Discrimination Against Me.

[ManyIrons]

Packsaddle, you're right "passion" and "emotion" are both defined as "a strong feeling". I was however using them in terms of their common connotations (apologies, my experiences may be shading my perception here). Passion/passionate has a positive connotation ("his performance was a passionate portrayal . . ") and suggests an element of control, while emotion/emotional tends to have a more negative connotation ("Gee, you don't have to get so emotional about it") suggesting a lack of control.

 

Of course the phrase "crime of passion" implies just the opposite, so all of the above goes right out the window. However; I think most readers, like you, caught my inference.

 

But we digress from Eamonn's intent for this thread.

[packsaddle]

How about, 'be an advocate, not a fanatic?'

[Eamonn]

Prairie_Scouter

I really don't know when the BSA started explaining what "Morally straight" means.

I don't think it matters.

This program is what it is and we can take it or leave it.

I happen to think that green socks with red tops are silly but these socks are the BSA uniform socks. If I had really strong feelings and knew that this organization wasn't going to change the socks I would leave.

Maybe I'm just a rule follower? But I know I don't have the authority to change the uniform and me opting to wear non BSA socks would not be setting the example that I think I ought to be setting.

The BSA has made where it stands on the homosexual issue very clear and as a private organization they can do this.

The BSA is not a political organization, however many of the other organizations that are our Chartered Partners are religious organizations, these organizations do have a lot of say about what goes on. We only provide the program, the youth members belong to them.

Eamonn.

I know a great resturant that serves a Tuna Tartar with Wasabi Caviar and Spicy Ginger

[evmori]

Anchovy pizza = yummy

[Torveaux]

If you set aside the morality of homosexuality (for discussion purposes only) there is still another aspect of it that would not wash with current BSA policies.

 

Part of Scouting is built upon single gender groups that allow a certain amount of safety. I am not talking about physical safety, thought there could be an element of that as well. I am talking about emotional safety. Most studies of school environments have concluded that single gender schools are more effective for both boys and girls in terms of fulfilling their mission of education. Mixing genders turns the entire process into a stage wherein some kids feel undue pressure to perform.

 

When a group allows openly gay members, it does the same thing to its single gender groups. How can you say a hetero boy and girl cannot share a tent while you allow two gay boys to share a tent? Alternatively, do you force a straight boy to share a tent with an openly gay boy? Isn't that like making a girl share a tent with a boy (even if there is no 'attraction')? Even without this logistics headache, such situations amplify sexuality, sexual orientation and identity to a position that has no place in scouting. One of the advantages Scouting has over some other groups is that that particular dynamic is heavily muted.

 

Perhaps the solution, if there ever is one, would be to have uniquely gay troops that had a one boy per tent rule. As the father of two boys and two girls, I would love to see Boy Scouting for girls. From what we have experienced in the Girl Scout program, I would prefer my daughters be Cub Scout and Boy Scouts but I have no interest at all in them being in mixed gender Packs or Troops.

[Prairie_Scouter]

Eamonn,

We can agree to disagree and that's fine and as it should be. I guess in the case of BSA, I think the program is too important to take a "take it or leave it" attitude, and so, I work from within, respecting the views of others, hoping they will respect mine and take them into account. BSA is currently a private organization protected by a Supreme Court decree. Laws change, courts change, attitudes change. Values don't, and shouldn't change, but how those values are interpreted and put into action can, and sometimes should.

 

Tuna, caviar and spicy ginger? When do we eat?? :-)

 

Torveaux,

You bring up very good points. I don't expect BSA policy to change in this regard, really, but if it were to change at some point, I would expect that it would take several years until gays would be considered "just another Scout". And that's where you'd really need to get, both in regards to gays, and also in regards to girls, if they were allowed. Girls are allowed in Venture crews. I haven't heard about any "problems" in Venture crews. Maybe there's a place for them in other Scout units as well. Anyway, in addition to your concerns, I'd worry about a gay Scout being bullied by Scouts who have been taught socially to be somewhat homophobic. It certainly wouldn't be an easy transition. You know, the Civil Rights Act was passed 40 years ago, and minorities still aren't treated as equals in some areas. It takes a long time for attitudes to change, regardless of what laws we pass. If BSA were to change their policy on gays today, I don't think you'd see a sudden inrush of gay membership because it would probably be a long time before they would actually be "welcomed".

