So, What's so bad about being gay?

[Prairie_Scouter]

This question was prompted by an op-ed piece that appeared in the Chicago Tribune this past weekend. The opinion of the author was that the Bible has been used by many special interest groups to further their unique agendas by interpreting the Bible in ways that are favorable to their views.

 

This got me to thinking about Scouting. Scouting is supposed to be nonsectarian in its views. At least, I think that that's true. But, that will be our first question. Various definitions I've seen refer to nonsectarian as meaning "not pertaining to a single religious view' or "all-compassing" (this came from a thesaurus).

 

So, first, then, is the idea with Scouting really that they are non-sectarian in their views, or that the view of BSA is that Scouts can practice the religion of their choice, ie, the BSA is non-sectarian as to their view of what religion the Scouts may practice, but that BSA is free to be sectarian in its views in regards to policy? My understanding is that BSA is a non-sectarian organization, ie, the former view. True?

 

If that's true, the let me posit that the policy on gays in BSA should then be viewed in relation to the non-sectarian nature of the organization, ie, the policy on gays should be made without regard to any particular religious view on the matter. If that's true, then what would that policy be based on?

 

And, on a side note, if BSA believes that gays are really so bad for the organization, why would they adopt the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that I'm told is the current wisdom?

[Bob White]

What is it wrong to have a scouting program where a leaders sexual preferences are not an issue which could interfere with the delivery of the scouting program?

 

Why for a person with your years of experience in the scouting program have you never come to terms with this topic or investigtated it prior to now?

 

Why is it necessary to have another thread on this topic when it has been discussed so often on this forum already?

 

Why if you want to know why this condition exists do you not just write to the BSA executive committee that makes these decisions and ask them?

 

How will our answers improve your next troop meeting or outing? And isn't that your role and responsibility in scouting not determining national policies?

[OldGreyEagle]

Before this becomes a roller coaster of who is right, who is wrong and which side is the best, this is a Scouting Site and I implore all who post on this topic to keep in mind the Scout Law when posting.

[CA_Scouter]

I don't see anyone here 'determining national policies'. I see someone posing a question as a discussion topic, as a means of sharing ideas between peers. No one needs to be scolded for that...

 

Not everything I do with Scouts has to have a direct impact on my next troop meeting. Sometimes, discussing scouting philosophy and ideas with other Scout leaders across the forms is a form of recreation and relaxation. I enjoy communicating with people who are as excited about Scouting as I am, and by doing so, I gain knowledge and expertise that has a trickle-down effect to my troop. Its a good thing.

 

That being said, I also don't care for some of the topics that are posed on these forums, and so I choose to not participate in those threads. If you don't care for the subject matter, move on to the next thread. Simple as that.

 

 

So Prairie... my thinking is that the policy on gays in Scouting is more an issue of YP than it is related to a religious stance or view. Also, my experience has been that scouting families are a pretty convervative bunch, and that there is a lot of fear regarding homosexuality, so that is what drives the BSA policy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

Well, God did destroy two entire cities because of rampant homosexuality. And a Scout is to be morally straight. These are two excellent reasons not to allow homosexuals in Scouting.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[fgoodwin]

In my opinion, the Bible has nothing to do with BSA's position on gays -- that's a red-herring.

 

I think BSA's position is related more to youth proection and the pederasty-scandals of the last thirty years or so. And while I am well aware that the homosexual lobby draws a distinction between pederasts and homosexuals, the fact is, both involve same-sex intercourse, so as far as I'm concerned, a pederast is a homosexual, so its not a long way to get from one to the other.

 

In BSA, youth protection is paramount. Since pederasts are homosexuals, excluding homosexuals excludes pederasts. Now, the gay-lobby may not agree with that analysis, but the fact remains, BSA is free to set its membership standards as it wishes.

 

There is no Constitutional right for gay men to have sex with boys.

[Prairie_Scouter]

OGE,

Thanks for you comments. I agree, I didn't initiate this thread to start a flamewar. Just starting a discussion, and not a discussion of whether gays in Scouting is right or wrong. Simply a question of...if BSA is nonsectarian, should their policies be based on non-religious precepts, and if so, how do you form a policy on gays without invoking religious beliefs that are sectarian? That's all. I'll try to keep things on topic, but as long as people are polite, all comments are welcome.

