The local option on gay membership in BSA

[evmori]

littlebillie,

 

"A decent, ethical gay leader" is an oxymoron.

 

Hope the uh-oh comment meant you.

 

Rooster7,

Right on dude! You can hang at my campfire anytime.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[littlebillie]

 

a few names of openly gay public officials, probably all oxymoronic per ed, from http://www.victoryfund.org/public/office/office.cfm

 

Jarrett Barrios

State Senator - Cambridge, MA

 

Tammy Baldwin

U.S. Congress 2nd District - Madison, WI

 

Raymond Buckley

State Representative, District 56 - Manchester, NH

 

Scott Dibble

State Senate - Minneapolis, MN

 

Tim Carpenter

State Senator - Mil.,WI

 

Also look at http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm

 

Plenty more, actually. a whole list of folks whom some declare in knee-jerk fashion to be indecent and unethical simply because they're gay.

 

Is this mindset REALLY any different than racist and segregationist attitudes of years gone by? how many out there are still against interracial dating, I wonder?

 

And is this kind of truly prejudiced blanket statement what we want to teach youth? Whew!

 

Over the months - years, now? - various animal studies have been cited that noted increases in homosexual behavior in situations of overpopulation. Seems like a good 'natural' response to such a problem.

 

Oh, right. We're not animals. We're special - and even if God takes note of sparrows and lilies, I guess we're still not all part of the same family of life... esp. if you happen to be gay, huh?

 

 

 

 

 

[Zahnada]

Rooster,

 

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I can't help but feel there're flaws in the argument. There's a generalization in your last post that gay men engage in same sex activity. Just to clarify, is this the criteria we're using to define who is gay? I would argue that not all gay men, and especially gay boys, necessarily are sexually active. Would you accept a person who had strong feelings toward the same sex but refrained from acting on those urges?

 

And I would also point out that there are plenty of non-gay people who sexually act out against the Bible. Anyone who engages in premarital sex falls in this category. Anyone who masturbates also. I know that boys masturbate because I hear them talking about it (about 2 seconds before I tell them it's an inappropriate conversation). Should they all be removed from scouting?

 

In any case, we have vastly different opinions because I do not feel that the average gay man poses any more threat to myself or a youth than the average straight man.

[fboisseau]

littlebillie,

 

"it stops when every decent, ethical law-abiding boy has access to scouting... "

 

Decent.......by whose standards?

Ethical......by whose standards?

Law-abiding..by whose standards?

 

Yours?

 

For example you may believe that co-ed skinny-dipping is not decent, but I see no problem with it (I do not really but keep in mind this is an example) and participate whenever I have a change and promote it also. Now your club/group say people who believe like I do should not be a member because I do not live up to your standard of decency. But according to your logic with the BSA I have to be made a member to your group.

 

 

[Rooster7]

Littlebillie,

 

Plenty more, actually. a whole list of folks whom some declare in knee-jerk fashion to be indecent and unethical simply because they're gay.

 

The fact that youre using LAMBA as a resource should tell you something. Im not surprised that they find common ground with homosexuals.

 

Is this mindset REALLY any different than racist and segregationist attitudes of years gone by? how many out there are still against interracial dating, I wonder?

 

Do you know the difference between physical characteristics and sexually perverse behavior? I wonder?

 

And is this kind of truly prejudiced blanket statement what we want to teach youth? Whew!

 

And do we want to send our kids out in the woods with such openly minded sexual deviants? Whew!

 

Over the months - years, now? - various animal studies have been cited that noted increases in homosexual behavior in situations of overpopulation. Seems like a good 'natural' response to such a problem.

 

And one animal study revealed that porpoises participate in gang rape. Does that mean this too is a natural response when there arent enough females to go around?

 

Oh, right. We're not animals. We're special - and even if God takes note of sparrows and lilies, I guess we're still not all part of the same family of life... esp. if you happen to be gay, huh?

 

Hmmm. Well youre right about one thing. We are special. God gave us dominion over the animal kingdom. He also made us in His image. Regardless, by your line of reasoning, anything that an animal does is acceptable for man to do. Now, interestingly, if youre an evolutionist, I guess the monkey see, monkey do thing makes sense. But since I think we are a little above the rest of the animal kingdom, I dont subscribe to that kind of thinking.

 

[tjhammer]

"A decent, ethical gay leader" is an oxymoron.

