Don't ask, I'll tell...

[tjhammer]

mk9750 -- I appreciate the genuineness in your words. I certainly do not challenge your right to define morality as you choose, nor do I wish to impose myself or my beliefs upon you or your family. Please do not ever hesitate to state your beliefs, or challenge me. I dont want to see the debate squelched at all simply because theres now one of them in the room. And I truly have learned (and hope to continue to learn) about genuine perspectives through open and honest discussion here. Dont stop, and dont be afraid that your words may be insulting to me. I can handle some genuine descent amongst us friends.

 

I do not lie to Scouting about my sexuality. If I am asked about it, I would not deny nor confirm anything, as I see the answer to be irrelevant and the question to be inconsistent with the policy. If I were ever in a situation where I was asked by someone and it WAS relevant (perhaps the parents of a Scout that had asked me to counsel him on their behalf on a related subject), then I would feel obliged to avow to them for disclosure purposes, or otherwise decline their request. But thats a pretty rare example, and one in which a whole off shoot of conversation could (and has) been had about the appropriateness of any such counsel by a Scout leader of any sexuality.

 

Scouting has a very clear "don't ask, don't tell" policy in place right now, both on paper and in practice (with few exceptions for unevenly enforced "witch hunts"). And I am fully compliant with that policy. I'm not picking my terms, or choosing my definitions.

 

Thus another part of the quagmire, once raised by me in theoretical debate on this board, now posed again in real, personal terms: if this were a matter of principle, how am I more desirable to BSA as a "closeted" homosexual than as an "open homosexual"?

 

[tjhammer]

I'm unlikely to ever "prove to you that homosexuality is not immoral"; that's determined by your opinion, your religion, your relationship with God and your reality. There's just nothing in BSA that says I have to accept "your opinion", "your religion", "your relationship with God" or "your reality" on this subject.

 

 

 

The fact that I (and many, many others) am gay and still very active in Scouting seems to not have affected you or your Scouting one bit. And my continued involvement will have no effect on you either. So why not solve this matter right now by encouraging the BSA to return to where it stood for nearly 100 years by allowing chartered partners and local parents to decide for themselves whether a kid or adult has the "morality" to be a member in their group?

 

Why don't those of us who oppose the BSA policy have the same right to association and self-determination as those of you who support it? Is it solely because there are more people in BSA that think the way that you do than the way we do? Is that really a valid standard for legislating morality? I don't seek to impose my morality on you, nor do I seek to change the organization in a way that affects you. Why can't you say the same?

 

[acco40]

RobK,

 

My point exactly. The Scout Oath and Law are not self defining. Also, the BSA professes to be non-denominational. So what constitutes "morally straight?" In my beliefs, being homosexual alone is not immoral. (I prefer to define morality by actions, not thought).

 

Being brought up in America, I also have this nasty belief that the burden of proof is on the prosecution side, not the defense. Did Jimmy Carter, a former SM, violate the "morally straight" tenet by "lusting in his heart.?" Ah, what great things to ponder.

[scoutldr]

As I stated elsewhere in the forums, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." TJ, you can camp with me any time. I am as secure in my sexuality as you are in yours, and I don't think I would view you as a threat to "my boys". Maybe TJ is not a model of the first point of the Scout Law. As I also stated elsewhere...when do we go after the others who may not meet some anachronistic model... As Leaders, we have an obligation to prepare the youth to survive in TODAY's world and the world of the future, which may or may not coincide with "traditional" values. Years ago, the Cub Scout Promise was changed...the phrase "to be square" was no longer relevant and had an entirely different meaning to the boys...we all giggled every time we recited it. Society has said extra-marital sex in the White House is not a capital offense (no pun intended) and pre-marital sex and co-habitation are commonplace, although still considered a "sin". I know some of my senior scouts are having sex. One of them fathered a child and paid for the abortion. Should I have reported them to National so they could issue a "ban" letter for not being "morally straight" (whatever that means in 2003)??? What I did was to quietly offer my support and a non-judgemental adult to talk to. I, too am questioning how much longer I can continue supporting an organization that is moving more and more to the extreme right and is apparently being ruled by the fundamentalist zealots. To paraphrase my Pastor, "Scouting is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints." If TJ turns out to be a pedophile, I'll happily volunteer to help throw the switch...just as he would do for me, I suspect. And I can't wait for the criminal background checks to go after currently registered leaders...it will be astonishing to see who gets punished once again for past mistakes.

