Prejudice will drive more away than it will draw near

[Snake Eater]

Well said Bob White. I don't hate anyone, including homosexuals. There is a young man in my work place who is homosexual. I treat him like anyone else, with respect. Have had lunch with him and we had a pleasant conversation. I disagree with how he lives his life but it's his choice to do what he does. I would not be so friendly with someone who is a flamboyant in-your-face homosexual. But I still wouldn't hate them.

 

Whatever their stripe, I don't want my boy influenced by someone whose morals are not up to a certain standard. So, we don't let him spend time at the homes of his friends if their parents: allow their children to watch R rated movies, drink openly or to excess, use foul language, are known to have affairs, etc. We don't allow them to spend time with children who are disrespectful, curse, bully, steal, etc. We don't shun these people ourselves. We're friendly to them but don't think they are good examples for our children to emulate. Likewise with homosexuals. Our opinions on this are formed largely by our religious beliefs. So, if you disagree with this take it up with HIM.

 

 

[evmori]

TJ has expressed his homosexuality on this forum in the past, however he is not an avowed homosexual, meaning that he does not publicly affirm it, which makes him an eligible member of the BSA.

 

Ummm.... this is a public forum. So if TJ has expressed his homosexuality here, it has been publicly affirmed therefore making him avowed. And that makes him ineligible to be a BSA member,

 

We are called to love the sinner & hate the sin. If we maintain that mindset, we will be better people for it.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[DugNevius]

Sorry Snake, i guess the term "Morally superior" is better fitting.

[Hunt]

Do you really think people would quit BSA in droves if BSA allowed chartering organizations to decide whether to allow gay leaders? Don't plenty of those same people participate in Girl Scouts, youth sporting leagues, and other organizations that have no such leadership requirement? Certainly, most of the units chartered by churches would not change their policies at all. Even if some COs allowed gay leaders, the likely total number of gay leaders would be pretty darn small.

Sure, maybe people would quit if BSA required all units to accept gay leaders and members--but that's not going to happen under any scenario I can imagine.

(Note: the idea that people would quit isn't a principled one anyway.)

[tjhammer]

Many other aspects of this discussion have already been debated in different threads, so I would like to keep the topic on the specific question regarding trends toward acceptance of homosexuality and how that has/will impact the future of Scouting.

 

We can argue the statistics, I've already opened the possibility that surveys can be skewed (in both directions). But is there any argument of a definite trend?

 

http://people-press.org/reports/images/197-23.gif

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=764

 

There's no denying that the country's opinion on this matter is shifting; the younger generations have dramatically different opinions than the older generations. (True, it is also influenced by the region you love in, with those in the South being nearly twice as likely to oppose as any other part of the country, and it's influenced by education, where those with college degrees are nearly twice as likely to support).

 

The Civil Rights struggle in the 60's saw the same sort of divide among generations, regions and education levels. Even though huge progress was made in relatively short periods of time on that issue, it was the "trend" that took over to really change opinions over time (those that so strongly opposed the Civil Rights movement eventually died off or are now sitting in nursing homes, and their legacy is not nearly as strong among the generations they raised).

 

So whether it is a majority of young parents, or just a growing multitude ("plurality"), it's sticking our head in the sand to believe this growing trend won't affect our organization (or perhaps already has).

 

Snake... I have no doubt your Southern friends share the opinions you've outlined (though I do doubt seriously they would react as strongly as you expect). But Scouting allowing a troop in Minneapolis to accept a gay 16 year old member will have no impact on your troop or the Scouting delivered in the Southern region.

 

Back to the original question... if these trends continue (and there's little to suggest they will not), how long before Scouting is mostly lead by uneducated, Southern, Christian grandfathers?

 

(Excuse the hyperbole.)

 

[OldGreyEagle]

TJ, just as an aside, what do you make of the results of the "homosexual" referendums of the 11 states during the last national election. I dont know the wording of each resolution, but didnt each one lose?

[tjhammer]

OGE... some random, quick thoughts. Those referendums were about extending the institution of marriage to homosexuals, which people opposed for a number of reasons (including "morality and religious concerns", as well as legal concerns, etc.

 

As you may recall, I have been in a committed relationship for more than five years, and our routine daily life is just about identical to most married life. I thought the push to extend marriage was too much, too fast, and there was some backlash because of it.

 

I thought the religious conservatives did a magnificent job rallying their base to the polls on that single issue. I thought that the moderates and progressives (where the huge group of people who either strongly support gay rights or are just generally in favor but don't see it as a pressing issue) did a lousy job of recognizing how aggressive the conservatives were organizing.

