Childhood

[BubbaBear]

N.J., it is interesting how you naturally assume that I was making reference to physical harm toward gays. Your argument leads me to believe that gays could not direct physical harm towards heterosexuals. However, either side of the coin can show up.

 

This issue is not about the boys. All else being equal, there would be no benefit in what the boys experience in Scouting if gays were accepted. So adding gay leaders will not provide a direct benefit to the program, but will be a victory (and benefit) for the gay community.

 

I believe that more harm could be done by undermining a system that has been rooted for some time. The changing of policy in any such system only leads to a Pandora effect. Before too long, Republicans will want to be scouters.

 

Your refence to blacks,Jews,tall and rich people, while well taken is not the point of this argument. I appreciate your knighting the homosexual issue (one of simple acceptance)but the argument here is of sexual preference.

 

Sex IMHO means reproduction, survival of the species. Homosexuals can not reproduce without giving into the concept of heterosexual donations.Above and beyond that, the act is one of physical and emotional gratification.

 

In that regard, I do not feel a homosexual can be a good moral role model for a child of a heterosexual family because, as you posted earlier, morals should be left up to the family.I just don't know that homosexual families are in the majority within any troop or pack, but more to the point; within BSA as a whole.

 

As far as you statement about the boys being affected by BSA's stance and fund cutting, one of the two seems to be retalitory.

 

Before you take me for a hardliner, I have several gay friends, two of whom are fraternity brothers. One died from AIDS. Another (not a fraternity brother) was a groomsman at our wedding. They know (or knew) of my disagreement with their lifestyle, but they also know that I respect them regardless.(This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

[BubbaBear]

You will take issue with a couple of my comments.

I tried to edit because some of the logic is twisted but it did not work.

[tjhammer]

This issue is not about the boys. All else being equal, there would be no benefit in what the boys experience in Scouting if gays were accepted.This is a foolish and regrettable sentiment. I have recalled in previous posts three separate and personal experiences where someone in my Scouting world was affected by this current policy. One of those experiences I have mentioned, but hesitated to give too much detail on, supports just how much this is about the boys and counters what you claim to be an irrelevant debate.

 

It is a fact that a percentage of boys, coming of age and becoming sexual beings, are also struggling with the self-awareness that they are (or might be) gay. I have seen this first hand with a young man who was very close to me, who was an Eagle Scout, camp staffer, Arrowman and all around super Scout. And who also happened to realize around the age of 14 that he was gay.

 

As he grew older the realization of his sexuality pressed hard upon him, he struggled to understand and come to grips with the feelings he was having. On top of the secret he was hiding for fear of rejection from parents, friends and family, he had to deal with two additional sources of extreme pressure from the two most significant organizations in his young life the Catholic Church and Scouting, both of which he was deeply involved in. And both organizations were very publicly telling this boy that he was immoral and unworthy (Scouting saying it even more loudly that his Church).

 

I watched that boy, not unlike a lot of boys in this situation, spiral into crisis as he dealt with the internal conflicts of self-worth versus the value that Scouting and his Church was placing on him. Teenage depression and suicide is already a terrible problem in our country, but among teenagers who are gay the rate of suicide attempts and serious depression skyrockets. I used to have a Scout Executive friend of mine who lamented to me in private how worried he was for the damage that Scouting was inflicting on these young boys in crisis. It never really fully rang true to me until I saw those concerns materialize in real life before me. What a terrible shame that Scouting, through its words and policies, can be so directly linked to contributing to the stress and crisis that these young men feel.

 

And what about the other boys in Scouting, that aren't gay? Is Scouting not teaching them to hate or devalue gays for no other reason than the fact that they are gay? Are we not sending that signal loud and clear to the boys of Scouting by saying that being gay is the one trait so heinous that it requires a specific and blanket ban from Scouting? Do we trust the boys of Scouting to understand the intended subtleties of this policy, especially when all they know about it is what they read through the papers?