[NJCubScouter]

TJ: First of all, wow. You sure know how to liven up a discussion. I had mostly stepped away from this whole subject, because it was the same old arguments with the same old people, over and over, round and round and round. I personally think that the bit about genetics really took us off the track. I think you have added something new to talk about. What do you think, 15 pages or so for this thread?

 

Obviously the main issue here is, what is "avowed." My assumption has always been that it basically the same thing as "out," though only if you have "outed" yourself. In other words, have you voluntarily made it generally known. From the gay people I have known, this is not always so simple. I have known gay people who were out to their mother but not at work, and people who were out at work but not to their mother. If you are able to compartmentalize the information, are you still avowed? It is sort of like the question, if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it, does it make a sound. I think the practical answer is that if the "BSA," however you define it, knows that you have "declared" yourself to be gay, you are then "avowed." Therefore, even though a few Scouters may know, you are not really "avowed" -- but if someone violates your trust, then you are avowed? I don't know. It's not easy. My answer would be that at present, you are making efforts to keep your sexuality confidential, and that the "world" in general does not know, and therefore you are not "avowed." This also means, in my opinion, that the Scouters who "know" are not violating anything. But again, if one of them were to "tell"...

 

The fact that you are now "out" online does not change anything, because it is not really "you." None of us know who "you" actually are. "You" actually could be a straight 75-year-old woman or a college student sitting at a computer in Japan, just playing games with us. (As could I.) We take you at your word that you are who and what you say you are, because otherwise the whole basis of discussing things in a forum like this begins to crumble.

 

I think I disagree with one of your comments. I do not think that the BSA defines "avowed" only to mean "don't advocate against the BSA opinion in front of Scouts". I also do not think there is anything in the Supreme Court opinion that limits the definition to this. Look at James Dale. He did not advocate anything to Scouts. So far as anyone knows, he was not "out" to anyone connected with Scouting. He was "out" in another part of his life, in which he presumably did not discuss Scouting with anyone. However, when the "out" part of his life took him to a conference discussing the issues facing gay teenagers, and he was quoted in a newspaper as being an officer of a college gay rights organization, the two parts of his life ran into each other. Someone at council apparently read the newspaper, and that was it. There is no indication that there was any inquiry with Dale's troop, to see if he had discussed his sexuality with any Scouts or Scouters. Merely by the council finding out of his "avowedness," he was deemed to fall within the policy, and he was terminated.

 

But as I have suggested, this sounds like more of a philosophical issue than a real issue to me. If the BSA finds out you have told anyone, by definition you are "avowed." Based on the facts as you have presented them, I don't think there is any violation of "policy." But it may no longer be completely under your control.

[SR540Beaver]

"It's nice to see that the same crowd of people who practice moral relativism also subscribe to the Clintonesque practice of redefining words in the english language to suit their arguments.

 

The relevant question is whether tj is an "avowed" homosexual using THE definition of avow, not "A" definition."

 

Quixote,

 

I'm betting that when the BSA put the word "avowed" in their statement, it was done with the advice of a number of attorneys. They knew the definition of avowed and chose to use it instead of another word. No one is redefining the word here. I pulled the definition from the dictionary. Black and white, no interpretation. The definition is the definition.

 

I don't know about your church, but in mine you make a profession of faith publically before the congragation that you have chosen to follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior and then there is a public baptism as a symbol of your death to an old sinful life and rebirth in a new spiritual life. That is an "avowed "Christian. They have taken a public stand openly.

 

An "avowed" homosexual would be a person who publically displays and makes known that they are gay. They would bring their partner to scout meetings as any heterosexual leader might. They would openly discuss their sexuality and make no bones about it. A person who has confided personal information to trusted friends would not be considered an "avowed" anything.

 

What is your definition of "avowed" if you don't like the one in the dictionary?

[RobK]

Quoting tjhammer: Why don't those of us who oppose the BSA policy have the same right to association and self-determination as those of you who support it?

 

You do. Go somewhere else and exercise it. What you don't have is the right to force the rest of us to accept you in our organization.

 

Is it solely because there are more people in BSA that think the way that you do than the way we do? Is that really a valid standard for legislating morality? I don't seek to impose my morality on you, nor do I seek to change the organization in a way that affects you.

 

The only valid standard for legistlating morality is an absolute standard. Unfortuneately, finding a consensus on that absolute standard is very hard, so we're left with majority rule, which I generally find better than minority rule. Sometimes I'm thankful that we can all agree that 2 + 2 = 4 (an absolute truth).