 

Regards your comments on your daughter, my own daughter thinks the Girl Scouts are a "bunch of wimps" (they don't camp much in our area, mostly because of the moms); she'd be much happier as a Boy Scout (actually, as my sons went through Cub Scouting, my daughter did most of the same projects on her own; she's probably better qualifed to be a Boy Scout than many of the Boys! :-))

[Eamonn]

Prairie_Scouter

I suppose you and I agreeing to disagree is fine. A very dear friend of mine used to say that he thought he made a mistake once, but he was wrong.

I wonder what you will say to the Scout who asks you why the BSA doesn't allow homosexual leaders?

As a very young Wolf Cub in England we had to learn about our Flag, the Union Flag with the cross of Saint George, the cross of Saint Andrew and the cross of Saint Patrick, I liked the idea that Saint Patrick was there. We learned about the Red Rose of England,the Thistle of Scotland and the Shamrock of Ireland. No one ever mentioned that we were only talking about the six counties that make up Northern Ireland. We also had to learn the first and third verses of the National Anthem, which of course is God Save The Queen.

As a Lad I never gave much thought to why we never learned the second verse.

Verse one is:

God save our gracious Queen,

Long live our noble Queen,

God save the Queen:

Send her victorious,

Happy and glorious,

Long to reign over us:

God save the Queen.

 

And The Third verse is:

Thy choicest gifts in store,

On her be pleased to pour;

Long may she reign:

May she defend our laws,

And ever give us cause

To sing with heart and voice

God save the Queen.

But what about that second verse?

It goes:

O Lord, our God, arise,

Scatter her enemies,

And make them fall.

Confound their politics,

Frustrate their knavish tricks,

On thee our hopes we fix:

God save us all.

Talk about being politically correct? But by verse five it got worse:

Lord grant that Marshal Wade

May by thy mighty aid

Victory bring.

May he sedition hush,

And like a torrent rush,

Rebellious Scots to crush.

God save the Queen!

I don't know if any of the adults in the Pack knew the words to the third and fifth verses? But I wonder how they could on one hand be teaching us little fellows all about this world wide brotherhood of Scouting and then on the other explain things like: "Scatter her enemies, And make them fall" Or "May he sedition hush, And like a torrent rush,

Rebellious Scots to crush"?

(George Wade was born in Kilavally, Westmeath, Ireland.When the Jacobites rose again in 1745 the speed of their advance was beyond Wade. He failed to counter their march into England.) Later Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, the third son of George II.put down the 1745 rising of the Jacobites, he defeated Prince Charles Edward Stuart at Culloden Moor (1746) and earned the nickname the Butcher by his ruthless punishment of the rebels.

This led to a sixth verse:)

George is magnanimous,

Subjects unanimous;

Peace to us bring:

His fame is glorious,

Reign meritorious,

God save the King!

You posted:"Laws change, courts change, attitudes change. Values don't, and shouldn't change, but how those values are interpreted and put into action can, and sometimes should"

Well 259 years have gone by and there are still a lot of unhappy Scotsmen!!

Her That Must Be Obeyed, tells me that I watch too much television, I don't think I watch that much. I gave up watching sitcoms when Roseanne came out. I was unhappy with the Cosby Show, it seemed to portray all white men as being really dumb and being racist. Now it seems that I am being force fed TV Gay men. Every time I turn on the Bravo channel there seems to be Queer Eye For The Straight Guy on.I have worked with a lot of homosexual men and I would never use the word Queer. It seems that every reality show has to have at least one homosexual man or homosexual team. Bravo just started a new series about show dogs and there had to be two homosexual men. I really do enjoy the Amazing Race on CBS and it seems that there has too be a homosexual team every year. I have no idea what percentage of the population is homosexual? But if TV was a way of measuring the percentage it would be really high. I'm sure that someone will say that this is being done in the name of diversity but I feel it's just being over done and over the top.