 

I'm sorry, I'm willing to debate this issue on this board over and over again. But the one thing that I absolutely can not accept... the most offensive thing I believe my debate opponents can ever say, is that this issue is irrelevant to the boys of Scouting.

 

[tjhammer]

It is all fine to believe that sexuality and discussions there of have no place in Scouting. I agree that its not a matter of the curriculum of Scouting. I certainly support the idea that such conversations have no place with younger Scouts, and I support the parents role in holding these conversations with their children before others do. But were nave to believe that 13 and 14 year old Scouts are not already discussing sexuality. And we are nave to think that most or all parents (particularly so many single parent families) are proactively answering their sons questions. And were also nave to think that no Scout will ever come up to a Scoutmaster, whom they trust and respect and see is close to their family, seeking advice on sexuality.

 

The kind of close, personal relationships that exist between many mentoring Scout leaders and boys foster this kind of communication, and while rare, I dont think it is a practical matter to expect that the Scoutmaster will always find it appropriate to say dont ask me, go talk to someone else; I cant/wont get involved in your life).

 

And so what parents should do, is entrust their Scouts to troops and leaders that share their common values. I know that my own single mother trusted the men that lead my Scout unit, and realized (and encouraged) that they often served as surrogate fathers for me. And because she knew these men, and that they shared her values, she trusted them to be close to me when I sought out their counsel. Thats not a rare story, its probably more common than not.

 

[Bob White]

My teenage son is in band to learn the benefits of a musical background. I trust the teacher to develop him as a musician and to develop his musical skills. Sex counseling is not pertenint to that goal. If I discovered that the band director had a sexual discussion with my son without my knowledge then there would be serious repercussions involving new career choices for the director.

 

My teenage son is in scouting to develop his character and citizenship. Sex counseling from a scoutleader is not pertenint to that goal. If I discovered a scout leader had a sexual conversation with my son without consulting me first they would be removed from scouting.

 

To assume that since a parent allows you to teach camping and leadership skills to a boy that they have entrusted you to discuss personal topics with their son, without thier permission is self-destructive.

[tjhammer]

BobWhite -- I don't disagree with your assessment, other than to say that there is clearly a difference in the relationship between a boy and his band teacher and a boy and his Scoutmaster. Scouting provides, by its very nature, for much closer, more personal mentoring relationships, and character and the growth of a boy into a man is at the heart of Scouting. Thank God that the adult men who mentored me along the way realized that Scouting was not as sanitized of a adult/boy relationship as was expected of the band leader.

 

And I fully support your idea that a parent should be involved with any relationship between a boy and a Scout leader, and that any conversations regarding sexuality (or any other advanced or personal issue like that) should not take place iwthout the parents knowledge and consent. I just think it is unreasonable for us as Scout leaders to think that we will never encounter a situation where we could/should play an instrumental role in counseling a Scout on such topics... many of the adult/boy relationships I have had (on both sides of the perspective) far exceeded the boundaries of a troop meeting or campout... I have become very close mentors with many, and many of an adult became close personal mentors of mine.

 

I do respect how strongly you (and many others on this board) feel about only you having personal conversations with your child. I suggest that perhaps it is because you are a very good parent, with a stable family life and good communication with your child. It is perhaps because of this near perfect scenario that you can not imagine why a Scout leader would ever play a surrogate role. Unfortunately, yours is not a universal scenario in Scouting.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Bob White]

As Baden-Powel pointed out we are teachers and our classroom is the outdoors. As a parent I do not want my son to have adult friends. Adults should have adult friends and youth should have youth friends. I want the adults around my son to be role models to my son not confidants. It is an inappropriate relationship and one the BSA is rightly very leery of.

 

To assume that a parent wants you to develop a personal relationship with their child is a very faulty premise. Train them, trust them, let them lead. That is our charge and our responsibility. If they choose to look up to us as role models it is a compliment. For an adult to set out to build an 'adult/boy relationships far exceeding the boundaries of a troop meeting or campout' would send up all kinds of warning flags with me, and I would bet with the vast majority of other parents.

