It's not as popular as some think

[pdunbar]

BobWHite

 

I have a hard time believing that someone in BSA came up with the policies regarding homosexuals. They more than likely came from pressure from local CO's. Before the rule were made, there were no rules. Why didn't the CO's that wanted the rules not just leave and form a new youth group?

[Bob White]

So you really have no idea where the rules and policies originate from, you are just guessing.

[scoutingagain]

Round and round we go. The gay debate goes on and on.

 

For now I have just one observation to add. In many threads there are discussions regarding BSA Policies. Be it a ban on certain activities such as martial arts, the fact the uniforms are not a requirement, what can or can't be counted as an overnight campout, whether women should be allowed as leaders, that advancement requirements have been made too easy, the issue of gay membership and other topics.

 

Why is it that I have only seen those that disagree with the gay membership issue asked to leave and start their own organization?

 

SA

[Shell in WA- USA]

What are the policies "regarding homosexuals" or any other specified agendas? I understood that BSA has "Core Values" that we all agreed to when signing your registration form. And if we don't agree to live out or follow those values while in Scouting, we have the choice to find another group to belong to. As far as I klnow, they do not single out specific groups or people. If there is, show me in the BSA Policy, I may have to reconsider my membership. But I sure don't see it.

 

It still puzzles me why, if not in agreement with a groups principals, someone would want to join anyway? And then, not "join in" the group but to stir trouble and scream foul?!? And don't throw at me "discrimination, this has nothing to do with civic rights.

[NJCubScouter]

SA,

 

Excellent observation. I have wondered the same thing myself.

[fotoscout]

Ed,

 

Since they are too busy yelling at each other, I'll say it...

 

Happy Easter to you too.

 

Foto

[evmori]

Foto,

Thank you.

 

A blessed Easter to you and yours!

 

Ed

[NJCubScouter]

Shell says:

 

As far as I klnow, they do not single out specific groups or people.

 

Shell, here is a link to a document on the BSA's official web site that includes a statement on the "policy" regarding gay leaders.

 

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

 

I myself have questioned where the "policy" is. You would think it would be in an actual publication, rules and regulations, memo to unit leaders, or something. But a resolution by the BSA on the BSA's official web site is official enough, I guess.

 

You will see that this statement does "single out" a "specific group."

 

Shell, in one of your earlier posts you said:

 

Why must our values and morals be lowered to make all behavior acceptable?

 

I haven't seen anyone in this forum advocate that "all behavior" should be acceptable. I certainly haven't advocated that, and don't believe that. When it comes to leaders, I agree with the way the BSA handles issues of "behavior" except for the single case of gay leaders. National automatically excludes very few types of people: People who have committed serious crimes (obviously including any sort of sexual abuse,) and openly gay people. Almost everybody else can be a leader if the local unit (the CO) appoints that person. If a person's bad behavior is really notorious, like someone who is known around town to be a serial adulterer and has fathered numerous children without supporting them, I suppose the council or even national might step in and terminate that person's membership. But, sticking with my example, there is no policy that everyone who is known to have committed adultery is automatically banned from leadership positions, nor is there a policy that everyone who had fathered a child out of wedlock is automatically banned. Same is true with anyone else who might be considered a "bad example," such as a drunk driver, multiply-divorced or whatever else you might think of. There is local option for almost everything when it comes to leadership, and when council or national does step in it is on a case-by-case basis considering the particular circumstances. Automatic termination in all cases seems to be limited to criminals and gays. I don't think gay people belong in that category. That is why I think the "gay issue" should join almost every other "leadership issue" on the list of things that are a local option.

 

I suppose if you assume that homosexuality is immoral, then the "policy" makes sense -- at least within a unit that shares that opinion. But I don't assume that, and an ever increasing number of people no longer believe that. As the daily news indicates, this nation is divided over the issue of homosexuality. I don't think the BSA should impose a national solution on its members when there is no consensus either way, either inside or outside the organization.

[John-in-KC]

NJ,

 

I rather suspect, if you were to travel to Irving and inspect the minutes of the National Council meeting on February 6, 2002, this resolution will be in them...

 

John

[Shell in WA- USA]

Okay, I guess in that way, they has made an ammendment to their policies. But by your own reference of a Resolution posted to BSA, states it pretty clearly to me. And they even use a term I've always been careful NOT to say in terms of staying neutural for the general body - "faith-based." I suppose if you choose not to raise your children with that same faith base, why join?

 

According to the resolution attached above, BSA is providing "faith-based values to its constituency in a respectful manner.. And that "conduct of both Scouts and Scouters must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law" and that "membership is contingent upon one's willingness to accept the values and standards espoused by the Boy Scouts of America," and

 

They also state that "the Boy Scouts of America respects the right of persons and individuals to hold values and standards different than the Boy Scouts of America...is entitled to expect that persons and organizations with different values and standards will nevertheless respect those of the Boy Scouts of America...

