you are. What if some of these churches who in 1910 had a stance that homosexuality was immoral felt that slavery was moral in the 1700's. Therefore based on your logic slavery would still remain moral. I don't believe that you are anyone else posting on this forum would beleive that slavery would be permissible. My point is that throughout history many beliefs have been changed. They have been changed because of advances in science, mathamatics and the evolvement of society (just to name a few).

 

One more question. You stated that "The answer is obvious. Just like it is obvious where the founders of BSA stood in 1910." Please provide proof that the founders found homosexuality immoral.

[Rooster7]

Scouter Paul,

 

Christians who supported slavery did not know or understand the bible. Slavery has always been an evil (even in 1700). Just because some chose not believe it, did not make it so. The bible's moral positions have been constant.

 

One more question. You stated that "The answer is obvious. Just like it is obvious where the founders of BSA stood in 1910." Please provide proof that the founders found homosexuality immoral.

 

With all due respect, give me a break!

[NJCubScouter]

I agree with ScouterPaul that what is considered "moral" by a consensus of society does change over time. And you need not go back as far as slavery. In the chosen year of 1910, society in general had no real problem with discrimination against racial minorities and women. Segregation, denial of basic civil liberties including the right to vote, discrimination in employment, none of these things were considered "wrong," or if you will, "immoral." Some people fought against these things even then, but there was no societal consensus that they were wrong. In some states, it was actually illegal for people of different races to marry; this remained the case until about 1970, and it was the Supreme Court that had to step in and strike down these laws.

 

Things gradually changed after the era in which the BSA was formed. Of course, women got the right to vote around 1920, but it was not until the 1970s that a societal consensus really began to develop that discrimination against women was wrong. The same process for blacks started in the 1940s, and made very slow progress that still continues today. But in each case, a time came when the moral consensus changed from acceptance of discrimination, to condemnation.

 

I believe the same thing is happening with homosexuality. The societal consensus that homosexuality is wrong has begun to erode, and the idea that what is wrong is discrimination against gays has begun to take hold. In my own state of New Jersey, laws against sodomy were removed from the books in 1979, and discrimination in employment and in public facilities and accomodations was outlawed in 1991. Vermont now officially recognizes gay marriages, though it calls them civil unions. The situation varies among the other states.

 

Now, someone will point out that women and blacks have no choice but to be those things, so its unfair to discriminate against them, while gays choose to be gay, so they get no protection. From my other posts, it is obvious that I do not agree with that, but that is not the point. So you don't have to say it. We know. The point is that whether some of you like it or not, the change IS happening just as it happened with minorities and women. At some point, whether it takes 5 years or 50 years, the societal consensus will finally solidify in the direction it is now moving, against anti-gay discrimination. The question is whether the BSA is going to keep in step, be dragged kicking and screaming, or simply never change and be relegated to a small niche organization that only serves certain religious groups.

 

So, what is considered "wrong" or "immoral" CAN change, it has on other subjects, it is changing now on this one, and it will continue to change. And as I have said before, in the end we may all be graded on how we have treated our fellow human beings. I have no worries about my grade.

[slontwovvy]

R7 and others,

Check out the book of Philemon...at least I'm pretty sure that's the right one...

 

NJCubScouter, the day that the supposed "gay discrimination" (IMHO just a group of people who want to be able to do whatever they please) is completely destroyed will be a sad day for our nation and our world.

[Dedicated Dad]

NJ gays choose to be gay, so they get no protection. From my other posts, it is obvious that I do not agree with that, but that is not the point. So you don't have to say it. We know. Just wondering what you base that on? Anything in particular? Gut feeling, anecdotal evidence, scientific evidence, what? It would appear that your position is based on consensus, if so, how did everyone else in that consensus arrive at his or her position? The trouble is that many gays admittedly agree that it is behavior and simply choose it because they want to for a variety of reasons, some too offensive to post here. The question is, how can there exist hundreds of thousands of people who have left the practice, how can that not be proof of choice? Youre welcome to hold your own personal beliefs just as those in the flat earth society are welcome to their beliefs, Im just sure you can justify your position better than just ignoring the truth.