[BubbaBear]

I am no more a fool than you are, my friend. Paraphrasing comments is convenient, however I reiterate; Show me the benefit to the boys.

 

At 9 and 10 children are talking about sex, and what is worse, experiencing it. Adolescent youth struggling with their sexuality is not something to take lightly. May I remind you that BSA Youth Protection policy directs us to refer issues of professional nature onto those qualified to handle such things. I know of no Scoutmasters qualified as Psychiatrists or Psychologists, although I am sure that there are some. Should we spawn a new forum involving these policies?

 

You may be aware that up until (I believe the seventies), homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness by the professional community. It is not considered as such now, except in cases where the adult struggles with acceptance.

 

As a Scoutmaster, I would go to any length I could to help the boys. To speak with them about such personal topics one-on-one breaks those rules which were developed to protect those same boys (and ourselves). I am intelligent enough, however, to know that if I attempt to woek with a boy in my charge with a difficult issue as that, I could not only be indicted for some sexual abuse, but more importantly, live with the fact that my cousel may have led to the boy's demise. I do not like it, but those are the cold hard facts.

[tjhammer]

I did not call you a fool, I said the sentiment that this is irrelevant to the boys of Scouting is foolish. And then I went on to explain why.

 

Are you OK with the fact that Scouting is sending a message to 14 year old Scouts that they are unworthy of membership because they are immoral, right at the time when they are coming to the realization that they might be gay? Are you OK with the fact that this is the only thing we feel it necessary to have an explicit and blanket ban on? Are you OK with the ambiguous yet dangerous message that we send to other Scouts that being gay is where we explicitly draw the line about who is unworthy?

 

Whether we as Scout leaders ever personaly counsel a boy on this subject or not is of much less concern to me than the very public, inconsistent, ill-expressed policy that we "shield" ourselves behind.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[BubbaBear]

I'm sorry, T.J., as I understand the issue, it is over an avowed adult homosexual being a Scout leader, however, I see the inference you are making.

 

You have posed some very good questions. I will try to answer them without rhetoric, but first let me say some more.

 

"Immoral" is defined by Webster as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles". Now I did not make these general or traditional morals, they were made over time. Until time changes what is moral then homosexuality will be viewed as "immoral".

 

A salesman is walking through Maine. He comes accross a farmer rocking on his front porch and says to him, "Boy, you sure have a lot of rocks in your field!"

 

The farmer replies, "Yep".

 

"How'd you get them", the salesman asks.

 

"Glacier brought them" was his answer.

 

"How are ya gonna get rid of them", the salesman

questions.

 

"Guess I'm gonna wait for the next glacier to come along."

 

I don't know when social glaciers come along, T.J.

They are what changes tradition and "generally held principles".

 

I do know this: forcing a glacier to come along can cause a lot more damage than clearing its path.

 

Will a fourteen-year old boy be getting the message that they are immoral because they are having homosexual feelings? Yes. But as was stated earlier; they learn that in general population too. Am I OK with that? Not as an IN YOUR FACE statement. I am OK with that, however, as it upholds "general and traditional morals". We all learn what is considered right and wrong sometime.

 

I am not OK with the blanket policy you speak of, as you speak of it. I believe it should be extended to all behaviors which are deemed innapropriate to "general and traditional principles", and spelled out as such.

 

As far as an ambiguous message; I think it is a very clear message, one that supports "general and traditional moral principles".

 

The message wasn't brought into the limelight by the BSA, that is the BSA didn't spotlight the subject. I think it is the responsibility of those trying to "break that glacier loose".

[tjhammer]

Bubba, thank you for a very reasoned response. Allow me to counter...