Present company excluded, right?

 

TRUTH is, you have no idea whether I am a "decent, ethical leader" without knowing me, and to know me you would need to be around me. Those in Scouting that do know me well, some who also know that I am a gay man, can all testify to my decency and ethics. Which is the best argument for local control on the matter of membership eligibility... those closest to the boys (parents, unit leaders, charter partners) should be able to determine the "fitness" of any member (boy or adult). Those people that I work with regularly in Scouting (whether in my roles at the local or national levels) judge my fitness before they appoint me to every leadership role, and they do it based on much more insight into me than you have Ed or Rooster, regardless of whether they know I am gay or not.

 

Such local control is exercised daily by units throughout the country, on a variety of criteria (including sexuality, gender of leaders, religion, personality, experience, motivation and hundreds of other identifiers). In fact, there's no SPECIAL and SPECIFIC policy to exclude any member for "moral" reasons BESIDES this "policy" to exclude gays.

 

Lots of Scout units would discriminate against Rooster as a unit leader because of his religious zeal and need to evangelize. Lots more units may discriminate against me as a unit leader for no reason other than the fact that I am a gay man. The BSA allows the Mormon church to discriminate against women unit leaders, yet at the same time allows the Methodist church to have all the women unit leaders they want (it should be noted that this specific scenario only came after years of wrangling and final compromise).

 

Remember the telling quote from the Chief Scout Executive shortly after the Supreme Court case, when he said something to the effect of 'the BSA represents our parents expectations... If we started to see really significant drops in membership over this policy, we would have to reconsider it' (the exact quote and source was previously posted in this forum). The BSA's national exclusion policy is changing; it may take many more years or it may happen more swiftly. This debate has been had on this forum many times before (those that are new to the forum and curious, I encourage to read through the old threads on the subject for a THOROUGH articulation of many points of view).

 

Philadelphia is NOT alone... they are one of nine major metro councils that long ago agreed to strongly oppose the national position. And many more councils have supported the effort from behind the scenes (lacking both the political clout or local pressure to take a public stand against BSA Inc.)

 

Sometime near the end of my rather vigorous participation in these debates in the forum many months ago, I realized that most everything I cared to say on the subject I had said, and more importantly I came to believe that a change in the policy was in fact a matter of time. I only regret how many boys we all are harming (either by demonizing them in their own minds or in the minds or their peers) and the damage we are allowing to our organization's reputation during this clumsy coming to terms.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[littlebillie]

" Do you know the difference between physical characteristics and sexually perverse behavior? I wonder? "

 

And I wonder if YOU are aware that the whole nature/nurture question regarding the origins of homosexuality remains unanswered? Those who say simply "it's a choice" would probably have a pretty unsympathetic view of stuttering as well... yeah, THAT'S a choice. (FYI, this was chosen because it may have origins quite as complex as homosexuality, with a range of causation from strictly physical to strictly psychological, with stops at all major stations in between).

 

 

fboisseau - "But according to your logic with the BSA I have to be made a member to your group." No - the 'have to be' would seem to be in your head. In mine, it's "should be" and in mine, the BSA should not be forced to change, but persuaded to do so. Basically, there are no exclusions in the Charter, and the BSA should realize it's closing the door on those kids who arguably need it most.

 

for those who then cry "where does it stop? the next thing you know we'll be letting it drunken left-handed rapists" - and you know who you are :-) - please, that really does both sides a disservice.

 

regardless, bird, the old "by whose standards" issue is also pretty hackneyed. It's ALWAYS an arbitrary call for some. others say, just go by the Bible, er, um, I mean the NEW Testament, just don't let the Unitarians have a voice. Or the Wiccans, ftm.

 

Sigh. e pluribus unum, excepting the ones we don't agree with...

 

Hey, should gays get a tax break for all the civil rights folks don't want them to have? forget scouting. Let's say a publically salaried JP? just a question...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[jbroganjr]

A couple of things on this thread.

It seems that the folks from COL want this change because of financial hardship. It was also posted that national left them out to dry on this matter, especially concerning the money. Is this not the pain of staying the same which is allowing the pain of change (Pun intended). Membership also can equate Money. The motivationof COL really comes across as financial/P.C. instead a true belief in the "wrongs" of exclusion.

 

Maybe the solution to the problem is to hold forth the ideals and seek out new revenue generating ideals.