 

I thought that the 11 states that were involved in the referendum also show some trends of their own, in that they are mostly conservative, Christian strongholds, many of them appear toward the bottom of the list of education standards, and many have slower population growth than other parts of the country. (Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, and traditionally religious Oklahoma, Missouri, Utah, and traditionally conservative Michigan. Oregon, and perhaps Ohio, are the only one that seems surprising to me.) There's no doubt the vote reflects strong push back against gay marriage in those states today, but I don't believe it reflects the trend.

 

Mostly I thought that this issue is not a battle to win only in the courthouse or legislature. Much like the Civil Rights movement in the 60s, laws can help some, but the trends toward what people know in their hearts and minds of wrong or right will ultimately prevail.

 

So, I'll repeat... if we have a hypothesis (with no supporting analysis) that Scouts Canada is shrinking because it dropped its prejudice, what are we to make of the hypothesis (with actual supporting analysis) that BSA is shrinking because it showed its prejudice?

[Bob White]

You have one survey whose statistics you cannot verify as accurate based on a question not proven relevant to the problem, from that you believe you cab established trend? From one survey? You take that and create a hypothesis based on a theory that what isn't causing a loss of membership in one country ..is causing it in another?

 

Two years ago the BSA surveyed a few thousand non-member scout aged boys who answered a blind survey showing they had an interest in outdoor activities such as camping, canoeing, rock climbing etc.. They were asked why they were not scouts.

80% answered that 'no one had asked them to join'.

 

TJ if your survey were accurate the BSA would not need The 50% to 60% of the families who accepted homosexuality. If we just made sure every eligible scout was invited to join, we would have a larger membership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tjhammer]

One survey, Bob? Come on, this is not just one survey (I've actually referenced two separate ones in this thread alone), but the majority of all surveys with real representative samples show the same thing. To deny that is to continue to be obtuse, and prefer we as an organization stick our head in the sand.

 

As for my "hypothesis", I'm merely asking how one could be true ("Scouts Canada is losing members because it dropped its prejudice against gays") and the other could not be true ("BSA is losing members because it affirmed its prejudice against gays"). Far from scientific analysis, I realize. But certainly worth discussion.

 

As for your other point, I completely agree we should be out asking Scout age boys who like camping to join our program, and I am not shocked that the main reason they aren't in the program is that no one asked them. But that's not the point we've been discussing.

 

Cub Scouting is the primary way kids first get involved with the organization, and when you are eight years old, it has every bit to do with your parents wanting you to be involved in something. Since a growing multitude (a "plurality") of these young parents oppose the BSA's prejudice, and since we've seen this part of our organization shrink by 10% in just the four years since BSA affirmed its prejudice, it doesn't seem out of line to question causality.

 

>BSA would not need The 50% to 60% of the families who accepted homosexuality.

>If we just made sure every eligible scout was invited to join, we would have

>a larger membership

 

 

Bob, as you know, the TAY ("total available youth") is a key measurement in Scouting's growth. It's not enough to say that BSA adds x% to its membership, if the TAY is growing exponentially faster. That's not a recipe for long term health and relevancy.

 

 

[Bob White]

But TJ

 

They TAY is determined only by age and gender it is not affested by the political views of the parent. Nor does your survey, or I would bet your second survey, say that the adults who think homosexuality should be excepted would withhold their youth from membership in the BSA because of it.

 

So again you have nothing that shows your numbers to be statistically releveant to the membership of scouting now or in the future.

 

BW

 

 

[tjhammer]

Bob, try this logic:

 

1) the number of kids available to join Scouting is growing faster than the number of kids actually joining Scouting.

 

2) the most likely age in which kids join Scouting is Cub Scouts, which has not only not kept pace with the TAY, but has actually shrunk by 10% in the last four years.

 

3) parents of Cub Scout age kids tend to be people under 35.

 

4) people under 35 tend resist prejudice more and view homosexuality more favorably than those over 35, and a generational trend that seems to be widening.

 

Can you draw any hypothesis from this information? One that I draw is that there may be a correlation between BSA affirming its prejudice in 2000 and the significant drop in Cub Scouts (especially as a percentage of TAY). Is that not worth discussing?

[Snake Eater]

Hunt,

 

I do think that people would leave the organization in the area where I live. I've seen people leave denominations and whole churches split off from their denominations here because of the denomination's drift toward liberality. The Presbyterian church is probably the best known example of the latter. To be fair, I've seen the reverse but to a much lesser degree. I live in the Bible Belt and they call it that for a good reason.

 

I've already pointed out that organizations here that are very supportive of boy scouting give no support to girl scouting because of their policies. I'm sure that their support would be withdrawn if the BSA changed their policy to something like that of the GSA. Their lack of support stems from the national policy, not the lack of merit of the local organization. I don't know how you define a principle but in my book this is what is called a principled stand. One based on what you believe regardless of other circumstances. I don't understand what you mean by your statement that quitting an organization whose morality you disagree with is unprincipled.