I was active as a Scoutmaster in London for over eleven years, I don't know how many boys I got to know. I never ever had a Scout that claimed to be homosexual or confused about his sexuality. I did come across a fair share of naughty books (Playboy, Penthouse) I had Lads who late at night when they thought I wasn't around would explain the facts of life to younger Scouts or tell the other Lads about how they got "Lucky" When I heard stuff like this I would make enough noise so it was clear that I was around and then later the next day have a word with the "Lucky Lad" Me explaining how this sort of talk was not acceptable in Scouting.

As a history teacher in a big school of nearly six thousand students, I never had a student or heard of a student claim to be homosexual. But now in this small town of less than 5,000, OJ informs me that two of his friends are gay. Again I feel sure that someone will say that of the thousands of Boys I knew there were sure to be some that were homosexual but didn't want to admit it openly. One of OJ's gay friends came around our house as part of the normal herd of kids that seem to be here a lot of the time. He is a real nice kid, he beat me in a game of chess. He does seem to "Camp it up" a bit when there is a crowd. I don't know if he really is homosexual or not, I don't know him well enough to know if he is really sure himself?

I worked for the BBC for a number of years and there was a lot of homosexual men working there. They for the most part didn't wear their sexuality on their sleeve. I used to go for a drink with a few of them and was asked a few times if I was "Interested" I wasn't "interested" and that was the end of it. I don't know what I would say if a young Lad of OJ's age came to me and said he was thinking that he was that way inclined? If it had anything to do with Scouts, I would meet with his parents and explain the BSA policy. I kinda think I am too old or to set in my ways to accept this as being normal.

While OJ's pal and I were playing chess (This Lad is not in Scouts) I made sure that we didn't get close to talking about him being or thinking that he is homosexual. I don't know how to address this. Maybe in 259 years it might be more acceptable, but it will never be normal.

Maybe in 259 years we will know for certain if homosexuality is a choice? Or if there really is something that really does cause people to be that way? Who knows maybe in 259 years parents will be able to choose if they want to change the traits of the baby they are having by just filling out the form.

But as things are today we have green socks with red tops, and no avowed homosexuals in the BSA.

The Lautrec Restaurant at Nemacolin Woodlands offers a Chefs ten course tasting menu with wine pairings for $150.00 per person. It really is an outstanding night out.The regular menu is also very good. The menu changes by the season and main dishes change daily on Saturday they have tuna on the Hors D'oeuvers menu:

Bluefin Tuna Tartare

Cucumber "Water", Lemon Oil, Sea Salt, Sweet Soy, California Avocado

sixteen

The veal is outstanding:Naturally Fed Veal Tenderloin

Caramelized Sweetbreads, Banyuls Vinaigrette,

Pommes "Dauphinoise", Morels, Fall Vegetables

forty

Eamonn.

[busylady]

Oh, boy, sometimes I question my sanity . . .

 

But, noone seems to have addressed this one.

 

For many of us, Judeo-Christian scripture categorizes homosexuality as sin.

 

However, Scripture also states that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." So, we're all in the same boat together. Read a little further, and one sin isn't "less" or "more" than another sin--it's all sin, period.

 

The homosexuals I know completely reject the idea that I can love the person that Scripture calls a "sinner" and hate the sin, but that's what it (from my viewpoint) tells me to do. They complete miss the point that I am a sinner, too.

 

To me, the BSA call to "duty to God" (meaning earnestness in prayer, study of Scripture, confession of sin, and effort to "sin no more") is linked to the policy excluding practicing homosexuals through the Judeo-Christian heritage. Though other faiths have existed for years, we need to remember that Scouting grew out of the hotbed of English Christianity (Eamonn's post already describes that history of lack of civility among believers).

