gay ex-scout, my loss americas gain....

[SM406]

Our troop was having a discussion a few meetings ago concerning the Oath and Law and one of the Scouts said he thought the Law was geeky. I suspect geeky means anything that is not mainstream to what is cool or hip. One observation I have of my own sons (ages 17, 15, 13 two eagles and a life) is that as they grow older and become more self confident the less they become concerned about who knows they are in Scouts and about wearing their uniform in public. I also believe Scouts have played a major role in building their self confidence. They are all still uncomfortable with wearing the uniform to school and probably would not wear the uniform to school if given a choice, however they are not squeamish at all about wearing their uniform in public. I believe the aversion to geekyness is really strong from 6th grade to a sophomore in high school, but wanes in the upper grades.

 

SM406

 

[mk9750]

SM406,

 

My experience with my sons parallels yours. I remember being scheduled to do a school presentation to grade schoolers and suggested to my son that he could help by bringing his Pinewood Derby car in and wearing his uniform. He couldn't wait to show of his car, but would have quit Scouts rather than wear his uniform.

 

Now, both of my sons have no problem making stops in public places with their uniform on. When confronted with a snide comment, both have developed a great canned speach about how wimpy anyone not in Scouts must be. "I'll bet you never rapelled off a 200 foot cliff. And did you ever kayak a class III? How about hiking 113 miles on the Appalacian Trail? Naw, didn't think so. Now, you want to call me a wimp?"

 

Mark

[Big_Dog]

mk9750,

Good for your guys! Now, how do we get that image across to society? Funny how scouts can do all these cool things and society picks on scouts for trying to be nice guys! Just don't add up. If we could hire the same advertising guys that do Bud Lite commercials, we'd probably get somewhere.(This message has been edited by Big_Dog)

[Proud Eagle]

My theory is that alot of the problem has to do with not knowing the differences between Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts. By the time someone reaches the Boy Scout age they should be ready to move on to new things. Unfortunately many never really understand that Boy Scouts is NOT Cub Scouts. Most people that were in cubs will tell you they were a "Boy Scout". If you ask a kid why they didn't stay in Scouts it will be because:

They didn't want to do a bunch of kid stuff

They thought the craft projects and other Cub related activities were "uncool"

They don't want to spend time at a meeting with a bunch of 2nd graders

and other things like that

 

So people get this idea that they have already had the Boy Scout experience when really they have had the Cub Scout experience. Now I bet even most Boy Scouts would find a group of high school students that did the Cub Scout program to be pretty "geeky" or some such thing.

 

I would say the ways to fix this problem are:

emphasize that that Cub Scouts are not Boy Scouts

emphasize that Boy Scouts doesn't involve younger kids

emphasize that Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts do very different things

 

Now as to my handling of such things, I must say I never wore my uniform to school. Not once. I did however meet my prom date (large high school, fellow Scout set us up) immediately after a Scout meeting. So the first time she ever was introduced to me I was in uniform. She still went to the prom with me a few weeks later. So I guess the "geeky" perception is not so strong that it can't be overcome.

[Fat Old Guy]

We have a Scout who is a high school sophomore who lies to his friends about what he does on troop meeting nights rather than tell them that he's a Boy Scout. So much for trustworthy.

 

Many of our Scouts and our adults shed their uniform shirts as soon as they can after a function ends.

 

As for the geekiness of the law, one of our Scouts brought that up at a campfire discussion. I asked, "what's so bad about it?" He responded that it was pretty lame being expected to be honest and helpful and "stuff like that." I asked if he like be lied to and if he appreciated it when someone gave him a hand when he was having a problem.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

On the "geekiness" issue, as someone else has pointed out, it is not even clear whether James Dale used that term, and if he did, it appears that he was not using it to denigrate the BSA. I think, as has already been discussed, that he was discussing the perception of others outside the BSA.

 

In any event, "geeky" or its derivatives is a pretty mild word as insults go, and depending on the context, it may not even be an insult at all. When applied to a teenager or pre-teen, it often means someone who has chosen to do what his teachers and parents have taught him to do, even though most of his peers want him to do something else. That's usually a good thing. It also can mean someone who does what he wants to do, even though others may make fun of him. Depending on what that is, it can be good or bad. I can give an example a little "geekiness" being a good thing, and it is my own son. (Of course I wouldn't call him that to his face.) This is a kid who brings a small "travel" chess set to some troop meetings and on campouts and when there is "down time," he sits there with any of 2 or 3 other younger boys and plays chess. (My son's patrol leader, now about 13, once beat me at chess when he was about 10, and while I'm no Bobby Fischer, it was still kind of a shock. My son can't beat me yet.) I can see some of the older boys rolling their eyes and wondering, what's with all the chess. However, it's what he wants to do, and it's fine with the Scoutmaster as long as it doesn't mutate into "goofing off" while food is waiting to be cooked or pans are waiting to be washed (which it did a little at the last camping trip, which was quickly corrected.)