 

as I understand the issue, it is over an avowed adult homosexual being a Scout leader, however, I see the inference you are making.No inference at all... if you read the policy statements it does not limit this policy to adults, and in fact there have been several incidence of gay youth being expelled already. Further to the point, if you read the text of the arguments before the Supreme Court, you will find that it is not even necessary to be homosexual, merely advocating against the BSA policy in a place where Scout age youth can read or hear (so in other words, what I'm doing right now) would qualify for banning from the BSA."Immoral" is defined by Webster as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles". Now I did not make these general or traditional morals, they were made over time. Until time changes what is moral then homosexuality will be viewed as "immoral".I agree completely with this sentiment. Morality definitely forms over time, and changes over time. I think that the glacier is already coming, though. Recall that major church denominations within Scouting (including parts of the Methodists, Reform Judaism, Episcopalian and others) do not teach that homosexuals are immoral. In Scouting, we teach the opposite, flagrantly ignoring our Declaration of Religious Principles."Guess I'm gonna wait for the next glacier to come along."I believe it is morally reprehensible to wait on the next glacier and persecute gays for no other reason than they are gay.I do know this: forcing a glacier to come along can cause a lot more damage than clearing its path. Do you think it caused great damage (let's deal in the topical world) when the glacier came along and lifted the ban on women Scout leaders, allowing local units to decide whether to accept them?Will a fourteen-year old boy be getting the message that they are immoral because they are having homosexual feelings? Yes. But as was stated earlier; they learn that in general population too. Am I OK with that? Not as an IN YOUR FACE statement.I find it amazing that the same people who can debate for hundreds of messages about whether it is wrong to harm a Scout by forcing him to sing when he loses his pocket knife can be so flippant about the damage done to gay Scouts through this policy.I am OK with that, however, as it upholds "general and traditional morals". We all learn what is considered right and wrong sometime.But who's "general and traditional morals" are we teaching in Scouting?I am not OK with the blanket policy you speak of, as you speak of it.Then why do you support it? Why do we pick one group and have an explicit, blanket ban just on them? We don't ban gays in Scouting because of any specific behavior, or even fear of any specific behavior (pedophilia), we ban then just because they ar gay, without regard to measuring their individual character.I believe it should be extended to all behaviors I agree, and we already have such membership standards, by allowing local units to judge the quality of each individual adult leader and boy member. No need for a new, specific national policy.As far as an ambiguous message; I think it is a very clear messageReally, you didn't realize that it included boys, too. I wonder if you realized that it included banning NJCubScouter, just because he is publicly advocating, in a place that boys might read, that homosexuals are not inherently immoral? I wonder if you knew how unevenly enforced the policy is (what exactly does "avowed" mean? No good reading a dictionary definition to me, because "avowed" is interpreted differently by lots of people in this case)? No, I think there's no doubt that the "policy" is ill-conceived, ill-enforced and ambiguous.The message wasn't brought into the limelight by the BSA, that is the BSA didn't spotlight the subject.Quite to the contrary, unfortunately. Scouting has had thousands of gay members for decades. And in many cases, the "powers that be" both locally and nationally were aware of the sexuality of the member, but didnt ask, and they didn't tell. It simply wasn't an issue in Scouting, as long as the person had good character and was a good member. This issue was specifically pressed by the Mormon Church at the National Relationship Committee, there is no doubt in my mind (Im sure BobWhite will come back and disagree with this, since weve debated this point before; whether the Mormon Church "drove" this policy in the beginning or not can be debated, I suppose, but theres no denying that it forced the policy to be created, given its threat to abandon Scouting and take 35% of our membership with it). It was then fanned to a fever pitch by outside gay activist groups and outside ultra-conservative groups.

 

Bubba, you seem like a reasonable person. If you really believe your last post, then how can you possibly support BSA's current national, explicit, blanket policy?