 

We aren't the first organization that has been sued over this issue of faith and sexuality--the Christian Science Monitor was sued by some gay employees. The CSM made the case that since they were a faith-based organization, they had the obligation to hire employees who were earnest in practicing their faith in all respects. The Christian Science Monitor won.

 

I don't question the need for dissent--it's healthy and necessary. But, I'm a "customer" that takes my "tuna" very seriously and asks any organization that is training my son and Venturing daughter to do the same. This is not brainwashing--this is providing a firm foundation upon which to lead a principled life.

 

We need to realize this is not a closed forum, that any parent can find us to find out what is happening in the ranks, as one writer has already attested in this thread. I learned a long time ago that the policy the organization promotes in their literature is not necessarily the way "real life" works out in the trenches. And, despite my wish to think I'm in the only one who thinks the way I do , I know I'm not alone in thinking this way and therefore searching out forums such as these.

 

So, I would plead gently for civilized discourse, and respect for my views as a Christian without the homophobe label. I have no fear of homosexuals, but I am taught by Scripture not to condone sin, either.

 

Here's hoping that my voice communicates but is gentle around the fire . . .

[Prairie_Scouter]

Eamonn,

Well, lets see, Scouting in the U.S. is almost 100 years old, so I guess that means I've got about 159 years to wait :-). Maybe my great, great, great, great grandchildren will witness the change.

 

This is a great topic for discussion, but honestly, in the "real world" of Scouting, I spend most of my time trying to remember if I've got the tour permit turned in for my next outing (which reminds me......). The gay issue really doesn't come up in everyday work on Scouting (which we all know is 1 hour per week :-); I've figured what they really meant is "1 hour per Scout per week"). I've talked about it exactly 2 times with the adult leaders in the past, oh, 7 years, and that was at the prompting of another leader. I've never had a Scout bring it up. Nonetheless, I think the policy harms Scouting, although I know that many in the Scouting community don't agree, which makes it an interesting discussion topic.

 

In answer to your question about what I'd say if a Scout asked me why BSA doesn't allow gays, I've thought about this quite a bit. I would tell them what the BSA policy was and what the BSA's rationale is behind that policy. Period. I consider a discussion on the "goodness or badness" of gays to be a discussion largely on religious beliefs, and I'd no more tell them whether they should be positive or negative on gays than I would tell them what I think about their other religious beliefs. We had a conservative Christian Scout in our Troop a couple of years ago who took the opportunity of a Court of Honor to start telling the other Scouts that they were in the wrong religion. I stopped that immediately and told both him and his parents that that had no place in a Scouting environment. It's one thing for the adults to kibitz about these kinds of topics and/or take action on their own, but I don't think it's something that anyone on either side of the issue should be doing "missionary work" with the Scouts. They're smart kids, they'll establish their own opinions, and don't need my help to do that.

 

I agree with you that gays seem to be very popular for inclusion in TV these days. I don't think it has anything to do with diversity; I think the TV moguls see a chance to make some money and are jumping on it. I think it's balanced off pretty well with shows on the Discovery Channel like American Chopper (a personal favorite of mine and decidedly "not gay").

 

Boy, you have found some great places to eat, haven't you? I grew up in a neighborhood where having a fancy meal meant getting curly fries :-)

 

Do you ever sleep? I just noticed the time on your last post. 2AM?!?! :-)

[Eagledad]

>>So, I would plead gently for civilized discourse, and respect for my views as a Christian without the homophobe label. I have no fear of homosexuals, but I am taught by Scripture not to condone sin, either.

[Hunt]

I think what Prairie said--that it would be a difficult transition if gay scouts were admitted--is a fair point. This would be particularly true if units/COs that did not want gays were forced to accept them if they wanted to retain their charters. While it's antithetical to the whole ethos of scouting, there is already bullying in units, and there would probably be some over this as well.

But realistically, if BSA were to make a change, it would be to allow for "local option," and only a subset of COs would allow gay leaders and scouts--these would, presumably, be COs that would be more welcoming anyway. On the other side, these would also be COs that would be more prepared to deal with the issues of tent-sharing and the like.

