NJ - This one is for you. Gay debate rages on...

[NJCubScouter]

NW:

 

I agree. (My ideological leanings prohibit me from saying "Dittos.")

 

I would just add (for about the 25th time in this forum) that the BSA's own Declaration of Religious Principles say that the BSA is "absolutely nonsectarian" on religious matters. It cannot base a policy on religious beliefs that are not accepted by many people, and be "abolutely nonsectarian" at the same time.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

And once again, you accuse me of something ("you feel free to impugn the motives of others"), but you don't specify what you're talking about. Please try to move on and stick to the debate.

 

So why not just let him? And save the judgment of mankind for those people and acts that do actual harm to others?

 

First, no one is passing judgment on homosexuals or anyone else in regard to their salvation. That is God's job and no one can take it from Him.

 

Second, sexual perversion is an insidious scourge that will create more and more victims as society caves in to those who have allowed their conscience to be buried.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Rooster7]

It cannot base a policy on religious beliefs that are not accepted by many people, and be "abolutely nonsectarian" at the same time.

 

And if you extend this line of reasoning to all areas of life, then based on the same "nonsectarian" principle, they should allow alcoholics and people who have sex with animals to be members.

 

It's possible to not embrace any one particular religion as a guidepost and still see the immorality of certain behavior.

[silver-shark]

Hi NWScouter,

 

I would be interested in hearing more about these other religions that feel that peoples sexual orientations are the business of 11 to 18 year old children, or anyone else for that matter.

 

You've PEAKED my curiosity.

[Hunt]

C'mon, silver-shark--what he means is that some religions, including some flavors of Christianity, don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, and thus they would not see the need for a ban on avowed homosexuals. Surely you understand this?

It's debatable, I suppose, whether you can come to any sensible judgement about whether something is "moral" or not without a religious basis--but this particular issue is one that does not seem to be obvious to many people apart from religious teaching.

Personally, I think divorce is a sin and that divorced people are lacking as role models. Some religions agree with me--but obviously, BSA has no rule against divorced persons service as leaders--I don't know if a CO could exclude such leaders. Why does BSA ignore my view, but accept that of those who think homosexual leaders should be excluded? Both views have the same Biblical pedigree--heck, mine is stronger, because Jesus condemned divorce explicitly. Isn't it obvious that divorce is immoral, because of the destructive impact it has?

[silver-shark]

"C'mon, silver-shark--what he means is that some religions, including some flavors of Christianity, don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, and thus they would not see the need for a ban on avowed homosexuals. Surely you understand this?"

 

Hi Hunt,

 

I'm not sure if you are trying to spin what I have asked, or if I have simply not made it plain enough, so here goes:

 

1. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that homosexuality is immoral / sinful

 

2. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that people that temp and entice others to "stumble" into this lifestyle are guilty of additional sin.

 

3. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that a role model that states either directly or indirectly that something is acceptable, is all that is necessary to cause a child to "stumble" into an immoral / sinful act or lifestyle.

 

Are you, or is anyone, 100% certain that I am wrong about this?

 

Are you, or is anyone, willing to gamble their eternal soul on this?

 

How about the eternal soul of a child?

 

Ultimately, this is what I am talking about.

 

I was completely serious when I asked, When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?

 

and, I would be interested in hearing more about these other religions that feel that peoples sexual orientations are the business of 11 to 18 year old children, or anyone else for that matter.

 

It is no longer just about consensual sex between adults when children are made aware of it.

 

[NWScouter]

Silver Shark,

Hunk and NJCubScouter seems to have got what I was talking about. But you brought up your last post a statement that begs to be commented about.

 

It is no longer just about consensual sex between adults when children are made aware of it.

When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?

 

If any boy, Scout or not has not heard of sex or has a good idea what is going on in those years and at least by 18 he has been like that kid in the movie where he was in the bomb shelter since he was young. Boys havent changed since I was young, it was a topic at the school locker room, Scout camp, the paper shack, the bowling alley and any where else teen age boys gather. Now the you cant watch anything on the TV or the movies that sex is not a part of. Heck, you cant even pick up the sport pages or watch a basketball game on TV with out having it mentioned.

 

To say that is to imply that the Scouting is not a forum to learn about role models is wrong. It is a great place to learn to respect people of every stripe and to work with them in safe and nurturing environment. Not to fear and stigmatize.

No church or religion I know of wants children to have sex but they want them to grow up in their systems of beliefs.

 

[silver-shark]

NWScouter,

 

If I'm hearing what you're saying,you seem to be saying that there is some level of importance, within the scouting program, for boys to be made aware of the personal sex lives and beleifs of the Scouters, and that it might even be to their benefit.

 

You also seem to be saying that they have already been exposed to many such things by the age of 18, (keeping in mind that most scouts fall into the 11 and 12 year old category) so what does it matter.

 

Is this what you are saying, because this is what I continue to hear in your words?

[Hunt]

It seems to me that there a couple of different issues in this perennial debate, and the failure to distinguish them leads to problems and misunderstandings.

Let's take as a given that there are certain kinds of immoral actions or lifestyles that are so bad that anybody who does them should not be a scout leader. If that's the case, the debate here breaks down into two separate issues:

 

1. Is homosexuality one of those very bad actions or lifestyles?

 

2. Who decides what actions and/or lifestyles are bad enough, and how do they decide?

 

Now it seems to me that if your objection to homosexuality is that it is a serious sin that endangers you immortal soul (a perfectly reasonable argument, by the way), it's obvious that this is a religious sentiment, not merely a moral one. So why isn't this the proper decision for the CO to make--especially if the CO is a church? To go back to my analogy of divorce, would it be a problem if the Catholic Church wanted to say that no divorced people could be leaders in the troops it sponsors (I have no idea if it does this, but I doubt it)? Again, somebody is making these decisions (divorce OK, homosexuality not OK). How are these distinctions made?