 

 

 

 

 

[bigbeard]

Wow.

 

Sometimes read here, never post. (Too scared!) Steady on; remember a Scout is brave.

 

For what its worth, from a small fish is a small pond perspective, more fuel on the fire.

 

I signed on to BSA rules and regs, and I'll stay signed on. In the absence of a clear cut policy, I'll do the best I can. (Where IS a directive on how to implement the non-specific policy?? No question, the chain of command could do a better job of supporting the rank and file on this hot issue.)

 

Through discussion, I know the parents of our Troop do not want the boys exposed to the homosexual lifestyle in the Scouting environment. Me, too. Unanimous.

 

That's how it's going to be here. Works for me as a leader and parent, works for the other parents, best for the boys in the opinion of their parents and BSA. Pretty easy.

 

That being said . .

 

There are thousands of gay Scout leaders serving today under the don't ask/don't tell attitude of BSA. No proof, just statistical analysis. Three to five percent, maybe? Pick your own number. You more involved Scouters probably know several, shaken many hands, trained a few.

 

How many in your Troop? How good is your Troops'

"gay-dar"? Do your potential targets have heavy chaff dispensers and high powered ECM you cannot penetrate? How much time do you spend worrying about it? How much time SHOULD you spend worring about it.

 

The code of correct human behavior referred to as morals are: - societal constructs that are widely varied depending on the society that created them,

- based at some point on practical factors as well as spiritual ones,

- changing constantly as the members of that society see fit, sometimes slowly, sometimes over many generations,

- have at their core some variation of the phrase "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

Bigamy, capital punishment, infantcide, polygamy, sanctity of life, etc., etc. are viewed differently by societies, guided by their own moral codes. Codes that have been in place for thousands of years, in some cases. Some pre-Judeo/Christian. Codes that are diametricaly opposed to mine, yours, etc. on many issues, including homosexuality?

 

Chances are pretty good the members of these societies in all their billions around the world who do not agree with our model of moral behavior are not all perverted lovers of animals, barely worthy of our contempt.

 

 

Anybody know the policy of other National scouting organizations toward homosexual membership? Don't think I ever heard anything about it during the Supreme Court hearing.

It's our BSA. We make the rules. But knowledge is power.

 

Will homosexuals be welcomed as leaders eventually? With a little luck, not in my lifetime. Would hate to have to quit (all those snappy uniforms wasted, you know).

-----------

 

Lawyers are people, too. But watch 'em. (G)

 

Dedicated Dad, I've read your posts in many places, to my great enjoyment and benefit. Here, alas, mom was right. You lessen yourself and the uniform you wear with your acid. Debate, argue, contest, rebut, enjoy!, but maybe joust a little more gently.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

bigbear says:

 

Through discussion, I know the parents of our Troop do not want the boys exposed to the homosexual lifestyle in the Scouting environment. Me, too. Unanimous.

 

Nor do I. I don't think parents want their sons exposed to ANY sexual lifestyle in the Scouting environment, whether it be gay or straight. And it is interesting, and not mentioned often enough, that in the case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, James Dale NEVER "exposed" the boys in his troop to the "homosexual lifestyle." There is nothing in the court opinion to suggest that anyone connected with the troop even knew he was gay. In effect, he was an "avowed homosexual" in one life, the life that he had in college, but just a guy with no announced sexual preference in another life, his Scouting life. A story appeared in a newspaper about a conference he attended on the problems faced by teenagers in coming to terms with their sexual orientation, and he was one of the people quoted. He was identified as an officer of a gay advocacy group at his college. And that was it -- apparently someone in the council saw the article, matched up the names, and he was out. I don't even think there is any evidence that anyone in his troop saw the article, at least not before the whole thing became nationwide news.

 

So changing the policy (to allow local option) will not necessarily expose any boys to anything. Requiring that leaders not discuss their sexuality with boys has nothing to do with permitting someone whose sexual orientation is known to adults from being selected as a leader. The Dale case is a perfect example. And also note that he followed every single rule, regulation and policy that existed in writing at the time, and was still booted out.