I also agree with busylady that it's unfair to label someone as a "homophobe" (or a bigot) simply because they believe homosexual behavior is a sin. That's just a handy way of labelling somebody who doesn't agree with you.

But I do think that we need to examine our motivations when we start ranking sins. Thus, for example, I am not aware that BSA will revoke your membership if they learn that you are engaging in a sexual relationship with a person of the opposite sex to whom you are not married. Certainly, they will not revoke your membership for drinking alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, lending money at interest, blaspheming, and on and on. Is there any immoral but legal behavior other than homosexual behavior for which you will get your membership revoked?

[Prairie_Scouter]

EagleDad,

I would, of course, never condone any sort of religious persecution in Scouting or outside Scouting. Not sure how you could read my post that way, but I apologize if that was inferred by something I said.

 

However, I didn't say it was "likely" that gays would be bullied by the other Scouts, only that if we're going to be concerned about gays doing "something" if they were tenting with other boys, it's only fair to be concerned about the reaction of the other Scouts to having a gay Scout in their midst. We all aim to make our units a "safe harbor", but it doesn't always work that way. That doesn't mean we don't expect it, and make every effort to make it reality.

 

Please don't make assumptions about my opinions of the overall Scout program or my expectations for the program based on my comments on one isolated issue. I've said on several occasions that the program for the local units is the best around, bar none. You can have a good program by just opening the guidebooks and using them. Becoming an excellent program is more about the quality and dedication of the leaders and their ability to interact with the Scouts.

[packsaddle]

Even in disagreement, I thank busylady for her thoughtful message. I think I understand your view.

[packsaddle]

Even in disagreement, I thank busylady for her thoughtful message. I think I understand your view.

[busylady]

Barry, thanks for the heartwarmer, and Good Scouting!! I am more and more convinced that safety for our teens boils down to finding someplace they belong, and finding adults who care. (And bless your executive for acknowledging your efforts.)

 

I understand that oftentimes isn't the reality, Prairie Scouter, but as one of my professors used to say, "If you don't set a goal, you're bound to hit it." (I'm off to set a few tonight--hopefully no pie in the sky.)

 

Hmmm. Hunt, I think I understand you to say that BSA is the one doing the "ranking" of sins, and not me . . . to reiterate from my previous post:

 

"[. . .] Scripture also states that "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." So, we're all in the same boat together. Read a little further, and one sin isn't "less" or "more" than another sin--it's all sin, period."

 

As a CC, I know all too well (from recent bitter experience) that immoral but legal behavior of any troop staff will certainly and swiftly be called into question. As much as this may be a BSA decision, it more often is first and foremost a local one, too.

 

Some parents may think that those teaching their children must be more "moral" than they are, and model a higher level of virtue, somehow. (These will be the ones that ring your phone at the first hint of impropriety, alleged or otherwise.) It unfortunately falls to me sometimes to remind them that we all have feet of clay sometimes, and that forgiveness is a virtue. It is a difficult truth that as parents we model as much to our children as those that surround them, and if we are doing our job as parents properly, even more.

 

That's not to say that we shouldn't invest time and energy to find the most experienced, practical, and thoughtful troop staff that we can, or to listen to parental complaints. Just I would never accept an active alcoholic as a leader (can you say "safety issue"?), I couldn't by BSA policy accept a homosexual leader. I am not judging, but as Eamonn has pointed out, BSA has established a policy that by accepting a troop position I am honor-bound to uphold.

 

Sounds like I'm passing the buck, but these distinctions certainly had my consideration before I signed my application. As my DE is fond of reminding me, my place here is a privilege and not a right--a privilege I need to take seriously.

 

Troop Committee is meeting in 1/2 hour, so as I write I'm a bit distracted. Hope this makes sense . . .

 

Good campfire, and thanks for understanding the distinction between a Christian and a homophobe. If you really are one, there is no place for the other.

 

Peace,

 

Busylady