The local option on gay membership in BSA

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

silver shark writes:

[Merlyn] is under the misconception that COs are financially supporting the Units that they charter. This is an extremely rare case at best. Of the 10,000 units that he is against, how many do you suppose actually recieve any monetary support from that CO? Very few at best, and if they are, I'm with him on this.

 

How about the other units that he has already helped to ride out of the program on a rail?

 

If the units are not recieving governmental funds, I just don't see where he has a case.

 

Government funds aren't the only problem with government charters; the government can't give the appearance of religious favoritism, and having a public school "own and operate" a "no atheists" youth group does just that (the BSA's own fact sheet says that the chartered organization "owns and operates" its unit).

 

The charter partner selects the leadership of the unit by creating a committee that approves adult leaders, but this includes applying the BSA's religious requirements, and the government can't do that, nor can they "own and operate" a youth group that has religious requirements to join.

 

As to the other units I've helped ride out of the program on a rail, the 19th Circuit Court is supported by tax money from Lake County, Illinois, and their Troop 19 was part of their juvenile delinquent program. Government involvement all the way, and since joining Troop 19 was actually mandatory, the government was, in effect, telling every juvenile in their program that they must believe in a god. This, of course, is completely unconstitutional and a gross violation of civil rights.

 

[mk9750]

Wow, a voice of reason!

 

Nicely said Rooster!

 

Mark

[Bob White]

I absolutely agree with tjhammer when he said "My point has always been (and I asked this in the specific post I made with my WAG), it really shouldn't matter what any poll results are.

 

That is right on the money. So why he brought up the need for a poll of the membership or fabricated statistics is beyond me. Unlike so many of today's politicians the BSA does not bend and sway to poll results.

 

Over the last 93 years the BSA has changed its methods but not its aims or mission. The membership rules are based on the values and mission of scouting. Even if tj's guesses were low by 70% it wouldn't matter. The BSA operates by the same values it had when we all "chose" to join. It had these same values before we came along and will likely have these same values 100 years from now. I truly believe the BSA would rather risk having fewer members and retain their current values of scouting than compromise its values based on what is politcally fashionable at the moment.

 

Bob White

 

Bob White

[tjhammer]

Bob, see, the biggest difference of opinion we have is that I clearly believe the BSA is compromising its values and going against it's long-stated declarations on how the fitness of members is determined and how all religions are accepted and respected in the program. You think this new policy is just inline with some long standing tradition, and I see that it is contrary (in many ways) to the things Scouting and BSA have stood for since its founding.

 

 

[Yak_Herder]

I agree with Bob White's assertion that this issue must not be decided based on membership numbers or the balance sheet. But let's go beyond that.

 

tj's next sentance was also important.

 

tjhammer wrote:

"That's not an opinion share by the BSA Chief Scout Executive, who I remind you said that the policy would have to change if suddenly BSA started losing "lots" of members over it."

 

As you so aptly pointed out with earlier comments regarding statistics, we need to "Read it critically, though, and make sure to do the reverse calculations in your head..."

 

I agree with that assertion. We should apply that technique to the Scout Exec's reported statement. Doing so reveals the fact that EVEN MORE members and financial support would be lost if the policy were to be changed.

 

Whichever your basis you choose for making the decision of what is best for the BSA, morality or numbers, both lead to the same conclusion. The only reason to pursue a change is not the improvement of Scouting but to gain a foothold in the reshaping of society.

[silver-shark]

TJ

 

You just don't get it. You have allowed yourself to be pulled off course by the Vocal Minority that in essence are calling this policy "Gay Bashing".

 

The fact of the matter is that it is not. What it is is "Sex Bashing".

 

Intentionally putting thoughts of a sexual nature into the boys minds is simply inappropriate, and is not now, nor has it ever been a part of the program.

 

The BSA is fighting tremendous odds to keep sex of all kinds out of the program. This is why Mr. Jones is not allowed to tent with Miss Smith at campouts either.

 

Contrary to others thoughts on this issue, I don't believe that the policy is compelling you or anyone else to avow their sexuality and then drop out, nor do I think that you have avowed it by posting it annonimously here. The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here.