 

Someone also mentioned uniforms, I think the problem today is most boys just don't want to wear any uniform... except a sports uniform. Nobody makes fun of the sports uniform. But it's pretty ironic (as someone also alluded to) when you compare some of the physical activities that Scouts do, particularly older Scouts, to "regular sports." Rapelling or soccer, who's the "geek?" (Neither one, of course, but you know what I mean.)

[Adrianvs]

Proud Eagle is on the right track regarding the Cub and Boy Scout programs. There's nothing wrong with the Cub Scout program, but Boy Scout age youth involved in a Cub Scout program is very geeky. Perhaps the geekiest.. Geekyist.. Geekious.. Geekesque.. Geekian.. Geekocious..

 

Well, the idea stands.

[CrewGirl1024]

"Bisexuality is perverted lust."

 

OMGosh I could not disagree with you more! I can't believe thoes words actually came out of your mouth. Who's to say that bisexuality is just a lesser form of homosexuality and can't be controlled? Who's to say that it can be controlled?

 

[Rooster7]

CrewGirl1024,

 

I can't say I'm really surprised by your reaction. Homosexuality is a perversion. The fact that so many are willing to say otherwise is a strong signal to every God fearing person in this country that our society is moving in the wrong direction. Alas, I knew it was just a matter of time before folks started screaming for the "rights" of other sexual deviants. So, now - it is not only "natural" for one to crave one's own gender for sexual relations, it is just as natural to be alternately inclined toward both sexes. Or perahps its just as natural and acceptable to be inclined toward both sexes at the same time.

 

Doesn't that make a nice cozy family picture? That's my mom on the right, there's my dad on left, and there's my other dad in the middle. Dad_1 didn't really want any children, but he fell asleep on the honeymoon so Dad_2 had his wayso much for monogamy.

 

You know its funny. Folks like yourself tend to be all about animal rights too. I say this in all seriousness. If it could be proven that an animal was consenting, I have no doubt that you would be screaming about the injustices done to those poor souls who are attracted to dogs. Soon folks will be arguing about the age of consent too. Crewgirl, try drawing a line in the sand and setting a standard of behavior. There is a God and we will be judge one day. Rest assured, it won't be my standards but by His. So feel free to ignore me - If I'm way off base, you should. But seriously, spend more than five minutes thinking about what youre saying and pray about it. You can't seriously believe that God intended us to go around having sex with anyone whos willing or anything that we find "attractive". You can defend that stuff on this forum all day long, but I'm convinced one day when you're standing before God, you're not going to defend these sexual practices as natural. So do yourself a favor and think about what you are defending and the consequences of your words - today - not tomorrow - not when you're old - and certainly not when youre standing before God. That would be a little late in the game.

 

Have you ever consider the possibility that God is not who you think He is? I have. I dont view God the same way I did as when I was a teenager or when I was in my twenties. Its not because I grew old and became a prude. Its because Ive been praying for many years and Hes revealed himself to me. Trust me I know He is a loving and forgiving God. But He is Holy and righteous as well. Dont make the mistake of thinking that Hes willing to be contrary to Himself so to accommodate your ignorance or your unwillingness to know and love Him.

 

[bsat4jb]

Excellent post, Rooster. I couldn't agree more.

[CrewGirl1024]

"So do yourself a favor and think about what you are defending and the consequences of your words - today - not tomorrow - not when you're old - and certainly not when youre standing before God"

 

"Dont make the mistake of thinking that Hes willing to be contrary to Himself so to accommodate your ignorance or your unwillingness to know and love Him"

 

Well, you have just opened up a can of worms, because I am really offened. I am NOT Ignorant! The whole time when I was reading your post my mouth dropped open, and I was astounded by what you were say. I can not believe that a god fearing person like yourself, who if I'm correct is supposed "Love Thy Neighbor" is not loving thy neighbor because of their sexual preference.

 

I am a god fearing person. At this point in my life I couldn't know god anymore than I already do. I know his words, and I know what is "right" and what is "wrong" but what you have to understand is that Homosexuality was put on this earth by God. I am a strong believe in predestination, and I believe that God knows everything about us before we even how to wiggle our toes. And in my opinion, god is testing us all!

 

Yes, yes I know the story of Sodom and Gomorah, and I know the consequences of their choice. BUT you have to look at it from my point of view, if God knew what we are going to become, and how we would turn out, he is testing us on how we react to what happens, and what he puts in front of us.

 

Yes I know that not everyone will follow his word. Who is to judge what is "nartural" or "un-natural"? BUT you can't judge anyone for what they are. The only judge of us is God. And if we believe that homosexuality is right, and we believe that you can love anyone you feel to love without hating the rest, then you will be put before God and he wil love you for that!

 

It upsets me, when you say that me being a God Fearing person is moving in the wrong direction! My beliefs are my beliefs and you have no say in if I'm moving in the wrong direction!

 

You Said:

"Have you ever consider the possibility that God is not who you think He is?"