 

But you do seek to impose your morality on me and change the organization in a way that affects me. You want the BSA to allow homosexual membership. For the BSA to allow homosexual membership is a tacit endorsement of homosexuality as "morally straight", implictly teaching that homosexuality is not sin, and I will not be a member, nor allow my children to be members of such an organization.

 

Quoting acco40: Also, the BSA professes to be non-denominational. So what constitutes "morally straight?"

 

Is there only one denomination that views homosexuality as sinful? Pick any behavior, from shoplifting to murder, and I'm sure you can find some religon somewhere that says it's OK. Should BSA allow membership to people who sacrifice their first born to Molech, simply because that religion says it's OK? The line must be drawn somewhere.

 

The BSA has defined homosexuality as not "morally straight" and the majority of the membership seems to agree. If they were to define it as being "morally straight", I would leave immediately.

 

TJ, I believe that homosexuality is a sin. I don't believe that to spoil your fun, or to make your life hard, or to make you hurt. I sincerely don't want you to be unhappy. Trying to say something that's bad for you and bad for others is not bad, does not make it so, though. Admittedly, I can't give you lots of reasons off the top of my head that homosexuality is bad, but just as a child must trust his parents when they won't let him play with a book of matches, I must trust my Father, God that homosexuality is bad, bad for the pratitioner, and bad for those around him. I hope that someday, you'll be able to see this also.

 

Something to ponder to yourself, if someone could present you with irrefutable evidence that homosexuality is sin, would you repent and turn from it?

 

-Rob

[le Voyageur]

sctldr...

 

Will have to more than agree with you on that last point. Makes me wonder how many Scouters will be cringing about their past "sins".

 

As for myself since we seem to be coming clean is this, my "only" transgression in the past, of which I have no shame or concern about, as it was an affair of honor was an Article 15 in the military for dueling (the coward was a no show, and hid out for a wee bit of time being later charged for going AWOL for two weeks....he got 60 days brig, I lost 50 bucks, so sweet).

 

So if BSA wants to remove me from the program for this which happened back in 68, I've got no problem with it....

 

 

[tjhammer]

NJCub, I would be surprised if this thread runs on and on (though not disappointed either way). I think that the context of the debate has been changed in some peoples minds (which is why I waited a year to reveal this, and only do so now because I, too, felt that I had said everything I could say on the subject, and would only start repeating myself from here on)... Suddenly, we're not discussing theories, but a real example... a real example from a known (as best as one can be known on this board) associate, who's still standing in the room. I fear some people might withhold their opinions a bit more now, if for no other reason than their momma's taught "if you don't have anything nice to say, whisper it..." (or something like that). Honestly, I'll be disappointed if the more vocal proponents of the BSA position do not take this opportunity to apply it to me, ask me questions or challenge me on any angle.

 

Of course, the nave and arrogant part of me still sometimes expects a thread to end when I hit Send on a post. "Well, that should do it... I can't imagine that this won't be the final word on that subject. How could anyone disagree with me?" :-) (OK, let me get my tongue back out of my cheek.) I know there are few easy answers to this whole situation... I can honestly relate to the perspectives of my opponents, however much I find disagreement with them. But the answers are a bit clearer, I think, when the situations become more personal and real.

 

[Quixote]

kwc - i am using the definition in the dictionary hence my point regarding "the" definition instead of "a" definition.

 

I miss where my religion enters into the picture unless you're trying to further define the word "avow" in which case i point you to the post by tj where he admits that he has told others within scouts that he is a homosexual - hence he has avowed his homosexuality to others, who happen to be members of the BSA.

 

As for him openly discussing his sexuality, that has no place in scouting, hetero or homosexual.

 

My point is that while he has been careful in telling those around him, he has at least opened the door to the closet if not come out of it to use NJ's example.

[Rooster7]

I appreciate TJ's honesty too. Furthermore, I don't fault him for not leaving an organization he presumably loves. I view him as an intelligent man. Furthermore, per his postings, he gives the appearance of a caring person. I will pray for him. We all have sins, which we must try to conquer. In this respect, I know he is no different than the rest of us. Unfortunately, this is where TJ and I part ways. He is adamant that his sexual desire for other men and its associated behaviors are not unnatural. He is unwilling to change his behavior and/or to repress these sinful desires.