 

I believe that the Gay Rights Activists are trying to use all of those sympathetic to their cause to further their cause. The BSA is not the place for it. They are not asking for equal rights by suggesting a Troop Program Feature or Merit Badge that discusses sexual diversity. They are simply trying to get special rights and thinking only of their own cause and the feather they would get in their hat if they could convince the BSA to go along with their views. They are not looking to us to be sex educators, but Gay Rights educators. Either of these is wrong and is what the BSA finds immoral.(This message has been edited by silver-shark)

[tjhammer]

silver-shark -- Actually, I don't find a whole lot of disagreement with what you have said. I, too, believe that sexuality is not a valid topic in Scouting.

 

And if the BSA simply had a policy that stated that, there wouldn't be much problem. But that's not what their policy states, and it CERTAINLY is not how their policy is (mis)interpreted by many. The BSA takes a MORAL stand on homosexuality specifically. The nuances of the policy (including the important "avowed" criteria, etc) are largely lost on many people, including the parents and public outside of BSA, many parents and leaders inside of BSA, professionals who unevenly enforce the policy, people on all sides who mistakenly think they know the real, though unspoken, reasons behind the policy (ie sex abuse, etc), and most important of all, the nuances of the policy are lost on the kids in Scouting. Those nuances aren't clear to a gay boy who thinks Scouting has isolated him as a class of person that is unworthy and immoral, despite what his own church may teach him. And the nuances are lost on the rest of the boys in the program who only hear rumors of the policy and interpret it to mean they should believe and act a certain way against gays.

 

I tend to agree with your perspective on whether this should be a topic in Scouting, and ask why we even need the policy banning avowed gay leaders at all. Regardless of who forced the policy into existence (outside gay activist pressures or inside conservative Christian pressures), the point is that the BSA is now the only one with the power to change it. And they can do so by simply reverting to the existing policies they have followed for decades, which allow for local decisions on the individual character of each member and leader. Reverting to such a position would not result in any massive change of society or even of Scouting, it would be consistent with the principles of Scouting and the BSA, and it would neutralize nearly all of the objectors (on both sides of the debate).

 

silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[silver-shark]

TJ

 

We already had a policy prior to the court case. The issue was forced by those that want us to have homoSEXuality as a topic in scouting.

 

We already were supposed to be steering scouts away from topics of a sexual nature. Apparently some Gay Rights Activists felt that their right to be gay outweighed this policy. Go to page 132 of your SM Handbook, and read the part about The Scoutmasters Resposibility. In it you will see that we are to steer them away from topics of a sexual nature. Additionally you will see that we let the boys "learn about sex from their parents, guardians, or others empowered by their families to guide them. No Scoutmaster should undertake to teach Scouts in any formalized manner, about sexual behavior."

 

Whether you speak directly about it or not, once you have avowed or the boys have found out about your homosexuality, you have started a topic on sexuality that you will not be able to steer away from.

 

Whether we like it or not, every time these boys see you after that, they will see you as a homosexual. I'm not saying that is right, but it's human nature and there is nothing we can do to stop it, anymore than there is anything you can do to become a heterosexual.. It would be the same in the case of Mr. Jones and Miss Smith tenting together for a weekend. The boys would think about that and whatever they might have done in that tent everytime they saw either one of them.

 

Does the BSA have any strippers or any other group of sexually oriented individuals within it? Probbly. Are they avowed, thus bringing the topic up to the boys? I hope for their sake not or they should be out as well. Have some already been kicked out? I don't know. If they have, have they started a lawsuit? I doubt it or we would have heard about it, or they would be specifically mentioned in some literature or court case.

 

Unfortunately, we have to be more specific on some policies when people try to find ways around them or bully thier way through them. I'm sure in time there will be other groups added to the list if they insist on bringing the topic of sex into the BSA program.(This message has been edited by silver-shark)

[Bob White]

tjhammer has been mislead to believe that the BSA equates Homosexuality with child abuse. Allow me to share excerpts from the BSA national Website responding to those errant assertions. This is from the "In Support of Values" page and titled 'Fact or Fiction'

 

FICTION

The Boy Scouts of America has chosen to exclude avowed homosexuals from the ranks of its members and leaders because of a fear of pedophilia.

