What it really is and why it really matters

[tjhammer]

At the suggestion of some others, this is a spin off of the debate in the United Way thread.

 

BobWhite said: You will read more gay bashing remarks in this forum than you ever have or ever will hear from the BSA. I urge you to go to the BSA national website and read what the BSA's stand on homosexuals really is. It is represented very poorly in this forum.Bob, I don't think most of the people who debate here are "gay bashing", though I grant you that has occured (though it's gotten much less offensive since the removal of DedDad); there's obviously good, honest Scouters that feel strongly on this issue. And this forum is a worthwhile place to exhibit that.

 

As I have said before, I really respect your contributions to this forum, which have real value to helping other leaders with the program. Your knowledge and experience of Scouting methods is considerable. I realize you rarely bounce over to this Politics and Issues area. Those that have argued on both sides of this debate have been accused (and maybe rightly so) of having too narrow of a point of view, refusing to look beyond that perspective. I think there's really a third side to this debate: those that oppose the ban, those that support it, and ALSO those that think its irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that its pointless and irrelevant, and respectfully I say that is perhaps the most narrow point of view of all.

 

I have to really strongly disagree with your assessment that the BSA's official position is less strong than any of the views expressed on this board. It certainly is less offensive in language, and much more vague than some of the people that have argued on this board. Which in itself is a real problem... the BSA Inc. policy is poorly articulated, poorly distributed, and inconsistently enforced. Lack of clear leadership on the policy has probably caused as much damage and frustration as the policy itself.

 

 

 

 

This debate becomes so repeititive; I believe that's because the arguments are pretty straightforward and simple, and ultimately boil down to "your opinion versus mine". And since I recognize this, I'm willing to continue to restate my arguments with the hope that it effects the opinions of people who may not have thought out this issue much. Frankly, it's not those that support the ban that I expect to influence. It's those that believe the ban is irrelevant; I hope to convince them of how wrong that point of view is. And the more members of the organization that can be influenced to pay attention to this debate the sooner the BSA will hear (and measure) the will of the parents of this organization which, IMHO, will lead to the inevitable solution of "local decision".

 

Scouting's gay ban policy is specifically this:Scouting removes from membership avowed homosexuals and those that advocate that gays are not necessarily immoral people (if they advocate such in front of boys who are members or of membership age).For more background discussion on this, you can refer to previous debates titled Scouting's Real Gay Policy (which explains the Supreme Court arguments) and also Why it's relevant... (which argued why its worth debate). I would also encourage reading Now that we disagree, can we agree?, which summarizes the arguments and suggests that the current decision power of local Chartering Orgs and parents should be enough to get us out of this mess.What this means is this...Scouting signals to gay youth who are coming to grips with this fact that they are immoral and unworthy of membership, contributing significantly to the crisis in this young person's life (I know, I've seen this happen to one of my dearest friends, a young Eagle Scout)

 

Scouting would eject a 16-year-old member who works on camp staff and answers honestly to a question posed to him by camp leadership and confirms he is gay (another true story, though the Scout was later reinstated because the leadership violated the "don't ask" practice of the BSA)

 

Scouting will eject a member (youth or adult) who publicly disagrees with the BSA Inc. policy (whether they are gay or not)

 

Scouting will eject long-time leaders who grew up in the organization and have served with astonishing contributions back to Scouting, if it becomes publicly known that they have formed a committed, life-time relationship with another man (I know, I've seen it happen to one of my closest friends, an Eagle Scout and 10 year leader)

 

Scouting will pull the charters of a Cub Scout pack whose parents write a letter to their Council Scout Executive stating their opposition to the policy and their willingness to accept a gay leader if one applies (yet another true story)

 

Scouting (for no reason other than leadership believes gays are immoral) teaches all of its youth members that this is a true statement and it is acceptable to discriminate against gays

 

Scouting's policy doesn't ban gays, it just forces them to remain closeted or get out, which is not healthy for the individual or the organization.

 

Scouting violates its own declaration of religious principles, forcing young members to accept the teachings of one Church over another.