 

CA,

Thanks. I imagine you might have been responding to something that Bob wrote, but I've turned off his comments, so I no longer see them. And I tend to agree with your assessment. I think that many WILL see this as a religious issue, but I think that the YP implications is equally important. As far as religion, people are going to believe what they believe. In the case of YP, it's at least possible to determine if there really is an objective danger.

 

evmori,

Thanks. So, if I'm reading you correctly, it sounds like from the perspective of a religious person such as you appear to be, the issue of gays doesn't need to have a nonsectarian view of policy, a religious view is fine. Do you see BSA as a religious organization rather than as a nonsectarian organization, then?

 

fgoodwin,

Thanks for your comments as well. I'm not sure that I'd agree that homosexuals = pederasts. Homosexuality involving consenting adults is one thing; Pederasts engage in child abuse, and, I would suppose, statutory rape, depending on how the laws are written, ie, do they include same-sex situations. I think that they are different. I agree that BSA is legally able to create their own policies on membership, but if you leave out the religious "arguments", is it possible to somehow measure the objective danger of having gays in Scouting and then formulate a policy based on that?

[evmori]

Prairie,

I see the BSA as a youth organization with a high moral standard.

 

Thanks for the complement!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[fgoodwin]

I didn't say homosexuals are pederasts; I said pederasts are homosexuals; i.e., I think pederasts are a subset of homosexuals.

 

But since pederasts obviously don't self-identify, the only way to keep them away from boys is to keep homosexuals out. And as a youth protection issue, I agree with that.

 

But of course, that's not the PC-thing to say, so BSA leans on the "morally-straight" approach, which I think gets them in more trouble.

[Bob White]

The BSA has specifically said this is not a YP situation, this is about stated values and how some can hinder the delivery of the scouting program. If this were a Youth Protection problem then the BSA would not bar only avowed homosexuals.

 

 

 

[Trevorum]

Prairie_Scouter asks, "So, What's so bad about being gay?"

 

Well, let's see. How about some of these reasons:

 

1) People assuming you are immoral, just because of the person you love.

2) Not being allowed to marry the person you love.

3) Getting stares of disgust in public from merely holding hands with the person you love.

4) Your parents disowning you or not talking to you because of the person you love.

5) Being called ugly names in school because of the person you love.

6) Having the cops treat you differently because of the person you love.

7) Being told by your religion that you are a sinner just because of the person you love.

8) Knowing that people are reluctant to shake hands with you just because of the person you love

9) Constantly being treated like an outsider because of the person you love.

10) Still having your straight friends treat you like a "token", just because of the person you love.

10) Having restaurant waiters refuse to serve you just because of the person you love.

10) Not being promoted in your career just because of the person you love.

10) Not being allowed to serve in your country's military just because of the person you love.

10) Not being allowed to join the BSA just because of the person you love.

10) ...

 

Other than those things, you mean? It makes me glad I was born a hetersosexual.

 

[kenk]

I agree 100% with Bob on this one.

 

Youth protection is there to protect the youth from any and all adults - regardless of their sexual persuasion or gender.

 

Homosexuality IS an immoral behavior.

 

I myself certainly don't "fear" homosexuals at all. I see homosexuality as something that is morally wrong - much like sexual relations between a human and an animal (bestiality), or between two closely related family members (incest). Not that I'm insinuating that a person who engages in homosexual behavior has a higher propensity toward bestiality or incest ... they are seperate behaviors.

 

While some could (not saying that they do) claim that these behaviors are genetically pre-disposed, I am firmly resolved that these behaviors are immoral.

 

I hold no ill-will toward people who practice homosexuality (between two adults) or incest (between two ADULTS). These actions, if done in privacy, clearly don't affect me. But these activities are still immoral.