 

Go to the upper link for it's entirety. I still haven't found it in the actual BSA policy however. I'll keep hunting too.

 

 

[John-in-KC]

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

 

As I said, I suspect it's actually in hardcopy, in Irving, in the minutes of a National Council meeting held on or about Feb 6, 2002.

 

John

[NJCubScouter]

John, when I said "where," I did not mean physically where I can read it. I am sure that the resolution that you posted the link to (which is the document I thought I had linked to, but now see that I linked to the accompanying press release by mistake) is in the minutes at BSA HQ. That isn't the point. What I meant was "where" in any place that a Scouter who is not located in Irving, TX might normally go to find out what the BSA's policy is on something. That would mean some leader handbook (Scoutmasters Handbook, Cub Scout Leader Book, Troop Committee Guidebook), or maybe a training video or training syllabus, or some guidebook similar to the Guide to Safe Scouting or Youth Protection Guidelines or SOMETHING that an ordinary Scouter can buy at the Scout Shop or hear about as part of a formal training course or something like that. Not just a resolution posted on a web site.

 

I am not questioning, at this point, what the "policy" is. Regardless of what it is called, the BSA has made clear what consequences await an openly gay Scouter or applicant. I am just saying that in an organization that publishes rules, regulations, policies, procedures, guidelines etc. etc. for a very wide variety of subjects, the BSA has chosen a rather strange and unique way of making people aware of this particular "policy."

 

[FScouter]

NJ - there is no policy that everyone who is known to have committed adultery is automatically banned from leadership positions, nor is there a policy that everyone who had fathered a child out of wedlock is automatically banned.

 

When an adulterers or males fathering children out of wedlock start to demand their rights to be Scout leaders, and sue, then BSA will once again have to exercise their right to automatically exclude them too. Until then it is a non-issue, and there is no need to post a position statement on the website.

 

[ASM59]

NJ:

I suppose if you assume that homosexuality is immoral, then the "policy" makes sense -- at least within a unit that shares that opinion. this nation is divided over the issue of homosexuality. I don't think the BSA should impose a national solution on its members when there is no consensus either way, either inside or outside the organization.

 

Based on the text at the link NJ posted;

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

The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices.

 

It is clear that the BSA (national) does consider homosexuality immoral behavior. As such, it must take the stand it has. NJ, you are correct that our nation is divided over the issue. In fact, a good many of our nations religious institutions are divided. I understand that these other organizations are compromising their long held positions because (at least in part) it is politically correct to do so. However, to compromise a position (when you believe that compromise is wrong), is weakness and there is no honor in that compromise. Most (if not all) of these religious institutions have long held that homosexuality is wrong (immoral), as does the BSA; therefore the term traditional moral values. Most religious organizations (denominations) are sticking to what they believe to be the truth, as is the BSA.

 

People (organizations) of integrity will stand by their convictions in the face of political correctness.

 

This is a difficult issue; one that will not be solved quickly or easily. We should be able to discuss our disagreements openly and honestly without anger. My point earlier, was not necessarily to tell you to leave the BSA, but to point out the double standard that exists in society today; those of us with certain convictions are not free to form a new organization without being continually told we need to change our convictions. You see, NJ, while you are quick to point out that freedom is for everyone (including you); there are increasing incidents in our society that make some of us feel that our freedoms are being slowly eroded away.

 

[Zahnada]

One of the problems with the issue of gays in scouting is that we're often not clear on what we're arguing for or against. The conversation then takes a cyclical route with people repeating the same point.

 

For instance, several posters who are in support of the BSA policy often cite that BSA is a private organization and as a private organization they have the right to select their membership standards. This view was upheld by the Supreme Court. However, I have yet to see an opinion on this forum that disagrees with this. Everyone seems to agree that scouting has the right to select their membership, so dwelling on this point doesn't go anywhere. The real issue is whether BSA should have made their selective decisions.

 

When it comes to this question, there's a lot of assumption as to the arguments people make. I've developed a list of explanations that people have given in support of this policy. This is probably not an complete list.

 

1. Safety- gays in scouting would represent a physical risk to our youth. This argument will occasionally draw parallels between gays and sex offenders or child molesters.

 

2. Bad example- This is a morality argument that may or may not stem from religious beliefs. Basically, it says that gays are immoral and so as leaders, to allow gays to be scouting members would be condoning their lifestyle by ommision. This argument connects to the discussions about letting unmarried, pregnant women be leaders.

 

3. Conversion- This is an argument that believes all (or most) gays to be activists. If allowed in scouts, they will recruit youth to become gay.

 

4. Gays are just not scouting material- This is a bit of an add-on to "Bad Example" in that it also focuses on morality. This argument will say that gays are immoral people, and therefore they are just not who we want to have around. Look at this argument the same way you would view the anti-atheist argument.

 

 

Those are the main categories I have come up with. Add more if you like. The point is that if we're to reach any kind of understanding about this issue, we should at least make it clear what we're arguing for or against.