 

FACT

The BSA does not equate homosexuality and pedophilia, but neither avowed homosexuals nor pedophiles are appropriate role models for Scouting youth.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

FICTION

The Boy Scouts of America is homophobic.

 

FACT

There is a difference between homophobia and spiritually based morals. The first is an irrational fear of the unknown and implies a desire to eradicate anyone suspected of behavior associated with homosexuality. The second recognizes values embraced by the majority of Americans who adhere to religious principles.

 

The reason that the excuse of child abuse is "unspoken" in the BSA is that it's not the reason that BSA excludes homosexuals.

 

I really think that the people upset about not being allowed membership think that the BSA is saying they are bad people. They are not. It is no different than a child who is reprimanded by a parent might feel that the parent doesn't love them. When in fact the parent loves them so much that they don't want to see them behave in a way that is not in keeping with the values and beliefs that their family is built upon. Hopefully as the child gains maturity they see that it was the action that the parent could not tolerate, and the value of the child was not in question.

 

Posts I have read from people who have lost or are in danger of loosing their membership have the attitude of the child, they believe scouting is saying that they are not valued as a person. What scouting is saying is that behavior is not acceptable by the values we have chosen to build the program on. The BSA does not demand they change, they have never condemned them, they have never tried to ruin their organizations financially. The BSA have never made demands on them. They have said quietly and confidentially that their values and the Scouting values do not match and so membership is pointless. Why would you want to belong to an organization that doesn't believe what you believe? Those in the BSA membership who feel that the BSA is wrong just because they disagree are in blatant self denial.

 

I had a great scoutmaster as I remember him. He was only with our troop my first three years. I knew him since I was 8. he would have been even better if he wasn't an alcoholic. I never knew he had that behavior so it didn't affect me, had I known at the time i don't see how I could possible have followed or respected him. Not because he was a bad person , he wasn't. But because his personal behaviour did not match the values that I learned as a scout and through my family. The parents of the troop did the right thing by removing him. Being alcoholic isn't illegal, whether the cause is genetic or phsychological is irrelevent. There are probably millions of alcholics in the USA and many like my old SM must seem like very nice and talented people. But it is not an acceptable behavior with the majority of the value based families in this country.

 

Homosexuality may be a behavior favored by millions. Many homosexuals probably are considered very nice people. It may be a behavior tolerated by many people but it is still unnacceptable to the majority of faith based families such as though served by scouting.

 

Bob White

[tjhammer]

silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.

[tjhammer]

silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.

[dsteele]

TJ --

 

Interesting quote to choose. I happen to agree with it.

 

There are youth members of these forums. They are Scouts trying to learn more about this Scouting stuff.

 

They have perceptions of all of us based on what we say here. I wonder what they are.

 

DS

[Hunt]

I've been reading these forums for a long time--finally signed up. My son is a first year Boy Scout, and he was in Cubs and Webelos before that. I was a den leader for the Webelos, despite a woeful lack of true scouting skills.

 

It seems to me that there are some points in this gay-leaders issue that people are talking past, or around. Let's assume that we agree that BSA is a private organization and has the right to set its own membership requirements. The real question is under what circumstances should the organization change those requirements? BSA certainly has changed since I was a kid--it has women leaders now, for example. How did that happen? Surely it happened because society's views about female roles changed--and the BSA responded to those changes. Because BSA isn't a church, its position on moral issues like this isn't written in stone--it reflects the moral views of somebody--whose? The members? The leaders? Its founders? What's the proper mechanism for saying (when and if it becomes true), "Hey, most people, including most members of BSA, no longer see gay leadership as a big deal, as long as they keep sex out of the program, and it's time for BSA to reconsider its national policy." Bob White seems to suggest that just saying this is grounds to revoke your membership--but that can't be right, can it?