 

BSA Inc. has adopted a policy and is forcing that point of few on every leader, sponsor and parent that supports Scouting, forcing them to choose between their principles and the incredible value of Scouting

 

Scouting is becoming very stigmatized and jaded in the view of many young parents with kids coming of age, and is becoming positioned as something we're not (a religious, specifically Christian-only, organization)

 

Folks, this is NOT a policy that has effected only a few. BobWhite, you asked in a the thread that spawn this "What does this topic have to with delivering a scouting program to our community? How does useless debate over gays in scouting or any church get you to know and use the scouting methods?" It has a great deal to do with Scouting program in your community and mine, and the policy is contrary to the methods AND ideals of Scouting. As such a strong advocate of Scouting's methods and ideals, I would think you would share my outrage that they are being violated.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Bob White]

I will respond to this this string this one time, only because my name was used in it. I would appreciate it if you did not include me or reference me in any further posts in this thread.

I respond not to change your mind TJ beacuse your mind is made up and I wouldn't want to confuse you with facts.

 

As far as I am concerned you have no credibility in this or any other debate. You and another poster misrepresent or make up facts and then present them as undeniable truth.

 

The fact is the Boy Scouts of America is a private club. We have a legal and a constittional right to choose out own membership. If you don't like it join another club.

 

This will NEVER be local unit option on this topic. We cannot be a national program with thousands of units doing there own version. We are a national program with national rules approved by the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court. I'm sorry if that's not good enough for you.

 

You are welcome to disagree, but while you do so please get out of our way and let us deliver scouting to our members.

 

Your claim that we are controlled by a one or two religious organizations is contrived and fear mongering.

 

We have the same operating and decision making process that we have used for 86 years. Only now that there is an emotional, attention grabbing topic that you and a small group of others disagree with, do you suddenly see conspiracy around every corner.

 

Your claims about United Way actions and policies show you have as little knowledge of the UW as you have of the BSA program. Maybe less.

 

I invite anyone who wants to know the BSA's stance on this topic to read the articles on the BSA web site or write to the National Council Service Center and ask for information. What TJ and others say the policy and reasons are is inaccurrate and misleading.

 

The majority of people who want to see scouting change its stand on atheism and avowed homosexual members do so not to improve service to youth, but for political reasons. We are not a political organization we are a youth service organization. We will not be used for any groups political pawn.

 

Now please leave me out of this topic, I have scouting to do.

Bob White

[tjhammer]

Bob, you can't pop in and out of the debate, making strong statements like this and then request to be left out of people's response.

 

You're restating my arguments for me and fabricating points out of fresh air. I don't recall ever making a comment regarding the United Way, one way or another (other than to say that it's ironic that the BSA is having trouble with them since the BSA and YMCA created the UW in the first place). I certsinly don't advocate the UW (or anyone) pulling funds from Scouting (maybe redirecting them specifically into camperships or the program instead of turning over to BSA Inc., but nonetheless).

 

Tell me what "facts" I have made up from this first post... what part do you believe to be a fabrication?

 

Do you think maybe the BSA's position is not what I have represented? (Then you better read the text of the Supreme Court Arguments... and by the way, I'll repeat AGAIN that I believe the Supreme Court decision is correct and we have the right to determine our association, I just think we're now dying on the sword we chose to fight that battle).

 

Or better yet, do you think the scenarios I have represented about what the policy actual means (who will be excluded, etc) is a fabrication? (Hardly, each and every one of the scenarios is absolutely true and has already happened.)

 

You say "we will NEVER be a local option" solution... that's exactly what we are right now on most every other standard for determining leadership. That's what we became on the controversial matter of women Scoutmasters (which at one time was a national policy but became a local choice, and certainly has not rendered "thousands of different versions of the program").

 

Bob, it seems that you're the one that does not want to be confused with the facts. Which is astonishing given how factual your other contributions to this forum usually are. I, too, encourage you to read the BSA's "official stance". But then also view not just what BSA Inc. says, but what it does. View their semi-private arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Better still, view their actual enforcement of the vague, inarticulate and inconsistent policy.

 

One or more of the scenarios I cited that have happened already under this policy should OUTRAGE you.

 

How about the one where I watched a young gay friend who grew up in Scouting go into crisis, a crisis that was encouraged by the BSA, an organizations he loved but that was telling him he was unworthy? Do you want to hear all of the gory details of that boy's crisis? Is that what it will take to get the point across how wrong this policy is? Don't worry, I won't dishonor him by trotting out the details, even annonymously. But I will tell you he's reading this forum. Why don't you tell him how the policy is irrelevant?

 

You either believe that those scenarios are fairy tales (in which I'll refer you to the news clippings to prove otherwise) or you're choosing to stick your head in the sand and say "it's irrelevant".