 

Having said the above, I would seek his removal if I knew his name. As someone who embraces homosexuality and promotes its acceptability, I feel he is unqualified to be a member of the BSA. I would not want him on a camping trip with my son for this reason alone. And while I don't believe every homosexual is a pedophile, I am convinced that the probability of him being one is much higher as compared to that of the typical heterosexual. There are studies that back this view. Per capita, more homosexuals molest children then heterosexuals.

 

In short, TJ is a man like me with his own set of problemsjust like me. I hope and pray that one day he will see the wrongness of his sexual desires and the hopelessness of such a lifestyle. Should he ever, I would gladly be his friend and welcome him in my church.

 

What's truly disheartening is not TJ's confession, but the responses of his supporters - fellow Scouters who are not plagued by unnatural desires, just perverse politics.

 

Stay the course

 

In my beliefs, being homosexual alone is not immoral.

 

I, too am questioning how much longer I can continue supporting an organization that is moving more and more to the extreme right and is apparently being ruled by the fundamentalist zealots.

 

TJ is trying to hang on to a part of his life that he enjoys very much. He knows that he's not what the BSA wants as a leader, but because he values the Scouting experience, he's willing to live a lie. I really don't think this is a tremendously horrible thing. I think if I were in his place, I'd probably be behaving very similarly if not exactly as he is right now. Not because it is right, but because it is part of my sinful nature to do what I want.

 

On the other hand, I will never appreciate or understand the numerous others who are not being pressured by these desires or temptations, yet endorse immorality as if they are pursuing a righteous cause. Your open-mindedness apparently knows no bounds.

 

As to the BSA "avow" policy, this is my theory. It was written as such simply to avoid witch-hunts. They didn't want Scouters pointing at stereotypic gay mannerisms and accusing folks of being homosexual. They didn't want to be in the business of investigating every flippant allegation born out of malice. On the other hand, if someone self-proclaimed their homosexuality, they knew that person's expulsion would not result in some ugly battle over the validity of the charge. They are not endorsing - "Don't ask. Don't tell". Being self-avowed is not the determining characteristic, which makes the behavior of a homosexual - immoral. The BSA clearly believes that homosexuality itself is immoral. Thus, homosexuals are improper role models. The BSA was just trying to avoid witch-hunts.

 

SagerScout,

 

You hetero men that think homosexuality is a "choice" - do you think you could CHOOSE to, umm, get hot over men?

 

I think - without God as a foundation, given enough time, any man, woman, or child, could stoop to any perversity. For some, maybe it would take thousands of years. For others, it would only take a few hours. Regardless, left to ourselves, I think we are all capable of unnatural and/or perverse behavior. It's only a matter of time. In fact, I will go so far as to say - without God, we all would embrace perversity of some kind.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[mk9750]

tj:

 

Thanks for the olive branch. I am glad that my inadequate efforts to describe my position did not overshadow the genuineness of my respect for you.

 

I had two reasons for my use of the work "lifestyle". Mostly, it was an easy catch all word for homosexuality, homosexual tendencies, and activities. But I do admit that I intententally used the word to convey my belief that it is a choice, not predetermined.

 

Also, I assure you that my participation will not change regardless of whether I know a gay person is here. I get a real kick out of people using the work "Homophobe" (it has not been used in this thread, i don't believe). My wife calls me a homophobe all of the time. I take this to mean I am afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality. I am neither. I admit that my exposure to gay people has been limited (as far as I know - and I realize that just that comment supports much of your side of the discussion). I may disagree with it, but it, or the people who practice it, do not frighten me.

 

sctldr said: "As Leaders, we have an obligation to prepare the youth to survive in TODAY's world and the world of the future, which may or may not coincide with "traditional" values." I've got to say that this is one of the most balanced statements I have seen on this topic. We ARE responsible to guide today's Boy Scouts to live, work and lead in the world they will find when they get there. Homosexuality will be a part of that world. To think otherwise is burying our head in the sand. Whether gays are or are not permitted to belong to Scouting, we do our boys a disservice if we do not adress it. In contrast to others who have said we should ignore all sexuality, I think that we as leaders should actively help guide boys toward healthy and moral attitudes about sex. This has to be done while respecting the family's role and authority to guide their own child as the first authority. But we surely must address it, just as we adress 1st aid, leave no trace, and any other topic which might be important or an influence on them.

