Homosexuals in Scouting

[Its Me]

I suspect that the lack of gay men at the highest level of BSA is the reason our iniforms lack flair.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Oh, now you've gone and done it - criticized the uniform. Lack of flair? FLAIR!? Surely you jest. (I know, "..don't call you Shirley") The uniform is just fine. I like the fit and feel of it and it has just the right amount of flair. Ok, it's a little pricey but big deal! Lay off the uniform.

[Big_Dog]

Packsaddle -

 

Its Me's post brings to mind another thought. If gay dudes are ever allowed in positions of leadership, the next battle will be over the uniform. Plaids, stripes, prints, bold colors will be the latest rage! And FOG, the neckerchief will have a resurgence in popularity! The new fab-five will be uniform consultants.

 

Think of the possibilites...

 

bd

[packsaddle]

Big_Dog, you have opened my eyes and I have SEEN THE LIGHT! I am indeed intrigued. What was it that Cassanova said, 'We must not let prejudice limit the possibilities...' or something like that?

[Big_Dog]

AS LONG AS....

 

spandex is not involved in any way, shape or form! I have done my best to live up to the advise I received in Scoutmaster Fundamentals:

A scoutmasters belt buckle should face the ground. It used to be that the belt buckle should be at a 45 degree angle, but alas....

 

bd

[NJCubScouter]

nldscout says:

 

The problem with the concept of allowing CO to deceide if a Gay person is a good leader or not and weather to allow them in thier troop or pack is what do you do at Multi-unit events.

 

What happens to the Camporee's and Jamboree's? This would create more of a mess than there is now.

 

I don't think local option would necessarily have any effect on district, council or national events. How does it affect my troop if the troop in the site next door has an openly gay leader? Chances are, I won't even know he is openly gay. I have been to a number of council and district events, and other than the few neighboring-unit Scouters who I actually know, what do I really know about any of the people I see at these events? Not very much. I only know what is visible, and nobody is going to be wearing a sign that says "I'm gay," nor are they going to be dressing in drag, nor are they going to be doing anything else to "flaunt" their sexuality. (If they do, they would be kicked out for other reasons.)

 

In fact, some of the leaders I do see now are poor role models for their own boys, and those of my boys who see them, for various reasons having nothing to do with sexual orientation. They sneak cigarettes when they think nobody is watching, they get a little too loud and boisterous, and in one case, on a joint trip with another troop, the SM of the other troop spent half of Saturday in his bunk watching movies on a portable DVD player.

 

My point is, "role model issues" are all around us. Why just pick on one? Unless the issue of camporees is really an excuse for keeping gays out completely.

 

And what about the differences in membership standards that exist right now? Those who oppose "local option" sometimes ask how you can have different standards for membership, but the fact is that different standards exist right now. For example, as I understand it, LDS units do not have female leaders. If an LDS unit is camping next to my son's troop at a camporee, the adults and boys in that unit are going to see something that is a "challenge" to their concept of what an adult leader should be -- that is, uniformed female Scouters. But that's the way it goes, and it works, and it would work for the issue of gay leaders as well.

[berkshirescouter]

nor are they going to be dressing in drag,

nor are they going to be doing anything else

to "flaunt" their sexuality. (If they do, they

would be kicked out for other reasons.)

I'm playing what if with the above. Lets say BSA at some point allows Gays as leaders. The next item on the GAY agenda is Transgender, wouldn't the outcome shown above put BSA right back in the same issue? I am not taking a side here just asking the question.

[NJCubScouter]

ITD, the issue is not about what is "next" on anyone's agenda. I don't know what is next on anyone's agenda. I have to tell you, there are a few people whose agenda includes keeping "avowed homosexuals" out of Scouting, and everywhere else, who make me a little nervous as to what may be next on their agenda.

 

As for "transgender," I don't follow what you are saying. As I understand it, that term means someone whose gender has been changed. What does that have to do with the part of my post that you quoted. (And by the way, if a unit wanted a leader who was publicly known to have changed genders, I don't know of any BSA policy that would stop them. I assume they would be treated according to their new gender, so Joe-turned-Joanne would bunk with the other female leaders but could not be a leader in an LDS unit, while Joanne-turned-Joe would be welcome with the guys in any unit anywhere. (That was a small, and probably not completely appropriate, attempt at humor there.) But, all seriousness aside, what's the issue here.