 

Lawyers are people, too. But watch 'em. (G)

 

As a lawyer, I agree. Same advice applies to most members of most other professions as well, though.

[CubsRgr8]

NJCubscouter says: I don't think parents want their sons exposed to ANY sexual lifestyle in the Scouting environment, whether it be gay or straight.

 

I couldn't disagree more. Parents want their sons exposed to Scout leaders that do their best to live out the ideals of scouting (which include the reinforcement of traditional family values) - not just when they're at a troop meeting or on an overnight campout, but in ALL aspects of their lives.

 

Traditional family values include the ideal that sexual relations belong in the context of a marriage between one man and one woman. This ideal derives both from the religious and societal norms that the overwhelming majority of parents prefer. Granted, many parents, and many Scout leaders, are unable to live up to this ideal consistently. That's why it is called an IDEAL, a standard of excellence we strive to achieve.

 

Boys know that their Scout leaders have lives outside of Scouting and the older the boy, the more they know. When Mr. Dale publicly took a position that conflicted with expressed aims of Scouting, he exposed his troop to his position against the traditional family value cited above. Should Scout Leader X be removed for making it known in his community that he is an atheist? Yes. Should Scout Leader Z be removed for being racist? Yes. All of these examples violate the ideals of Scouting.

[slontwovvy]

CubsRgr8, welcome to the fray.

[cjmiam]

Exactly! And bump to that CubsRgr8. For all others, might I refer you to shoppingclubs.com. This is a place where you can find membership in a great deal of other organizations that dont care about morals, decency, and family values. As you can see, Scouting holds these values dear. We like what we believe and we stand firm in our commitment to upholding our right to believe in what we believe. Furthermore we wholeheartedly believe it is cool to teach children that having a mom and dad is the ideal way to go. So let us sing

 

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,

Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,

Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,

As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

 

God Bless America,

Land that I love.

Stand beside her, and guide her

Thru the night with a light from above.

From the mountains, to the prairies,

To the oceans, white with foam

God bless America, My home sweet home.

 

Animatedly, cjmiam

 

[Dedicated Dad]

Dedicated Dad, I've read your posts in many places, to my great enjoyment and benefit. Here, alas, mom was right. You lessen yourself and the uniform you wear with your acid. Debate, argue, contest, rebut, enjoy!, but maybe joust a little more gently. Big Beard, Im only going to respond to a couple things here because much of it has already been covered in depth. One, if morality is individual or cultural then by your definition there exists nothing in this world that is universally moral or immoral and I reject that premise in its entirety. Even tjhmmr acknowledges some things are absolutely immoral though with his relative definition he cannot conclusively prove anything is unequivocally immoral. With your, logic morality does not exist and for that matter words have no real meanings except for what the individual thinks they mean. Therefore our Oath and Laws dont exist because it all depends on what your definition of is is, I mean of Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful and Morally Straight is. And B., with regards to the lessening of myself and the uniform, I would submit the following. I know homosexuality is intrinsically evil. I think the question is what would Baden-Powell do (wwbpd) when he encountered evil. wwbpd if he had a conversation with someone who tried to justify that evil is moral and just? Would he just say I disagree? Would he try to make the person feel comfortable with his/her position? Or would he be a warrior for what is good, right and true? I think the latter, and I am untroubled with that position and how it reflects towards those who disagree. As far as Im concerned, you may as well declare that pedophilia is good and I would treat you exactly the same way. I will never let anyone feel comfortable holding that belief and I will fight you by any means necessary to not allow you to further that position and agenda. When I think about wwbpd in the same situation, in my heart I think he would approve and find righteousness in the effort. So if you want to be the worthy of the uniform or being scoutlike police I would challenge from whom do you receive that authority?

