Please stop homosexual activists and atheists

[Fuzzy Bear]

You have been berating and attacking the BSA for a long time and now you have even more reason to do so. That is quite an agenda.

"They" have chosen their spokespeople carefully. Your organization must not be doing so well.

 

[SeattlePioneer]

 

 

 

It gets down to a question of to what extent government can use it's power to interfere with the right of freedom of association. The Supreme Court decision basically said government couldn't use anti discrimination laws to coerce the Scouts, and they may decide that government can't deny the Scouts access to parks, schools and government funding for the same reason.

 

Why is it that the atheists and gay rights types favor "diversity" except when it comes to Scouting? Scouting IS diversity in this country on such issues.

 

It's a pretty sick society (or at least some in that society) who want to wage campaigns of hatred against the Boy Scouts.

 

The City of Seattle organizes and funds homosexual youth groups ---no protests by the left of that kind of program!

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[SeattlePioneer]

 

 

 

 

Heh, heh! Why don't we let the gay rights activists decide? They seem to classify the world as being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered -----or straight.

 

 

They seem to have it figured out clearly enough!

 

 

I should enter a discordent note here, however:

 

I work with a Cub Pack where an adult volunteer identified himself to me and the Pack Committee Chair as an atheist and former Scout, and said he couldn't sign an adult application in good conscience.

 

During the year, he has done a superb job as the defacto Pack Committee chair ---the registered Pack Committee Chair having stepped back and let him do the job.

 

Personally, I'd like to find a moment when he might have a few doubts about the non-existance of God and be willing to sign the Scout application ---I'm told even the Pope is entitled to have a few doubts about God now and then. If so, perhaps athesist can have a few doubts about the non existance of God.

 

At the Cub Scout campout, I'm thinking about having him read the first chapter or so of "The Jungle Book" to all the Cub Scouts after the campfire, and then hit him up to sign the app.

 

 

 

 

Seattle Pioneer

[Karkaghne]

After a couple of years of hearing pro-gay and anti-gay Scouting issues, and observing well-meaning Scouters endlessly ranting about the evil Gays and their "sexual orientation" in front of the boys, I come to this conclusion:

 

Up-tight anti-gay Scouters are obsessed with sex!

 

Yes, I said that. What aspect of the Scouting program can you name that promotes heterosexual activity, and points out the evils of homosexuality? None! Why? Boy Scouts don't have a sexual orientation. We don't preach sexual orientation.

 

Heterosexual public displays of affection are inappropriate and discouraged among leaders, and sexual affection among boys is practically unthinkable - that is, if you are doing your job and presenting a program to keep them focused on learning Scouting and life skills. What the heck is wrong with providing a non-sexual safe place for young men to learn valuable skills? Sadly, all of the BSA spokespersons I have heard focus on Homo vs. Hetero when fending off the gay attacks on BSA policy. Why doesn't anyone simply say, "Hey, sex is not a part of the BSA program, it is inappropriate, and pushing sexuality on boys is sick!"?

 

I used to react negatively to the term "homophobe." What? Me afraid of a gay? Now I understand what real mortal terror looks like. It's all about being afraid of being wrong, and being basically insecure with your self.

 

Instead of indulging yourself in your own delusional sexual superiority and letting your boys overhear this pathetic crap, why don't you just work hard to provide a good program and say "no" to sex discussions? You'll set a good example of how a heterosexual actively helps youth without stooping to name calling. You'll win hands-down. Those activist Gays aren't providing a program, they are attacking a perceived injustice.

 

Your boys just want, and deserve, a sex-free fun and rewarding youth.

[evmori]

Someone needs more bran in their diet!

[CA_Scouter]

Karkaghne:

 

I went through Cubs...

I went through Webelos...arrow of light

I went through Scouts, made Eagle...

I was ASM for 2 years..

I am now SM...

 

I have never attended a cub pack/troop meeting were any discussion of homosexuality or atheism occurred.

 

There are a select few scouters, and a select few activists as yourself, who have an agenda and want to be heard.

 

As for the majority of the rest of us, we go on campouts, experience the outdoors, work on advancement, perform community service and try to have fun with our scouts.

 

 

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Karkaghne says:

 

After a couple of years of hearing pro-gay and anti-gay Scouting issues, and observing well-meaning Scouters endlessly ranting about the evil Gays and their "sexual orientation" in front of the boys...

 

I find this interesting, because I have never seen a Scouter discuss this issue in front of, or with, any boy. I have on occasion happened to overhear or have participated in conversations about this subject with other leaders. Everybody always makes sure there are no boys around and speaks in somewhat hushed tones, recognizing that this is not a subject for the boys. The one time I can recall standing around with a significant number of adults (4 or 5) discussing this for a significant amount of time was at a Klondike Derby when all the boys were safely out with their sleds and would not be back for a couple of hours, and those of us who were not staffing a town were standing around the parking lot with nothing to do. I think we were still half-whispering and there was not a boy within 1,000 feet.

 

Of course, I have long since concluded that the area I live in is not necessarily typical of much of the rest of this country, where this issue is concerned. All of the people I have spoken with about this issue either opposed the BSA's policy or are in the category of supporters who could take or leave it, and if it were changed would not give it a second thought. I suspect this would not be the case if I lived in certain other parts of the country. So maybe people in other states rant about gays in front of the gays, but not where I live.

 

Karkaghne, in a comment that I am sure will provoke all kinds of righteous indignation, continues:

 

...I come to this conclusion:

 

Up-tight anti-gay Scouters are obsessed with sex!