 

I don't expect you to respond or continue participation in this debate. You're certainly welcome to, but I hope you'll just go back to supporting program related questions where you can deal solely in facts and not your opinion.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[sctmom]

Bob White says:

The fact is the Boy Scouts of America is a private club. We have a legal and a constittional right to choose out own membership. If you don't like it join another club.

 

Having the legal right to do something does NOT make it the RIGHT thing to do. I have the legal right to drink myself to stupor in my home even in front of my child, but I dont believe it is the RIGHT thing to do.

 

This will NEVER be local unit option on this topic. We cannot be a national program with thousands of units doing there own version.

 

There are MANY local unit options. Units make many choices and still are within the rules and regs of BSA.

Will we allow other faiths in our troop? Will we allow women to be Scoutmasters? How often will we camp? Will we say the pledge of allegiance and a prayer at each meeting? Will we go to summer camp?

 

We are a national program with national rules approved by the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court.

To me this seems to contradict the stand of we are a private organization. The Supreme Court upholds the rights of many private organizations that do some pretty nasty stuff by most standards. Also, the Supreme Court does sometimes change its mind. After all it is made up of humans.

 

Your claims about United Way actions and policies show you have as little knowledge of the UW as you have of the BSA program. Maybe less.

The majority of people who want to see scouting change its stand on atheism and avowed homosexual members do so not to improve service to youth, but for political reasons. We are not a political organization we are a youth service organization. We will not be used for any groups political pawn.

 

I think you are the one with little knowledge about the opposition. I have no political agenda. I venture to say that all the posters on this board, except one or two, have no political agenda. People on both sides of the arguments are standing up for what they believe is best for the youth.

 

 

I invite anyone who wants to know the BSA's stance on this topic to read the articles on the BSA web site or write to the National Council Service Center and ask for information. What TJ and others say the policy and reasons are is inaccurrate and misleading.

 

To repeat what TJ said, those articles are vague, at best. Even BSAs official leader has said he will reconsider the issue if membership drops. Doesnt that scare everyone? If he believed as strongly as a few posters on this board, he would NEVER even THINK such. I disagree with the policy and wish it would be reconsidered, but Im not impressed with that leadership.

 

[twin_wasp]

I thank TJ for a very good summary of what is going on. I have been following this forum for a while, and I am impresses by the standards that people follow, even when disagreeing.

 

I will add one thing, my council knows my position, as well as the feelings of many others. They have not made any effort to suppress me, or any other dissenters that I know of.

 

Council DOES enforce the gay ban, a scouter who sent a letter to the council stating he was gay was kicked out.

 

Personally, I advocate leaving it up to the sponsor and the troop committee. Today a committee can reject a volunteer because he is not of their religion. I think scouting would be better served if committees were free to accept or reject gays, with national and the council staying out of it. I am also all in favor of rules about what can and cannot be discussed with the boys.

 

I also support the Supreme Court decision. Scouting is a private group, and the court should not impose membership rules. However, that does not mean that the rules that exist are just.

 

Twin_wasp

[slontwovvy]

I don't thing you will find anyone in this forum who disagrees with the fact that the issue matters.

 

However, I would claim that admitting gays is a risk on the BSA's part, and a big one at that. Eisely earlier quoted a statistic that 50% or gays have had sex with a minor. That is an obscene total!! Even that alone should be enough to exclude or heavily limit gays from the organization.

 

Secondly, I believe the BSA does not allow gays because they fear the gay-rights activism that often follows. I would fear for the BSA if their name was tied to gay-rights activism, etc.

 

Thirdly, we are talking only about avowed homosexuals. These are people that are members of activist groups, or are at least intent on disseminating such material. Again, do we really want to let these people in? I don't think it would be a good business decision, for then we would be attacked on more sides claiming that we've turned left wing.

 

Lastly, one must see how little information there is on the subject. Little information about the homosexual condition is known. Almost none is definite. The BSA is being cautious here.

 

While it may not be morally right (which will be hotly debated), the BSA is circling the wagons so it can provide Scouting for as many as possible without losing a large portion of members who would quit if the BSA changed its policy.

[Weekender]

 

Sctmom says, Having the legal right to do something does NOT make it the RIGHT thing to do. I have the legal right to drink myself to stupor in my home even in front of my child, but I dont believe it is the RIGHT thing to do.

 

You're right! You also have a legal right to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and that the BSA is bigoted for choosing to protect its youth from from the influence of a sinful lifestyle...But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

[Weekender]

Twin_wasp Welcome to the forum.