 

As for change, (correct me if I am wrong) but National has only excluded adult membership on the basis of morally straight as well as a belief in G-D. They have not expelled a youth that I have heard about. (Youth being under 18). I would not hold out much hope that the 18 yr. old life scout will have job this summer.

 

 

[evmori]

tj,

At least you had the guts to admit you are gay. And since you are still in Scouting an gay yes I do question your ethics.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Rooster7]

And I wonder if YOU are aware that the whole nature/nurture question regarding the origins of homosexuality remains unanswered? Those who say simply "it's a choice" would probably have a pretty unsympathetic view of stuttering as well... yeah, THAT'S a choice.

 

Just to play devils advocate (no pun intended), even if you could prove that homosexuality was an inborn desire, your comparison to stuttering is horribly flawed. Stuttering is an involuntary behavior. Furthermore, no one is inborn with a desire to stumble over his or her own words. If your argument has any validity at all, one could argue the exact opposite. That is to say, you might argue that the desire to be a homosexual is inborn, but not the behavior. The act of homosexual sex is purely by choice. A better comparison would be that of the alcoholic. While his desire for, and his reaction to alcohol may not be voluntary, he can restrain himself from drinking if he has the resolve. This too can be said of the homosexual. He can refuse to give in to his desires if he so wills it. "Nature verses nurture is moot. Unless you're trying to argue that gays are compelled to have sex, much like those animals you mentioned in the previous animal studies.

 

for those who then cry "where does it stop? the next thing you know we'll be letting it drunken left-handed rapists" - and you know who you are :-) - please, that really does both sides a disservice.

 

Actually, its very valid. Where do you draw the line? If homosexuals are the result of an inborn desire, then why not allow alcoholics in under the same guise? Just as the homosexual might argue - What an alcoholic does in his free time is none of your business. Some alcoholics manage just fine (i.e., do not drink on the job or in front of children) and have no desire to corrupt your child. Who are you to say that the alcoholic cannot be trusted? The same kind of non-sense that defenders of homosexuality spew, can just as easily be applied to other socially unacceptable behaviors.

 

regardless, bird, the old "by whose standards" issue is also pretty hackneyed. It's ALWAYS an arbitrary call for some. others say, just go by the Bible, er, um, I mean the NEW Testament, just don't let the Unitarians have a voice. Or the Wiccans, ftm.

 

You seem to think that there are inconsistencies between the Old and New Testaments. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Since youre stirring the potor is it me? What does a Unitarian believe - everything at the exclusion of nothing? Im not being facetious. What kind of religion is this? How can one embrace Judaism, Christianity, and Wicca simultaneously? Yes, one can have unity if one is willing to accept beliefs that are contradictory to one another. Common sense tells us that this is beyond silly. Im curious. What does the altar look like in a Unitarian Church? I imagine - the Star of David, with a crucifix in the middle, and of course - a ring of flame to appease the Wiccans? Yes, isnt unity grand?

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Bob White]

In fact, there's no SPECIAL and SPECIFIC policy to exclude any member for "moral" reasons BESIDES this "policy" to exclude gays.

 

Thats not true TJ. You are asked if you accept the ideals of the Oath and Law, that is a moral decision. You are told to be a member you must accept the religious obligation of scouting, that is a moral decision. Your use of drugs or alcohol, as well as your ability to set a good example is considered, that is a moral decision.

 

But yes the BSA allows the local unit to make decisions that are more restrictive than the BSA sets in many areas because it is their unit.. But they are not allowed to be less restrictive than the national organization because while it is the COs unit it is the BSAs program.

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[Zahnada]

"You missed the point. I wasn't comparing gays to criminals. My point is if you let gays in then where does it stop!"

 

Ed,

 

I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. It's a tactic that's used all too often in this forum. But we are in agreement on part of this issue. There does need to be a clear line. Safety always comes first. BSA is not a rehabilitation center and I wouldn't want any members who put the boys at risk.

 

The disagreement is that I don't believe that gays do put the boys at risk. I don't think they should be included in the list of "undesirable elements". But then, where do we draw the line?

 

The arguments of yourself and others is one of a slippery slope. Such arguments say, "If we let in gays, then why not sex offenders, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. Then we'd have real safety concerns on our hands." This is just faulty logic. BSA is a predominantly Christian organization and I'm sure there were objections to letting in Jewish scouts. People probably thought it would open the door to a flood of atheists and scouting morals would be gone. This didn't happen. When BSA allowed women to become leaders, people probably feared that all scouting would become co-ed. It didn't happen.