 

 

[bigbeard]

Thanks for responding, DD. I suspect after nine pages this thread may be getting pretty stale to it's contributors. Anyway, couple of points:

 

Words DO have meaning, of course (more on that below). There is a fundamental difference between universal and absolute, for example. Do I propose that there are no universal moral imperatives? Alas, correct. I have been hard pressed to think of a single inhuman behavior that has not been considered acceptable by some culture or another throughout human history. I'm not an expert (a good carpenter, though!), but from genocide to infantcide, homosexuality to live human sacrifice, somebody, somewhere thought it was the right thing to do. Whole societies, not only individuals. If moral principles can be defined as the standards of conduct an individual or a society constructs to guide the behavior of it's peoples, (cribbed that definition from the encyclopedia, not my words), then there are no universal moral principles. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of human beings, is it. There sure OUGHT to be, but history tells us different.

 

The question of an absolute moral code is a different animal. Where the concept of universalism poses the question of scope, absolutism is a question of commitment. I hold to an absolute system of beliefs I have constructed for myself (just as you have, yours is YOURS, not everybodys), based on my life's experiences, my Catholic upbringing, and maybe a spark of intuitionism, (Moore's name for just KNOWING something is right). I believe in the sanctity of unborn life, the duty to do unto others, etc., the power and beauty of my marriage and the wonderful offspring it has produced and my duty to it, and so very much more (awful similar to your list, I would guess). I hold these moral imperatives as absolute in my life. I hold behaviors like homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia (to use the thread's popular language)and many more (again, a list awful similar to yours and Scouters evereywhere) immoral. Some, I hold as grounds for capital punishment,(and will stand behind the father of an abused child, as he demands an eye for an eye, with my morals intact). Should people who do any of the things I consider immoral or amoral suffer the same draconian fate? No. Not all immoral behaviors are equal. Do I want practictioners of behavior I consider immoral in the Scouting family? I do not!

 

I have a pretty good grasp of words, their meaning and power, as they apply to me. In my life I have sworn to defend the Constitution of my country, to love, honor, and cherish the world's most wonderful woman, to render fair judgement of an accused man, and more. I take the Scout Law and my Oath just as seriously. Words ARE subjective things, different in the ears of each of those who hear them. I assume the Oath and Law means much the same things to you, me, and every committed Scouter. But I take the matter on trust, and let the actions of each speak loudly enough to confirm the fact. (And the same hold true for for the former occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., too. A man whose words said too little and whose actions spoke volumes.)

 

I am not a student of Baden-Powell or the other giants of the early Scouting movement (I'm still thumbing my Leader's Handbook for guidance, but I'm getting there!). I couldn't say with any degree of authority how he would react to a given situation. But, since you brought it up, here it goes. He was a world traveler, a soldier, author, a visionary, committed to the youth of the world and the values he so eloquently laid down in the Movement. After a lifetime of experience, in diverse cultures and positions, he decided that the best way to preserve the values he held dear was to use positive words and lessons to the youth of his time. He did not use his voice to condemn enyone who believed differently than he, or use a tarred brush to brand those outside his vision as sinners. Maybe that is how he felt, in other times and places. But what he left us was a clear path for those of us who feel the same way to follow. My Scout books often mention courteous, kind and cheerful as well as morally straight. I've yet to come across mentions of the terrible swift sword of self-rightgeousness. Maybe he felt that the actions of Scouts who followed him would say all he wanted or needed to say.

 

I meant no malice in what I said concerning the heat of your arguments and the acid of your tone. Differing opinions are the spice of conversation. My thought was that such venom wouldn't be welcome around any campfire or crackerbarrel I've been to. I know this forum is a long way from the woods, but the Law is still the Law. Scouting is full time. We expect it from the boys. We should hold ourselves to the same standard. If I heard the same tone in the Troop, I would say the same thing.