 

I don't think that the number of gay leaders would be small if it were allowed. I think that gays would use this as a way to make some sort of statement to the rest of us.

 

tjhammer,

 

Was that hyperbole or stereotype?

 

I'm sorry but the comparison to the civil rights movement just doesn't wash. People who opposed civil rights were morally wrong in every way. Most people who are opposed to the demands of the homosexual community do so from a moral standpoint with religious underpinnings. Blacks were denied rights because of the appearance they were born with. Homosexuals choose to behave differently. They have the same rights that I do but are trying to use the government to force others to accept their lifestyle. These are two very different movements. There is no logical reason for a person who favored the civil rights movement to change their mind as they grew older and had children. Not so for youngsters who are tolerant of homosexuality.

 

I for one will grant you part of the point that you are trying to make. I do think that people left scouting and that some people stay away from scouting because they did not change their policy. But I think the number is far smaller than the loss that would have occurred if they had changed the policy.

 

I think that people are more tolerant of homosexuality when they are younger. That is part of what your statistics show. But I think that society in general is more tolerant of homosexuals, especially on the left coast, the northeast, and urban areas in all parts of the country. So, you are right on this point too - but not entirely. Can you take that increased tolerance and assume that these tolerant parents want their son to emulate a homosexual scoutmaster. I don't think so.

 

Even though it is true that people have left and will stay away from boy scouting because of BSA's policy I doubt that you will change anyone's opinion with this argument. As I've said, poeple who I am familiar with are against the policy change on moral priciple.

 

I don't think that the loss because BSA did not change their policy is nearly as large as the loss they would have seen if they had. Here is an analogy, the VFW could potentially increase their membership if they allowed anti-war protesters to join. But the loss of current membership would be greater than the gain. Not to mention the fact that it would change the character and traditions of the organization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by Snake Eater)

[Zahnada]

I would like to venture a hypothesis about shrinking Cub Scout enrollment.

 

I feel the issue is mostly indirectly related to the Boy Scout's stance on gays. Ever since the Supreme Court decision, the BSA has been bombarded with lawsuits and bad press. The information reaching parents of prospective youth isn't "Eagle Scout saves brother's life" or "Boy Scouts reconstruct trail" or "Scouting collects cans for donation." Now, it seems that a large percentage of media coverage consist of the headlines that Merlyn posts here. This is the image of boy scouts (stemming from the gay controversy) that the public is being fed so it's no surprise that people are turned off.

 

With that said, I don't feel excluding gays will directly damage enrollment anymore than including gays will. These are my personal feelings (and anyone who reads my post will know that I don't agree with the policy anyway). But with the Catholic Church and the LDS Church being such strong supporters of BSA and so strongly opposed to homosexuality, if the BSA had taken a different approach, it would have really been damaging. At least for now.

 

Anyway, I feel membership next year will be even worse. But this is because headlines are now about faulty number reporting (very hurtful in a post-Enron USA), and a BSA official who looks at child pornography. During the attacks on BSA for being "segregating" and "exclusive" they could always claim the moral high ground. Suddenly, that ground has begun to shake and will be damaging in the near future.

[Bob White]

TJ

 

The fallacy of your premise is that the loss of numbers comes from fewer joining, which is incorrect. The loss of membership in cubbing comes from cubs not re-newing the second year as Wolves and the second year of Webelos. Retention is the problem not recuitment, and the retention problem is tied directly to the unit program and not the membership resrictions.

 

Current national figures show that 40% of Tigers drop out and 25% of Webeols 1. Solve the retention problem and you solve the membership loss. It is unrelated to the membership restrictions.

 

None of your figures prove your hypothesis. While I understand that you "feel" this is the reason, you have not data to substantiate that feeling.

 

Whereas the BSA knows exactly where the loss is occurring.

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[TheScout]

TJ,

 

Couple of comments. I found it quite offensive that you had to catergorize the states that voted against the gay marriage referendums and at the bottom of the education levels. I think you fail to realize that this is an issue not of education, but of what people honestly believe in their hearts. It is quite funny that Oregon passed it as well considering that they are one of the most socially liberal areas of the country, they were the first to approve doctor assisted suicide and state funded medicine. Remember that every time this issue was put to the PEOPLE to vote on, they rejected it. The only places where it began legal is where some court or leftist politian pushed it down their throat.

 

Finally, leaving alone the issue on whether homosexuality is right or wrong I think the bigger question should is: Should the BSA sacrafice/change its moral values that it believes is right just for the sake of numbers?

 

And I definatly say no. One of the things that makes the BSA great is the fact that it has many great traditions and values that have lasted decades. These are the things the American public respects about the BSA.

 

Thanks.