 

I do hold ill-will toward people who practice bestiality, since the animal's fundamental rights are being violated. I do feel that all animals have some fundamental rights, including the right to "humane" treatment. (yes, I eat meat)

 

As evmori reminded us: "On my honor I will do my best...To keep myself...morally straight." Immoral behaviors have no place in Scouting.

[Kahuna]

BW is correct that homosexuality is not a YP issue. I'm not sure but I believe most of the apprehended molesters in scouting have been married to someone of the opposite sex. IMHO, what it is about is that the BSA would lose a vast number of sponsoring organizations, including the entire LDS membership, and many parents would pull out of a program that allowed overtly gay people as leaders. I think it's just that simple.

 

As to stated values and morality, remember that not all religions regard homosexuality as morally wrong and not all people see it as a moral issue at all. If you see it as a moral issue, it is based upon your religious views, which under BSA's religious declarations may vary widely.

 

This is a complex issue. In it's simplest form, though, it seems to me best for the Scouts to not be confronted with any leaders sexual preferences, although if the leaders are married with kids, I guess something is implied. :-) On the other hand, if a leader is single, it doesn't have to necessarily mean anything.

[NJCubScouter]

I have posted on this very subject a number of times, though not so much lately I guess. There have been times when I thought of "announcing" that I wasn't going to post anymore at all, because I just do not have the time to keep up with everything that is said and respond. But instead I just post here and there when I can, and occasionally mention that just because I don't respond to the kinds of posts I used to respond to, doesn't mean I have changed my mind.

 

So my response to Prairie Scouter is, one, the BSA does claim (in the Declaration of Religious Principles) to be "absolutely nonsectarian" in terms of religious beliefs, and also (in the explanation of "Reverent" in the Scout Handbook) teaches "respect" for the beliefs of others, but two, absolutely fails to live up to those standards by enforcing the religious belief that homosexuality is immoral on those who do not share that belief, as a membership standard. And by "those who do not share that belief" I am primarly talking about straight people, not gay people. I do not believe homosexuality is necessarily immoral and I do not believe gay people should be excluded from among other things, the Boy Scouts. The BSA has the legal right to have this exclusive policy, but it is the wrong policy, as it violates the BSA's own Declaration of Religious Principles.

 

Now, my own belief on this issue (in contradiction to the anti-gay religious beliefs espoused by the BSA) are not really based on a particular religious belief. I just don't think people should be excluded from things unless there is a good reason to, and in this case there isn't. However, there do happen to be several religious denominations, movements, individual local churches, etc. that do have a religious belief that gay people should not be excluded. As I have said recently, these religions are treated like second or third class citizens in the BSA because while the BSA will accept the membership dues of their adherents, and in some (but not all) cases will "permit" them to charter units, at the same time the BSA is saying that one of their religious beliefs is wrong, because it has adopted the belief of other religions.

 

So, the BSA says it is "absolutely nonsectarian," but on this issue, that isn't true. The answer, of course, is local option. That will happen some day, but not anytime soon.

 

[Fuzzy Bear]

I don't know that I can figure this one out.

 

The BSA is not against homosexuality based on religious principle but it is against it based on moral principle. So we must rule out Sodom and Gomorrah, two cities that were filled with exceeding wickedness and with far greater problems than just homosexuality.

 

Psychologists and most legal opinions are generally not against homosexuality because it lacks a pathology or criminal intent. It has been several years since it was thought to be pathological so since it has also been cleared from legal restraints, someone must have cleaned their act up or it was decided that there was a misunderstanding.

 

It could be a moral precept or a superstition brought on by a sum of histories. We know it was neither an idea decided by a vote nor was it the results of a survey. It could be a rule based on political and economic expediency, as has been stated. So if we are to believe that the Homosexuality rule is not because it poses a danger and is not a Youth Protection issue, then it must be the results of something vague, subtle, without distinction, kind of a generalized fear.

 

As far as my kids go, wherever they go, whatever they do, I will be there to watch and to assist. I don't care who is in charge or what sexual choice the leader has made, either stated or made in private or what policy the BSA has, however they have determined it. There are no guarantees in this life and bad things will happen no matter how we try. I want to be there to minimize the impact. I love my children.

 

FB