 

We would have to know each other much better than we can through this forum, but my impression of you is such that if it were confirmed after getting to know you, I would be honored to have you be an influence on my children (assuming you didn't try to persude them to be gay, which I don't imagine you would). This is a tremendous compliment from me, and I hope you see it as such. I tell you because I truly hold nothing against you because you are gay. Let's be honest: On the scale of bad things to be, being gay even in my view is far closer to being moral than being a child molester, a rapist or a murderer. I made my position known how I feel about your relationship with Scouting, I think. Should Scouting change its principles I would like for you, and others who are as dedicated, to be the first back in the program. But until they do, my opinion is that you and Scouting are not the match that you think you are.

 

Mark

[NJCubScouter]

TJ asks: if this were a matter of principle, how am I more desirable to BSA as a "closeted" homosexual than as an "open homosexual"?

 

This relates to something I have discussed a few times. If it were up to me to choose whether a leader in my son's troop were a "closeted" gay person or openly gay (though not discussing his/her sexuality with the boys), I would choose "openly" every time. (That is, assuming he/she could be openly gay without getting booted out.) TJ, I do not mean to disparage you, obviously I do not know you or how you have dealt with your own situation, but my observation is that it is not "good" for a person to have to keep a major aspect of his life hidden for his whole life. I am not talking about keeping one's private life private, everyone should do that. What I am talking about is living a "double life." TJ, if you are not "openly gay," doesn't that mean that at some time in your life you have had to lie or deceive someone as to where you were going, what you were doing, etc.? And if this is not true for you, I am sure it is for other people you know. I can't imagine having to go through life keeping my different "worlds" from meeting each other. I think it could cause a psychological strain that could lead to other problems. On the other hand, most of the openly gay people I have known seemed reasonably well adjusted. Quirky sometimes, but I have known plenty of quirky straight people as well. At least they did not have the stress of trying to be one thing in a tiny part of their lives, and another thing to the world in general.

[tjhammer]

NJCub, you are absolutely right about the psychological dance concealing sexual identity can sometimes be. I can assure you, coming to understand and reconcile my own homosexuality has been a lifelong struggle. Concealing it from those around you is one thing, trying to conceal it (or deny it) from yourself is quite a bit more complicated still.

 

In my own case (and I admit, I am not "typical" of all gay men), my sexuality is not a major aspect of my life; at least it has not been. I am confident, strong and very outgoing. I run multiple businesses; have an active professional and social life. Ive achieved well for my age (and Ive been humbled by many failures). I have a lot of things on my plate, and many people around me that relate to me and rely on me for things completely unrelated to my sexuality. Those things more definitely shape my life than sexuality.

 

That being said, I do admit that the issue of "openness" has weighed on my mind more in recent years. (Lest I add to the tendency to stereotype, I can tell you that I've been called "one of the least-gay-acting gay men in the world" by those in the know. In other words, you'd be pretty surprised if you knew me, not because I act particularly masculine (though I am a slob, live for sports and lack any discernable lisp ).

 

I have "felt" gay since my earliest recollection (7? 8?). And I struggled with this all my life. It's not until recently, that I have really questioned and started to understand why I was struggling so. It's not that I felt "wrong" or "sinful" or "immoral", it's that I feared the judgment of others who might think those things of me. In other words, my turmoil was not within me or between me and God, it was reactionary to standards other people set for me. So I just started questioning whether those standards were anything that I considered valid.

 

I'm now in my early 30's, but I've been in a relationship (my first long-term relationship with a man) for 2.5 years. I'm reaching the point in my life, and my relationships, where I can at least start to consider children of my own. There's never been a doubt in my mind that I would be a father, and a damn good one at that. But taking that step, indeed, even the presence of my long-term relationship, is starting to (quite rightly) put more pressure on my mind about "openness". Not because I feel a need (psychologically or otherwise) to proclaim anything, but because such steps start to make my sexuality MORE relevant to those close to (where it might not have been before).

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[SR540Beaver]

Quixote,

 

Were you a Clinton lawyer? The definition is the definition. Reread the definition of avowed. Now, think about when you may have confided a secret to a friend in your life. Were you confiding personal information or publically avowing a stance to the general public? You are changing the definition of avowed for YOUR own purposes. I'm sticking with the black and white clear as a bell definition from the dictionary.

 

For the record (once again), I agree with the ban on homosexuality in scouting. But I play fair. Facts are facts and words have meanings. Avowed means something. The definition can be found in the dictionary. The definition is not determined by what I want it to be. If it doesn't support my argument, then so be it. If the BSA didn't mean avowed, then they need to reword their statement. Fair enough?

 

BTW, "is" means "is". (This message has been edited by kwc57)