[packsaddle]

I agree. The transgender (assuming you mean 'sex change') possibility isn't much of an issue to me either. However, some might see it as a problem if, say, Ed Mori had the operation and as a ravishing female figure, began to pursue Rooster7 romantically. Or the other way around. Such whimsy, I do declare.

But, in effect (anatomically, at least), it would still be a heterosexual thing unless BSA insists that COs examine chromosomes in addition to the background check. So his question could be, "What really counts anyway, behavior, anatomical traits, or genetics?" If that is the question, the 'avowed' policy is rather mute.

[Proud Eagle]

Responding to the original post in this thread, there are a great many problems with a local option rule.

 

Who decides the standard for the summer camp staff? The camp staff is certainly in a position to act as role models, and as such they would be as much a concern as anyone else.

 

What about council contingents to Jamborree, Philmont, Seabase, and Northern Tier? Who decides which rule applies to the adults? Who decides which rule applies to the youth? If we allow avowed homosexuals to lead these treks, that would essentially close them to the Scouts whose families believe that avowed homosexuals are inappropriate role models. "Your son can go to Philmont, but only if you are willing to change your standards of what you consider a good role model to be." Maybe we would have a open trek and a restricted trek.

 

What do you do about camp showers? What about tent partners? If some units are letting in homosexuals, some parent will eventually ask questions, even if they are unfounded.

 

What do we do about those with reservations that live in communities dominated by those who would be in favor of opening the BSA to avowed homosexuals?

 

What do we do about the avowed homosexuals in communities that are not willing to accept avowed homosexuals as potential role models for their youth?

 

What do you tell the many major organizations and churches that support BSA because of its traditional values, that would probably feel betrayed by such a change in policy?

 

What would be the public reaction of various organizations, groups, churches, politicians, public figures, and others in positions to influence the general public about such a policy change?

 

What message would that send about the positions we take? Would it perhaps make a great many think that we are open to negotiation even on our core values? Would some take it as a sign of weekness and apply pressure for other changes?

 

If we are going to let the policy be set at the local level about what the core values really mean, does that apply to all of them in every situation, or only to these in this situation?

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

The role model question: I consider this to be less of an issue for gays than for the more obvious fat waddling smokers who are leaders now.

The 'who decides' question: You believe that COs would not like to make this decision for themselves but would rather be subject to the dictates of a central authority?

Tent mates: Who snores the loudest? (and no matter what you think, it ain't me.)

Showers: Adults are already separated from boys. Adults, among themselves, ought to be able to sort things out whether gay or straight.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[packsaddle]

the part that kept getting cut off:

Public reaction: would vary, but probably no worse effect than present policy.

Message: Fairness, local community standards.

Core values: assuming fairness is one of them, they would be intact.

[Big_Dog]

NJ-

"I have to tell you, there are a few people whose agenda includes keeping "avowed homosexuals" out of Scouting, and everywhere else, who make me a little nervous as to what may be next on their agenda."

I'll tell you what's next: Lawyers!

 

just a joke, friend.

 

bd

[NJCubScouter]

Tent mates: Who snores the loudest? (and no matter what you think, it ain't me.)

 

It's me. Or at least, that's the consensus within my troop. Nobody has proposed banning me from camping trips yet, though at this point there is only one person left who will voluntarily agree to tent with me, and he brings his walkman (with extra batteries) so he can listen to music while he sleeps instead of to me. (Truth be told, he snores pretty loudly himself, but not as bad as me.) A couple of months ago, another guy who was sharing a tent with me actually abandoned the tent in the middle of the night to go sleep in his car. "Local option" has many meanings, I guess.

 

[acco40]

Heaven's to Betsy and tsk tsk. What should the BSA do about pre-pubescent boys? They are neither heterosexual nor homosexual. Do we dare risk allowing these possible "pre-sinners" to associate with our "traditional valued" youth? I says we should keep all boys out of Scouting until they are sexually mature and can distinctly declare themselves to be red-blooded, traditional valued, morally (ahem, I mean sexually) straight males. Then, we rush them through from Tiger to Eagle in a two year span!