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[BubbaBear]

TJ,

 

You bring up an interesting point; how do I or you or anyone involved with these posts know whether we are speaking to an adult or child? For instance, if you pull up my profile, you will see a very clear statement about me and scouting. On the other hand, who are you? NJCubScouter, appears to be a young male adult...

 

During the course of our conversation, I asked my Eagle Scout son, "How would you feel about having a gay scoutmaster? Son, how would you feel about having a gay boy in your troop or crew?" He replied (as I would have expected), "I don't know."

 

It seems to me that if what you are saying about the BSA is true, then my son (having been in Scouting since Tiger Cubs) would have a definite negative attitude towards gays. He doesn't.

 

In regards to the "glacier", I disagree; it is a long time coming. As I said, forcing it will only create havoc. It has to arrive in due course, or not at all.

 

Here's a surprise for you (and if BSA is listening, I admit to saying it); I was never, and am more now, not in favor of women being Boy Scout leaders. I believe that women fit in very well with the concept of Cub Scouting, and I do not oppose them in committee positions, but feel strongly about them being "hands-on leaders".

 

I would be grateful if when you counter my statements, that you please try to counter the entire statement all at once. I think you may have lost my meaning, you should re-read my last post and read each paragraph as a whole statement.

 

Thank you for talking on a level field. Although you and I disagree, it is nice to know that we can walk away from the table with respect for each other.

 

At this point, I think I have stated my point of view and will retire from the public debate of this issue. Best wishes to all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

It seems to me that if what you are saying about the BSA is true, then my son (having been in Scouting since Tiger Cubs) would have a definite negative attitude towards gays. He doesn't.I don't believe all of the boys of Scouting are getting the message that they should have a "definite negative attitude towards gays"... quite the contrary, I believe most of the boys of Scouting don't even know there is a policy or an issue of debate. But that does not eliminate culpability for the BSA... some of our boys are getting that message, whether we intend for them to or not. And some of our boys are getting this message from Scouting even though it is contrary to what their parents and churches are teaching them.

 

In a previous post I raised an extreme example of the boy (an Eagle Scout) who brutally killed Mathew Shepard. I know that Scouting didn't teach him to do that. And I know that he probably picked up his extreme hate and fear of gays from many influences on his life (parents, community, etc). But Scouting certainly reinforced his views. As I said, I think it is irresponsible of us to believe that all of teh boys of Scouting understand the "subtleties" of our intended message on this policy.

 

Regarding who I am, I have posted many references to my Scouting background on this board. I am an Eagle Scout with more than 22 years in the program at every level from local to national. But this debate is not about me or you or any of the messengers. It is about principles of right and wrong and about the benefit or harm to our organization and the boys and parents we serve.

 

Bubba, don't "retire from this debate" too soon... I sense that you are a reasonable person who can truly view both sides of this debate. Some folks duck out because it's too hard of a discussion or because they conflicted about what's right or wrong in this situation. If you accept, even slightly, that Scouting could be causing harm to boys because of the current policy, how can you just decide to avoid the debate?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[Rooster7]

I don't believe all of the boys of Scouting are getting the message that they should have a "definite negative attitude towards gays"... quite the contrary, I believe most of the boys of Scouting don't even know there is a policy or an issue of debate. But that does not eliminate culpability for the BSA... some of our boys are getting that message, whether we intend for them to or not.

 

I think this greatly depends on the age of the Scout. I'd be willing to bet that most boys over 14 are aware of the BSA policy, or at least the debate. Nevertheless, I'd also be willing to bet that BSA's policy stance on this issue is not the driving force behind any boy's viewpoint of homosexuality.

 

And some of our boys are getting this message from Scouting even though it is contrary to what their parents and churches are teaching them.

 

Hmmm. An organization has a very public policy on homosexuality. Despite the said policy, a group of parents voluntarily seek membership for their children. The organization is now supposed to change to accommodate their vision of the program? Yeah, rightthat's the American wayor is it?

