Bisexuality...

[CrewGirl1024]

This came to my attention in another thread of this forum, but since Bisexuality is not Homosexuality is it "accepted" or "rejected" from scouting?

 

I mean it is not full blown homosexuality then should the Council have any say in if the scout can advance or become leaders?

[dsteele]

Crewgirl1024:

 

I know your Scout Executive personally and I know the policies. If someone were to stand up and say (in any way that drew attention to themselves) "I like sex with my own gender and the opposite gender!" They would receive a letter informing them that membership in the BSA is a priviledge and not a right and the letter would then outline the appeals process.

 

The membership would be revoked.

 

Actually, Mr. B (The Scout Executive) would have little to no say in the matter.) Once it came to his attention, policy takes over.

 

Dave

[Zahnada]

DSteele,

 

 

You said, "If someone were to stand up and say (in any way that drew attention to themselves) "I like sex with my own gender and the opposite gender!" They would receive a letter informing them that membership in the BSA is a priviledge and not a right and the letter would then outline the appeals process."

 

I don't mean to get in a semantics battle over the wording you used, but I am actually curious about something. Does a person need to be sexually active with members of the same sex for them to be removed from BSA? What if a person is attracted to their same sex, admits this attraction, but never acts on the impulse? If a scout says, "I'm gay" but has never committed any homosexual act (and therefore never violated those particular moral guildlines), is that still grounds for removal?

 

The line for this whole issue is very fuzzy to me. Maybe because I don't see sexuality as a black and white thing.

 

Thanks.

[NJCubScouter]

I'm going to jump in here and answer Zahnada's questions, and DS can correct me if I'm wrong, but I am pretty sure I'm right. I'm changing the order a bit.

 

If a scout says, "I'm gay" but has never committed any homosexual act (and therefore never violated those particular moral guildlines), is that still grounds for removal?

 

First let's make it a leader and not a Scout because from what I have read on the BSA web site in the past, the procedure is not exactly the same for a Scout. As I recall, there is some sort of "counseling" that is supposed to happen if a Scout says he is gay -- I guess to find out if he really means it. It is somewhat similar to what has happened in some of the "atheist" cases, where a person is given a certain amount of time to "clarify" that he really does believe in some sort of higher power, just not a God of any established religion.

 

With that aside, the answer to your question is: Yes, definitely. For an adult leader, a public statement or a statement to the BSA of "I'm gay" is enough for the automatic letter of termination (and notice of the appeal process.) The BSA does not know, and does not ask, whether there has been any particular conduct. I hate to keep typing this name, but the facts do not indicate that James Dale publicly disclosed anything about his actual conduct (at least not before he was terminated, and after my recent exchange with DS I will in the future be more precise that when I talk about what Dale did or did not do, I am talking about what he did or did not do before being terminated.) What I believe the newspaper article said was that he was the president of a college gay rights organization and that he spoke about his experiences in discovering that he was gay -- in other words, in discovering that he was attracted to men and not women. The BSA inferred the conduct from the status (and by the way I am not saying it is unreasonable to do so, although obviously I disagree that the consequence of either the status or the implied conduct should be what it is.) I have heard, though I am less clear on these facts, that there was another case where a person simply wrote "I am gay" on an adult leader application, in order to make himself a "test case." (And just so this is clear, I'm not applauding that, just stating what I believe is the case.) This person was terminated, and I am pretty sure there was no inquiry about what his actual conduct was.

 

Now, a more interesting case for your question, Zahnada, would be where the person not only said "I'm gay" but left his conduct to the imagination -- but actually said, publicly "I'm gay but I have never had sex with another male." (I think this would fall into the category of "too much information.") This seems like a rather unlikely thing for a person to say, but I am pretty sure the BSA would still terminate the person with no further questions asked.

 

As a result, the answer to:

 

Does a person need to be sexually active with members of the same sex for them to be removed from BSA?

 

is, No, and the answer to

 

What if a person is attracted to their same sex, admits this attraction, but never acts on the impulse?

 

is, so long Charlie. The only thing about that last way of phrasing it is, the person has to actually proclaim or declare their sexuality to fall under the "policy." "Admits" sounds like maybe the person has been asked or "accused" and has "admitted" something. In the one case I am aware of where someone was asked and "admitted" it, the BSA decided that the person was not avowed, that the BSA's own policy had been violated by the Scouter who asked the question, and the person was reinstated.

 

And just to throw this in, DS's statement about what would happen to an "avowed bisexual" leader is no different than I would expect. It makes sense under the logic of the policy. The way you could look at it is, the person is both an "avowed homosexual" and an "avowed heterosexual," and since "avowed homosexuals" are barred, the person is out. He has a "banned status" -- the fact that he also has a non-banned status is irrelevant. Or to look at another example (which is intended to be somewhat whimsical), if a troop treasurer stole funds from the troop treasury, it doesn't matter that he donated all the money to his church. The "good news" does not balance out the "bad news."

 

DS, I may not have phrased things the way you would, but what I am saying here is correct, right?

[dsteele]

I don't say this very often, but I'm saying it to NJCubscouter because it is sincerely meant:

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

DS

[CrewGirl1024]

So basically there membership will be revoaked for being gay and for not being gay. Bisexuality is not homosexuality.