 

I have to say there are some people in this forum (mostly people who have not been posting lately) about whom this appears to be true. Mostly it is the people who insist that the purpose of excluding gays is to prevent sexual abuse of the boys. There have certainly been some posts by that group of people, that do seem to indicate an "obsession" with sex. Of course, there are others who support the policy about whom this does not seem to be true. But as stereotypes go, it is not a bad one, because there are numerous examples of it being true.

[Rooster7]

NJ,

 

You're a piece of work. Enough said.

[packsaddle]

I've always wondered what it means when someone says that. Care to explain?

[Trevorum]

Karkaghne - Welcome to the forums. I can tell you're the kind that doesn't hesitate jumping right into the deep end!

 

(Rooster, good to see you back, old fellow! How's your troop doing?)

 

You're right that sexuality, and discussions of sexuality, have no place in Scouting. Therefor, a ban on one type of sexuality or another makes absolutely no sense. It's like saying that redheads are not welcome in Scouting because, um... um... because they have fiery natures and are more prone to violence (yeah, that'll work...). Plus, some of them are known to be Irish!

 

The point is that neither sexuality nor hair color has anything to do with Scouting, unless you sneakily go back and re-interpret the "morally straight" clause to refer to sex or violence.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Hey, I'm taking exception and I'm neither Irish nor a redhead! Actually I guess I'm more of a mut, considering the mix of German, English, Welsh, French, and Jewish (does that count?). Besides I thought redheads were often from Scotland. Anyway, where was I? Oh yeah, you better take that back!

 

And speaking of sneaky interpretations, are you suggesting there may be deceptions lurking in BSA? No-o-o-o-o Wa-a-a-a-y!

 

Edited part: While I'm here, Rooster, I'm still wondering what you really mean by that. I understand it's meant to be a pejorative statement of some sort but under some circumstances it could be complimentary. I think. But I still wonder...What work? And what piece of it? How big a piece, assuming it is a fractional part? Is a piece worse than the whole thing? Or better?

Or is 'work' a metaphor for something else? If that is the case, anyone who doesn't know what that something is won't make much sense out of the statement. Sort of like me. I just assume that you are trying to insult NJCubScouter, who (considering the source) is probably wringing his hands over whether he's going to hell or something. Or maybe going to be the epicenter of the next lightning strike.

So a little clarification would be interesting.

More editing: I misspoke, of course Hell is reserved for Christians for the most part because, as I understand it, Hell is not part of the Jewish faith. So I guess NJ would have to wring his hands over some other ghastly fate. Thinking....Gad! All I can think of is food. Time for lunch.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[frank10]

Hamlet (II, ii, 115-116)

"What a piece of work is man! How noble in reason! How infinite in faculties! in form and moving, how express and admirable! in action like an angel! in apprehension, how like a god! the beauty of the world! the paragon of animals!........Man delights not me; no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so."

 

 

On the other hand, I found this defination:

 

piece of work (Noun)- a product produced or accomplished through the effort or activity or agency of a person or thing;

 

So maybe it would refer to some one who is spouting the party line...?

 

(Ok, back to the original dead horse, resume the beating)(This message has been edited by wingnut)

[NJCubScouter]

Packsaddle, you crack me up. Of course, I try to return the favor whenever possible.

 

I think Rooster figured I'd know what he meant, just like perhaps I figured that some people (I'm not saying who) may have known what I meant, with my remark. When someone calls someone else a "piece of work" I assume that deep down, "work" is not the word they really want to use, but that either they do not use vulgar language or are observing the decorum of the forum.

 

Of course it is interesting that he refers to me, and not Karkaghne, who re-started this thread and cast his net far wider than I did. I interpreted K's remark to mean that everybody who supports the exclusion of gays is "obsessed with sex," and I was saying that this description would certainly not apply to that entire group. As for those who it would NOT apply to, I suppose if I start to list names I will get in "trouble" there too, because I cannot list all the names so by implication I might be casting aspersions on those I DON'T mention. But certainly BobWhite, Eamonn and Ed would be among the most prolific posters who would be unfairly caught in K's wide net.

[bbng]

What a long and unending thread, so I may as well jump in too

 

NJCub wrote: I find this interesting, because I have never seen a Scouter discuss this issue in front of, or with, any boy. I have on occasion happened to overhear or have participated in conversations about this subject with other leaders.

 

That is very good, for I have been appalled to hear Scouters not only talk about gays in a hostile way, but also to do so in front of the youth. The youth modeled the talk, and it sure made for a most unpleasant atmosphere. I am not opposed to the policy as it is now; I do, however, find those who speak in hateful and disparaging ways to be a disgrace to Scouting. And yeah, I told them (the adults, that is) so, and it was not exactly taken well. Seems a few names and labels were then attached to me...lovely bunch...sigh....

 

Trevorum wrote: You're right that sexuality, and discussions of sexuality, have no place in Scouting. Therefor, a ban on one type of sexuality or another makes absolutely no sense.

 

One problem with that. I just took a look at the Boy Scout Handbook, and in the Index, you'll see "sexual abuse" and "sexual responsibility" listed. So I looked up the responsibility part, and it covers a few things, and then concludes with this:

 

If you have questions about growing up, about relationships, or about sex, ask. Talk with your parents, religious leaders, teachers, or Scoutmaster. They want what is best for you. Let them know your concerns.

 

Pretty heavy topic to direct a youth to talk to the SM about, and most youth wouldn't want to talk to adults about sex, but we should be prepared to do so...even if it's to refer them to someone else (parent, religious leader, teacher) who might be better able to answer their concerns. Bottom line: sex is in the handbook, so BSA doesn't ignore it.

 

 

[Trevorum]

bbng, you're absolutely right. I had forgotten that and my statement was too broad. Let me ammend that to say that in Scouting, discussions of sexuality have the same place as discussions of politics.