 

In a previous post I raised an extreme example of the boy (an Eagle Scout) who brutally killed Mathew Shepard. I know that Scouting didn't teach him to do that. And I know that he probably picked up his extreme hate and fear of gays from many influences on his life (parents, community, etc). But Scouting certainly reinforced his views. As I said, I think it is irresponsible of us to believe that all of the boys of Scouting understand the "subtleties" of our intended message on this policy.

 

This so-called extreme example is a bad example. So, every time an individual distorts or corrupts a viewpoint on an issue, and acts upon it, all groups associated with that viewpoint should take responsibility? For example, if some environmentalist whacko drives a spike in a tree (with the intent to cause a lumberjack serious harm), do we blame the Sierra Club because they endorse the preservation of nature? If a child murder commits suicide, do we blame religions that condemn murder as a serious sin? Where do you draw the line? It's a ridiculous association. Why don't you blame the NFL for the OJ Simpson murders? After all, the NFL doesn't allow women to compete and they encourage aggressive behavior. Pleaselet's get serious.

 

Regarding who I am, I have posted many references to my Scouting background on this board. I am an Eagle Scout with more than 22 years in the program at every level from local to national. But this debate is not about me or you or any of the messengers. It is about principles of right and wrong and about the benefit or harm to our organization and the boys and parents we serve.

 

Agreed. Yet, you seem to think one way on the issue and BSA another. If morality is relative, why should you condemn anyone else's viewpoints? Per your own logic, your views on morals shouldn't have any more weight than BSA's. Just because you claim boys are being harmed, doesn't make it so. Certainly you are not suggesting that whenever someone comes under stress from society that those elements in society responsible should be blamed and forced to change. If so, then we should disband the police department. After all, they're responsible for an awful lot of guilt and stress inflicted upon felons. I realize that these folks committed crimes, but some of these crimes may be outside of your moral compass. My point isBSA is ONLY guilty of holding a moral viewpoint. If that viewpoint causes people stress (even young boys), then those folks need to figure out a way to reconcile it in a healthy manner. Healthy boys tend to reason through these things and make healthy decisions (i.e., a heterosexual boy might reason, "Despite having a very strong physical attraction to girls, I must learn to restrain myself and act appropriately around them."). If a boy rapes a girl, should we blame BSA because they "subtly" endorse heterosexual relationships? I think not. We should examine the boy in question and his upbringing. Likewise, if a boy with homosexual tendencies does harm to himself or another, we need to examine that particular boy and his upbringing, not BSA's policy stances. From a personal standpoint, I believe the healthiest thing for such a boy would be for him to have a discussion with his father, mother, and his pastor (or religious leader). Regardless, if he goes down a different road, I suggest you look at the folks who put him on that road. TJ seems to believe it's the moralistic parents, the churches, and organizations that promote traditional values such as BSA. I think it is the so-called "free thinkers", the liberal media, the "open minded" teachers, the "compassionate" neighbor, and perhaps the "misguided" parents that condemn Judeo-Christian values (this includes many other like-minded faiths). These people have caused their children (and perhaps others as well) to become confused about sexuality. In other words, you reap what you sow. I pray for these children.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[tjhammer]

I only have a moment, so I can't respond in full. But I did want to correct one of your statements...Hmmm. An organization has a very public policy on homosexuality. Despite the said policy, a group of parents voluntarily seek membership for their children. The organization is now supposed to change to accommodate their vision of the program? Yeah, rightthat's the American wayor is it?You have it backwards. The BSA is the one that recently changed their standards and implemented a new policy banning homosexuals. This was not a policy (or even a topic of discussion) prior to the last 80's and really late 90's. And I've responded many times to your general assertion that parents should not place their boys in Scouting if they disagree with this one new policy... to make that kind of a statement is silly and suggests that Scouting has no other value than being a safe haven from associating with homosexuals. It's the same silliness behind those that claim (though I don't believe) they would quit Scouting if this one policy was changed and made a matter of local decision.