 

Yes I have! Things happen in peopel's lives where they have no choice but to ask that question! Yes I do know that he is a forgiving god, and he will not let me lose faith again. He will not steer me in the wrong direction. So how dare you say I am "unwilling to love and know God!"

 

My beliefs are MY BELIEFS! Yours are yours. But for you to say that I am moving in the wrong direction, for "Loving my Neighbor" and supporting something I truely believe in, makes you just as bad as you say I AM!(This message has been edited by CrewGirl1024)

[Fat Old Guy]

"Homosexuality was put on this earth by God"

 

So? God also put volcanos, earthquakes, and chocolate on this earth. Since God created pedaphiles, embezzlers and rapists does that make it okay.

 

Predestination makes no sense. Why play the game if you know how the cards are going to fall? In a previous life, I used to hang with a bunch of artists (of all sexual varieties) and for most, if not all, much of the joy of creation was to see how close their work could come to their vision. If they knew what they'd create before they started, most would have given up art.

 

If God was a Craftsman, he'd be creating identical universes, just as a cabinetmaker churns out identical cabinets. God isn't a craftsman, he's an artist, he wants to see how things turn out.

[Big_Dog]

"Yes I know that not everyone will follow his word. Who is to judge what is "natural" or "un-natural"?

How 'bout we leave out the "Who"? Since you say not everyone will follow His word, let's look at His word. Read Romans 1:26-27, then let me know what you think God says about 'natural' and 'un-natural'.

Please don't think I'm jumping on you, I just want to know your thoughts are on these scriptures!!?!

 

bd

[NJCubScouter]

Big Dog, since you quote the book of Romans as if it is relevant to the discussion, I have a few questions for you:

 

1. Do you think everyone in this forum believes that the book of Romans contains the word of God?

 

2. Do you think everyone in the BSA believes that the book of Romans contains the word of God?

 

3. Do you think the BSA requires its members to believe that the book of Romans contains the word of God?

 

4. If the answer to all of the above questions is no -- then how is your quotation from the book of Romans relevant to this discussion?

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Bisexuality is perverted lust. Certainly, even most liberals would agree with that statement. Yet, Dale refuses to condemn bisexuality - Why? In fact, he puts himself in bed with them (figuratively speaking). Is it because he knows bisexuality is merely a cousin of homosexuality?

 

I'm going to address the end of this paragraph first and the beginning last, and give my own opinion in between.

 

Since Dale presumably does not regard homosexuality as immoral, then what difference would it make that bisexuality is its "cousin." In other words, if both are acceptable behavior, then yes, they are in the same category. Right?

 

I will acknowledge being puzzled by bisexuality myself. And I guess I mean "avowed bisexuality," meaning the person intends to engage in both gay and straight conduct in the future. If someone is struggling to figure out what their sexuality is, and is involved with people of both genders as he/she tries to determine his orientation is, and ultimately determines that he/she is "gay," then that is what he/she is. But if someone is bisexual on an ongoing basis, I don't really understand it.

 

But my lack of understanding does not mean that I assume there is no justification for it, or that it deserves a label like "perverted lust." I have to laugh at the way you throw words like that around, Rooster. Maybe being "gay" is not some simple genetic thing, in fact since scientists have been unable to find a simple answer like that, it quite probably is not. Maybe there is some chemical or something in the brain that the vast majority of people have in a certain amount, and if you have less, you end up in a great deal of confusion and are attracted to both genders, and if you have even less you are gay. That's the kind of thing scientists are working on. It would make sense. It makes a lot more sense than concluding that people are intentionally doing something "wrong." I tend to think most people want to do what is right. Consider me a hopeless idealist... but I'm in good company, I think the BSA is a pretty idealistic organization.

 

As for Mr. Dale and other gay activities, I think all he is really saying is that bisexuals are discriminated against and that they shouldn't be. I am not sure what he means about marriage. As I have said before, I think gays should be able to enter into "civil unions" as in Vermont, with the same rights and responsibilities as married couples. To me, the word "marriage" does imply a man and a woman -- but that the legal benefits of a governmentally recognized union of two people should not be limited to "marriage." That being the case, a bisexual who wants to spend the rest of his/her life with someone has to decide who that person is, and the gender of that person would determine whether he/she enters into a marriage or a civil union. I don't know why it needs to be more complicated than that.

 

I also think, by the way, that if someone wants to be an adult leader in the BSA, what they choose to reveal about themselves is subject to scrutiny to determine whether they are of good character. That means that a heterosexual who is constantly bragging openly about multiple sexual conquests or adulterous relationships may very will find that his application is rejected because he is not a good role model for the values of Scouting. The same should be true for a homosexual who openly engages in the same type of conduct. That is not the same as simply acknowledging that one is gay, which should not lead to exclusion. Relating that to bisexuality, if the policy allowed "local option" and I were in a position of having to consider an application from someone who said they were an "avowed bisexual," I would have to wonder what that meant, in a way that I would not neccesarily wonder if all I knew was that the person was gay.

 

Now, I know I will get some "flak" for not being "consistent," but I think I am being perfectly consistent.