 

I agree with you that being in the BSA is a priviledge. I do not have any arguments with that.

 

 

[Fat Old Guy]

" Bisexuality is not homosexuality."

 

homosexual (home-sksh-el, -mo-) adjective

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

 

heterosexual (hte-ro-sksh-el) adjective

1. Sexually oriented to persons of the opposite sex.

 

bisexual (b-sksh-el) adjective

3. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of either sex.

 

Your comment is splitting hairs. Practicing bisexuals engage in homosexual acts. Bisexuals are attracted to people of the same sex which is the definition of homosexuality.

 

 

[dsteele]

I second FOG's post.

 

I do not believe that bisexuals, homosexuals, or transgenders make the best role models for youth members of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Neither does the Boy Scouts of America, which is a private organization with its own membership standards.

 

DS

[CrewGirl1024]

I'm sorry, but I find that rediculous. If a scout does their job, and works hard and does everything they can, then why not give them the chance to advance. But if something comes up and they is suspect or accused or being bisexual or homosexual they can no longer advance and is revoaked from the BSA.

 

If you ask me being a role modle does not mean the advocate becomes exactly the same. People can be a role modle and be a great role modle even if they are gay.

 

I just want yall to know that I'm not trying to argue...I'm just confused that's all.

[dsteele]

I don't disagree with you about role models. However, the BSA has determined who may or may not be a role model through the BSA.

 

Bisexuality is not acceptable for leaders in the Boy Scouts of America.

 

DS

[Fat Old Guy]

"If a scout does their job, and works hard and does everything they can, then why not give them the chance to advance. But if something comes up and they is suspect or accused or being bisexual or homosexual they can no longer advance and is revoaked from the BSA."

 

I don't believe that a Scout or Venturer would have his/her membership revoked, only a Scouter.

 

A role model is someone who is held up as an example, in effect saying, "try to be like this person." Michael Jordan is a great role model for youth in that he worked hard, went to school, worked harder, got married, and leads a respectable life. Dennis Rodman isn't.

 

Some role models may be good role models for business or sports or academics but Scouters are supposed to be role models, not just for acadmemics or sports but for an entire existence. How can you hold up someone who leads a lifestyle that is fraught with self-destruction as a role model?

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

DS says:

 

I do not believe that bisexuals, homosexuals, or transgenders make the best role models for youth members of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

Neither does the Boy Scouts of America, which is a private organization with its own membership standards.

 

DS, obviously I have no argument. I am sure that is what you believe. As for the beginning of your second sentence, I also have no doubt that that is what the corporation, the "Boy Scouts of America, "believes." In other words, that is the belief-statement and policy that a majority of the ultimate decision-making body has decided to make. What they actually believe is open for speculation. Maybe they actually believe what you believe. Or maybe they are just being good businessmen, and when an organization that holds charters for 20 (or whatever) percent of the units in the BSA threatened to pull out if the policy was changed, they decided to avoid that. (That's not a black-helicopter theory, that was specifically theatened by that organization, and it was mentioned in briefs to the Supreme Court.) Or maybe they are just using the BSA as a vehicle for their own personal religious beliefs. Or maybe other things, or maybe some combination of some or all of the above. All we really know is what the "policy" is, and what BSA headquarters says is the justification for it. And we also know that majorities of boards and committees can change.

 

I also have to comment on the statement that the BSA "is a private organization with its own membership standards." You and other people seem to like to say that a lot. I don't know why you all keep repeating it, because number one, I don't know of anyone who really disputes it, since the Supreme Court definitively decided the issue, and number two (and more importantly) it is really irrelevant. The fact that the BSA has the "right" to do something does not mean it is "right" to do it. I have the right to walk up to someone I don't know on the street and say, "you're stupid," and keep walking (because if I keep talking, I may run out of my "right" and be guilty of "harassment")... but it isn't "right" to do it.

[NJCubScouter]

Oops, the sentence:

 

DS, obviously I have no argument.

 

Should say:

 

DS, obviously I have no argument with your first sentence.

 

I always have an argument.

[Fat Old Guy]

"I also have to comment on the statement that the BSA "is a private organization with its own membership standards." You and other people seem to like to say that a lot. I don't know why you all keep repeating"

 

We keep repeating it because there are many people out there that think that all youth related organizations have to accept all comers.

 

We keep repeating it because people keep wanting to argue about membership standards.

 

We keep repeating it because we can.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

FOG says:

 

We keep repeating it because there are many people out there that think that all youth related organizations have to accept all comers.

 

Are there? You'd think one of them would post that every once in awhile. I can't think of anyone who has said that on here. Some people like to twist other peoples' words to try to make it look like that is the argument, but nobody actually makes that argument.

 

We keep repeating it because people keep wanting to argue about membership standards.

 

The argument is about what the membership standards should be, not whether the BSA has the legal right to adopt them.

 

We keep repeating it because we can.

 

That reminds me of a joke I have heard a few times, but it is not appropriate to repeat on here. But anyway, FOG, as far as I am concerned you should feel free to make as many irrelevant statements as you want. I will continue to point out that they are irrelevant, because I "can," too.