 

Letting in gays would not necessarily lead to scouting being overrun by criminals. Letting in gays also does not put the boys at any more risk than they have with a heterosexual leader.

[OldGreyEagle]

Ah, seems like old times "... the more things change, the more they remain the same..." seems like just a few months ago we were discussing this very topic and I dont think I have seen anyone changing their stance nor would I actually expect it.

 

Ed, you congratulate TJ on having the guts to admit he is gay, yet you quesiton his ethics on staying in Boy Scouts. So you sorta respect him while also labeling him a pariah, isnt there something inconsistent there?

 

Rooster, how did you find out that porpoises participate in gang rape? Not disputing, just interestead in where you came up with that.

 

As my contribution to this thread, I will repeat what I have always said on this matter. Homosexual does not equal Pedophile anymore than Heterosexual equals Pedophile. The Priest that molested me was not homosexual, he was a pedophile. He was never seen in the company of men, only young boys.

 

If you are against Gays in the BSA based on religious principles, I can respect that, its everyones right to associate with whomever they want and BSA is a private institution so membership may be by the rules seen fit by the membership and I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with the posture that we dont want gays in the BSA to protect the kids. The BSA, this forum, contains stories of supposedly heterosexual males sexually molesting youth. I invite anyone new to the forum who has not discussed the gay issue here to read up in past threads all that has been said (which is a whole bunch)

 

To really protect the youth, I suggest the BSA make a policy of sueing the "heck" out of any Chartering Institution that has a leader molest the youth for not following the program. Is the CO that approves leaders, not the BSA

[Rooster7]

Im sorryit wasnt porpoises. It turned out to be dolphins. You know how us white male Christian conservatives think if youre not one of us, you're one of them. Or in this case, a fish is a fish is a fish

Just another one of my blatant generalizations

 

Heres the scoop from

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/scandal.html -

 

Female dolphins normally go around in groups of up to four generations, raising their young collectively. Males, on the other hand, form pairs and stay together for life. In the waters off Western Australia, scientists observed groups of non-related males colluding to abduct females and take them off to deeper water to mate, in an apparent gang rape.

 

And heres another source:

 

http://www.markcarwardine.com/core_pages/b_leaps_dark.shtml

 

Male bottlenose dolphins sometimes fight so violently that they have been known to kill one another. They will also attack - and sometimes rape - other species such as Atlantic spotted dolphins and harbour porpoises (see BBC Wildlife, March 1995). Ben Wilson, Paul Thompson and others from Aberdeen University, working in the Moray Firth, Scotland, have found over 100 carcasses of harbour porpoises killed in this way - making bottlenose dolphins a significant cause of mortality for porpoises in the area.

 

OGE,

 

Did it ever occur to you that the reason the Priest wasn't seen with other men is that he simply preferred young boys? I'm just saying, it's possible to be a homosexual and a pedophile. I have to ask, did this Priest ever molest young girls? There's no doubt that what he did was horribly sick, but let's not deny the fact that he was attracted to his own gender. That being said, I believe homosexuals do present a greater risk of being a pedophile and their are studies that back this view.

[mk9750]

OGE,

 

I think I understand Ed's statement, because I think I feel the same way. During the last debate on this topic (I can't believe we're doing it again!), I came to respect and admire TJ. I think I even can say I like him. And I feel this way despite the fact that I abhor his lifestyle.

 

I did question then, and I still question now, the incongruity in TJ's position that he is gay, he know's the BSAs position on gay leadership, and yet he continues to fail to act on the knowledge he has and quit on his own. This seems to me to be similiar to men not being permitted in a woman's locker room. The man can hide the fact that he is a man and gain entrance, but by doing so he does not become right. If a man finds himself in the woman's locker room, he should leave on his own, because he knows the rules prohibit it, and he knows what the likely opinion of the women in the locker room would be. If it takes him becoming an "avowed" man in this case before he leaves, he is not acting honorably in this situation.

 

But TJ's error here does not negate the fact that he appears to be a warm, friendly, compasionate person, who I can respect, even despite that error.

 

I discussed my position on homosexuality in great detail on the other thread. I'm not going to do it again. I just wanted to express how I can understand Ed's position.

 

Mark