 

Another point I'd like to make is that I don't agree with the idea that you should quit BSA if you don't agree with their position on this (or any other)issue. If I had to quit every organization I disagreed with on some issue, I wouldn't be in any. The real question is whether this is a core issue for you. BSA's policy--especially in practice--is quite different from a bald policy prohibiting, say, minorities from belonging.

 

And it also seems to me that Chartering Organizations are likely to retain the ability to preclude openly gay leaders (just as LDS units can preclude female leaders), and many will. So people would be able to choose units based on what their policy on this is. As a result, I can't see what the overwhelming reason for the national policy is.

 

I would distinguish this from the religious requirement. Dropping that would change what scouting is, in a way that allowing gay leaders wouldn't. (And pursuing that topic for a second, I think it's inevitable that eventually all public chartering organizations will have to drop their units--probably the issue will be solved by finding a new, private chartering organization but continuing to meet in the public facility under the same terms as other groups that want to use it.)

[silver-shark]

Hunt

 

You write, The real question is under what circumstances should the organization change those requirements? BSA certainly has changed since I was a kid--it has women leaders now, for example. How did that happen? Surely it happened because society's views about female roles changed--and the BSA responded to those changes.

 

I cant remember a time when female leaders were not allowed in scouting. My mother was a Den Mother for my den as a Cub Scout in the early 70s and I have an old Weblos/Lions book from 1954 that refers to Den Mothers. Did you see women in troops or Weblos dens back then or earlier? I dont remember any, but it probably had more to do with the whole camping/outdoors thing that most women didnt profess to enjoy at that time than anything else. I dont think the BSA changed to accept women as much as women changed and started wanting to be a part of the program in other ways.

 

You also write, "Hey, most people, including most members of BSA, no longer see gay leadership as a big deal, as long as they keep sex out of the program, and it's time for BSA to reconsider its national policy." Bob White seems to suggest that just saying this is grounds to revoke your membership--but that can't be right, can it?

 

The fact is, once a person has avowed/stated/confirmed, or whatever word you may want to use that they are a homosexual, they have brought sex into the program. The people that can be kicked out are the ones that feel for whatever reason that they must invite the topic of sex into the program in this manner. I cant think of one single reason why the sexual preferences of homosexuals or heterosexuals would ever have any place in the scouting program, in the minds of the boys. We are to discourage thoughts and actions of a sexual nature, not bring them to the forefront. This was the policy before the court case had to further define it.

 

You also question why we need a National Policy on this issue. Id say for monetary reasons more than anything else. It takes a lot of money to fight a special interest group. You do it once nationally and you dont have to worry about it at the troop level where the resources are certainly not there. Additionally, I see it as a clarification of the national policy that already existed.

 

[Hunt]

It's my understanding that BSA changed its rules to allow, for example, female scoutmasters. Isn't that correct? Whether it is or not, my point is that somebody has to decide what these policies will be. How do they do it? It has to be by the consensus of some group of people, living or dead--and it appears that it can change--how is that supposed to occur? I understant that BSA isn't a democracy, but what is it, exactly?

 

And I don't really understand the argument about somebody injecting the issue of sexuality into scouting by being openly gay. I'm openly heterosexual--my wife appears at scouting events for all to see--and yet I don't think I'm injecting sexuality into scouting.

 

The bottom line here is that a lot of people (me included, incidentally) think homosexuality is morally wrong, and a lot of people don't think so. Right now, BSA takes one side of this issue, and thinks it's important enough to prevent individual units from choosing which position to take. Why? If it's based on a religious doctrine, whose?

 

My personal view of homosexual behavior is that it's a form of sexual sin, not much different (or worse) than heterosexual sex out of wedlock, adultery, etc., and I don't generally ostracize people for their private sins. I'm sure we have scout leaders who do all of those things, but don't talk about them in front of the boys. My reaction thus would be about the same if I learned that the scoutmaster was living with a man or a woman to whom he was not married--I don't think I would necessarily pull my son from the troop (although it might have led me not have him join that troop in the first place).