 

You write, Personally, I advocate leaving it up to the sponsor and the troop committee. Today a committee can reject a volunteer because he is not of their religion. I think scouting would be better served if committees were free to accept or reject gays, with national and the council staying out of it. I am also all in favor of rules about what can and cannot be discussed with the boys.

 

So if NAMBLA were to somehow get control of a troop committee they should be able to make the decision that having sex with all the scouts was acceptable? Yes, that's an extreme, but there have to be some decisions about scouting standards that remain at the national level if this is to remain a national organization. The troop belongs to the CO but the program does not. Whether you agree or disagree with the BSA dicision about homosexuality, if you are a scouter, you have agreed to uphold it. Moral character IS what scouting is about and I applaud the BSA for their stand.

 

[sctmom]

Slontwovvy writes:

Thirdly, we are talking only about avowed homosexuals. These are people that are members of activist groups, or are at least intent on disseminating such material.

 

I thought avowed meant anyone who said they were gay at any time, not just activists.

 

Eisely earlier quoted a statistic that 50% of gays have had sex with a minor. That is an obscene total!!

That's an interesting statistic. What ages were both parties? Consentual? Let's also look at how many heterosexuals have sex with minors. Look around at the number of teenage pregnancies and I think you will see that a LOT of minors are having sex -- with each other or with people over 18. Most girls tend to date guys older than they are. Also, people under 18 can marry and have sex.

 

 

[Rooster7]

You also have a legal right to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and that the BSA is bigoted for choosing to protect its youth from from the influence of a sinful lifestyle...But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.

 

Touche'

[Quixote]

Slontwovvy,

 

I disagree - i take the bsa at their word that the decision was one based on morals and the decision that an avowed homosexual is not the role model BSA wants for scouts. You can disagree with their logic or argue the morality, but I take them at their word.

 

Quixote

[Quixote]

Sctmom

 

"people under 18 can marry and have sex"

 

So, are you advocating this? Are you advocating an adult having sex with a minor? Just because it happens everyday in society, doesn't mean it is right.

 

YIS

Quixote

[sctmom]

Quixote,

My point is that homosexuals do not have sex with minors any more often than heterosexuals. Some of the sex of minors is legal and within a marriage.

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

twin-wasp says:

 

Personally, I advocate leaving it up to the sponsor and the troop committee. Today a committee can reject a volunteer because he is not of their religion. I think scouting would be better served if committees were free to accept or reject gays, with national and the council staying out of it. I am also all in favor of rules about what can and cannot be discussed with the boys.

 

I also support the Supreme Court decision. Scouting is a private group, and the court should not impose membership rules. However, that does not mean that the rules that exist are just.

 

Welcome to the forum twin-wasp, another advocate of local unit option -- the only rational solution. Unit option exists today on almost every possible criterion for leadership -- religion, gender, and a wide range of present "vices" and past conduct that some would see as immoral, and others would not, and that some would see as permanently precluding a leadership position, and others would admit the person as a leader after some period of time.

 

National sets, and should set, very few absolute criteria for leadership -- age, citizenship (or agreement to abide by U.S. law), lack of convictions for pederasty (which is the act; pedophilia is a condition that sometimes causes the act), and not much more than that. Sexual orientation, avowed or otherwise, should not be on that list of absolutes.

[Rooster7]

I have a strong suspicion concerning the statistic that Eisely quoted. I don't have a factual reference to back it up, but I'm going to say it anyway. I'm willing to bet, as a group, the disparity in ages between the said homosexuals having sex with minors is much greater than heterosexuals. In other words, sctmom makes it sound as if we are talking about high school "sweet hearts" (i.e., a 18-year boy and a 16-year girl). I suspect it's more like a 13 to 17 year-old boy and a 35 to 60 year-old coach, teacher, family friend, priest, etc. Of course, this happens between heterosexuals as well, but I'm convinced it's more prevalent in the homosexual community. I may well be wrong on this...It's only based on my observations in life. I will try to find some references to back up my claim.

 

Someone said in a recent post that homosexuals are not predators (like pedophiles). I think many, if not most homosexuals, are predators. I think their ranks are filled with men (and women) who are militant about their cause. Their cause being - 1) "recruit" the young [i'm sure that'll draw fire] and 2) make the rest of the world accept us.

 

We can go around on this issue forever. I know I will probably be portrayed as narrow-minded or much worse. Yet, I know in my heart of hearts, homosexuality is a sick world (not unlike alcoholism, pedophilia, drugs, pornography, and many other self-consuming vices). I detest it, but I pray for the people that have been drawn or dragged into it.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)