 

Lastly (at last!) my authority to voice my opinion on this topic, or any other, comes from the same place yours does. The depth of your passion does you great credit. Ain't it a grand place to live?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[slontwovvy]

BB, of course words are subjective. It all depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[Dedicated Dad]

There is a fundamental difference between universal and absolute, for example. Do I propose that there are no universal moral imperatives? Alas, correct. Alas, I concur. Unfortunately, as Im sure you already know, were not talking about obligatory rules of moral conduct universally accepted around the world and Im surprised you would frame your opening paragraph around that false premise. Or is it me? If Im guilty of poor writing that gave you that assumption please save your ink, I dont think for an instance that everyone accepts exactly the same things as moral or immoral. The question of an absolute moral code is a different animal. Where the concept of universalism poses the question of scope, absolutism is a question of commitment. I get it. Your isms are about I, I, I, I, I, I The only thing that is absolute to me is me, am I right so far? I have a pretty good grasp of words, I take the Scout Law and my Oath just as seriously. Words ARE subjective things, different in the ears of each of those who hear them. I assume the Oath and Law means much the same things to you, me, and every committed Scouter. Well how can we assume that if absolutes are personal and not universally accepted? The different degrees of Trustworthy must boggle the mind. We could philosophically debate whether trusting your brother not to tell Mom about your fight at school is being trustworthy and by your logic whether the boy whoNEVER tells the truth is being trustworthy because 1. The word trustworthy is subjective and B. trustworthy in his culture may not mean the same thing and third but not least, trustworthy to him (the I factor) may not have the same absolute meaning to him. Do I have this correct so far? Now if we reexamine my post previous I think youll find my reference to by your definition there exists nothing in this world that is universally moral or immoral, is pertaining not to the universal acceptance but as an objective occurrence, acknowledged or not. The holocaust was universally immoral whether the Nazis believed it or not, right and wrong exists objectively. Right and wrong exits and occurs invariably to all whether or not it is accepted or affirmed. The boy who never tells the truth is objectively not trustworthy regardless of how you define it, how your culture accepts it or if you personally believe differently. Absolutes exist universally with or without concurrence or any isms at the end of the word. I am not a student of Baden-Powell but here it goes. He was a world traveler, a soldier, author, a visionary, committed to the youth of the world and the values he so eloquently laid down in the Movement. He did not use his voice to condemn anyone who believed differently than he, or use a tarred brush to brand those outside his vision as sinners. Not that I think youre making that up but do you have a cite for that reference? Notwithstanding, while he was a soldier did he not raise his voice or condemn the enemy while he kindly and courteously slayed his evil foe? Maybe that is how he felt, in other times and places. So what youre saying is that while on a scouting trip and he encountered evil he would be cheerful when he thwarted the perpetrator? Evil exists universally in the world, accepted or not, and I think B-P wouldnt have been contrarian to battle with whatever means necessary. I've yet to come across mentions of the terrible swift sword of self-rightgeousness. Back to self again are we? I, I, I, me, me, me. Righteousness is one of those things that exists independent of any isms, beyond any cultures and selfishness, it stands alone whether the majority or minority is behind you. B-P spoke of these two things back to back. Not to offend one another. To fight for the defense and welfare of their country. Can one fight without offending? This is the conundrum that will plague our debate for some time to come. Talk about it amongst yourselves, well get back to you. Maybe he felt that the actions of Scouts who followed him would say all he wanted or needed to say. I certainly hope so and a big bump to that! My thought was that such venom wouldn't be welcome around any campfire or crackerbarrel I've been to. I cant say Ive been around a campfire/cracker-barrel where someone (Invoke analogy here=>) tried to justify pedophilia and Im not sure how scoutlike anyone could be held to rules of decorum should that happen. Id imagine OLE B-P might offend some in defense such an objective evil.

 

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Actually, since most crackerbarrels and campfires I attend also include youths under the age of 21 (Ventures and Order of the Arrow) and usually scouts under the age of 18, I would not appreciate anyone discussing any facet of sexuality, even if its a monogamous hetersexual one with a wife of over 50 years. The offending party would be asked to change the subject, then asked to be still, and them asked to leave. If that didnt work, I would either move the proceedings away from the offening party or have the group shun him completely. At no time would I violate the scout law. If the party became outrageous and a physical threat, then the local police would be called to perform their duty.(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)