[silver-shark]

"...there are certain kinds of immoral actions or lifestyles that are so bad that anybody who does them should not be a scout leader."

 

Good evening Hunt,

 

This statement is what those opposed to the BSAs Policy apparently hear, or read into what the policy is saying.

 

This could not be further from the truth. Nowhere in the policy does it state that homosexuals cannot, or would not be good leaders. Thus, the don't ask don't tell mentality.

 

The problem doesnt occur until their sexual preference is avowed, according to the BSA Policy. (Avowed meaning, affirmed, stated, confirmed, declared, acknowledged, admitted, self-confessed, asserted. According to MSN Encartas Thesaurus)

 

Please refer to the following sites of the BSA to learn more about what their actual position is on the subject:

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/values/newsletter/0102/survey.html

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/values/newsletter/0102/points2.html

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/press/020206/index.html

 

http://www.scouting.org/media/values/fact.html

 

You also ask why not at the local level with the CO, regarding avowed homosexual leaders. Consistency in the overall moral program I would imagine.

 

Additionally, I dont know if Catholics have a stricter standard regarding divorce or not within their program, but I do know that LDS Troops do have stricter standards for some things that they have been allowed to initiate at the Troop Level.

 

P.S.

 

I agree with your view of divorce, but feel that there would be more people opposed to this way of thinking than you might imagine.

 

1. BSAs study of peoples views on homosexuality reveal a roughly 2/3 or higher percentage that find [avowed] homosexuals as not being considered proper role models. (According to the policy they would have to be avowed)

 

2. You have the potential to lose Jewish people right off the top, because Moses allowed for the Israelites divorce by The Law, and they would still be following that.

 

3. You would end up with a lot of people crying, well what about in abusive situations, or adulterous ones, or or or It is not nearly as cut and dry to as many people even view homosexuality.

 

By no means am I saying that this would not be the good and proper fight, but that it would be a more difficult one.

 

[NJCubScouter]

First Rooster said this:

 

I think "avowed" is pretty straight forward (no pun intended). It's people who dislike the policy that want to make it complicated. If the policy were against avowed alcoholics, no one would even try to play the word game.

 

Then I said this:

 

Rooster, once again you feel free to impugn the motives of others, but if someone questions your motives, you raise a big ruckus and start new threads with peoples' "names" in them. Evidently your indignation over "personal attacks" only runs in one direction.

 

And Rooster responds with this:

 

NJ,

 

And once again, you accuse me of something ("you feel free to impugn the motives of others"), but you don't specify what you're talking about.

 

Rooster, it's right there. You impugned the motives of "people who dislike the policy." They are playing games, you say. You do this on a regular basis. You talk about "liberals" and "activists" and what "they" are trying to accomplish and how they are trying to accomplish it.

 

Rooster, whether you can see it or not does not really concern me. Others can see it.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

First, no one is passing judgment on homosexuals or anyone else in regard to their salvation. That is God's job and no one can take it from Him.

 

Rooster, you are judging them right here on Earth. You say they are immoral and engaging in "perversion." So far, that's ok with me, because you are entitled to your opinion. But when people who share your opinion and who happen to control the BSA cause the organization to exclude people based on their (and your) opinions -- and that exclusion has nothing to do with the BSA or its program or true values -- that is when I object.

 

Second, sexual perversion is an insidious scourge that will create more and more victims as society caves in to those who have allowed their conscience to be buried.

 

What you are basically saying is the homosexuality is harmful because you say it is. I have known many gay people who could not be considered victims of their orientation. They were comfortable with it, and it was comfortabled with them. What they were victims of, almost unanimously, was discrimination in one form or another. That was why some of their lives were miserable, because of the discrimination, the exclusions, the hatred and everything else they have to put up with from some heterosexuals, and some organizations and institutions.

[NJCubScouter]

It's possible to not embrace any one particular religion as a guidepost and still see the immorality of certain behavior.

 

Certain behavior, yes. But homosexuality, in and of itself, is not one of those behaviors. The BSA itself says its policy against avowed gays is based on "faith-based values."

[silver-shark]

Hi NJ

 

I'm still trying to figure out what your problem is with the policy.

 

When asked point blank, "When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?" your answer was, "The answer is, of course: Never. It is not appropriate for Scouters to discuss their "private" lives with the Scouts."

 

Additionally, you seem to have a thorough grasp on the true "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" mentality of the policy.

 

So...If the BSA isn't asking... and a scouter should "Never" reveal things of a sexual nature... What exactly is your problem with the policy?

 

[Hunt]

silver-shark, your point might make some sense if BSA only removed leaders who "avowed" their homosexuality to the boys in the context of BSA activities. But that's not what BSA does--it removes them if the person publicly avows it in other contexts as well.

You seem to suggest that all discussions of sexuality are inappropriate in front of the boys, and with that I agree. But you won't be banned from leadership in BSA if you "avow" heterosexuality by getting married, for example. But certain it seems that BSA would remove leaders who publicly engaged in gay marriage, even if they never said anything about it to the boys.