So, What's so bad about being gay?

[Hunt]

Let's start by taking BSA at its word, that this is not a YP issue, but rather a moral issue. The question is whether it can be a moral issue without being a religious issue. In other words, does the mere fact that religions disagree about whether something is moral or not make a position on that issue "sectarian?"

 

At one extreme, I'd have to say "no." There is also cultural morality, which is not specifically (or at least not consciously) linked to religion. It's more of a consensus--informed by religion, certainly--but shared by people of many religions and of no religions. For example, if there is some small religion that says lying is OK, that doesn't mean that condemning lying as immoral suddenly became "sectarian." I'd say that's true for anything that a broad consensus of society recognizes as immoral--stealing, murdering, cruelty, etc.

 

At the other extreme, I think it's obvious to anybody that a group that declares, for example, that it's immoral to eat nonkosher food, or to miss confession, or to drink any alcohol, is probably doing so for sectarian reasons.

 

The problem comes when the cultural consensus is shifting. This is what is happening with the question of whether homosexuality is immoral or not. A hundred years ago, the idea that condemning homosexuality is "sectarian" would have been nonsensical to almost everybody. (But note that in 1850, you could have had the same conversation about slavery.)

 

So here's what I think: the decisionmakers in BSA believe that the cultural consensus on the immorality of homosexuality is still sufficiently strong that it is not a "sectarian" issue. Their view may be strengthened because they live in Texas, because they are from religious groups that feel strongly about it, or because their views were formed at a time when the consensus was in fact stronger. (On the flip side, your own view about how much the consensus has shifted may depend to some degree on where you live...the last election showed that it has not shifted as much as previously believed.)

 

So, BSA may eventually move to local option on this, when current decisionmakers are replaced by new ones with a different perception of which moral beliefs are culturally accepted and which are sectarian.

[Prairie_Scouter]

OGE,

You're absolutely right, neither major party is without fault these days. I thought of my comment and typed it, thinking it was kind of funny. The second line, after the smiley, was sort of a "but, you know...." ironical kind of statement. But, you're right, I've been trying to manage the discussion as best I could to keep it on track, and then went and threw something in there myself. As my daughter would say, "my bad".

 

I should edit that out. Never tried that before; think I'll give it a try

[Prairie_Scouter]

OGE,

Way OT, but am I as a typical user allowed to edit my posts? I can't find anything in the FAQ about editing. Can you point me the right way? Help!?

[Prairie_Scouter]

Thanks, Hunt.

 

A great post, and I think you're on to something there in regards to the local opinions differing. There's an old saying that "all politics are local". So, it's quite possible, people in deeply conservative states may think that the BSA's "don't ask, don't tell" policy may be just awful, the middling states might think it's just fine, and the decidedly liberal states may think that it doesn't go nearly far enough. That's a very interesting thought and one that might lead people to have differing views on what might be considered sectarian or not. As I said earlier, one of the challenges, possibly, of being the "Boy Scouts of AMERICA".

[acco40]

And like politicians, the BSA looks at their constituents. Now how do you think the largest constituent bases in the BSA views homosexuality?

 

That my friend, is what influences the BSA policy. Money talks, BS walks.

[evmori]

We are trying to answer "So, What's so bad about being gay?"

 

I propose we answer with "So, What's so good about being gay?"

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[DugNevius]

Cubmaster: Interesting comments. "I've always seen this issue this way:

 

I wouldn't let a heterosexual male take my daughter camping (youth protection rules aside for the moment) because he is naturally attracted to females.

 

I would also not allow a homosexual male to take my son camping because he is naturally (that is what I think anyway) attracted to other males.

 

Neither scenario to me is appropriate because of the sexual attraction issue. Just remove the temptation and keep everyone safe"

 

But it raises a few questions.

 

First, if you are in the company of a young girl 10-17 are you unable to not have sex with her or are you uncontrolably forced to have sex with her givin the chance? If no, then why do you assume that homosexuals can not resist and would jump on the chance? If Yes, then... well, you know the whole slew of issues there.

 

Second, do you allow you children to be taught in school by a teacher of the opposite sex, or coached for a sport by a coach of the opposite sex, babysat by a babysitter of the opposite sex or play at the home of a single parent of the opposite sex?

 

If you say yes one could say you are being a bit hypocritical. If you say no one could say you are being a bit paranoid.

 

You are aware that all these senarios are possibilities of sexual abuse and have been in the past. A child is as likely to be sexually abused by heterosexuals as he or she is by homosexuals and with the BSA YP in effect, MORE likely in the above mentioned senarios then on a camping trip.

 

So, you cant really put aside the Youth Protection progam and then make a case against homosexuals on BSA camping trips, because, going along with the guidlines, adults, whether hetero or homo, dont sleep or shower or go off alone at any time with the youth. Therefore, the YP really does make your premises moot, dont they?

[fgoodwin]

DN: CM's scenarios are not moot -- they are very relevant. OTOH, your scenarios are moot and irrelevant, for one reason: NAMBLA.

 

I don't see teachers, coaches or babysitters organizing in an effort to seduce teen-age boys. But homosexual, pederast men are doing just that; that's the whole reason for NAMBLA's existence.

 

The nay-sayers can scream all they want that "pederast" "homosexual" but the plain fact is, all the pederasts on the NAMBLA webpage identify themselves as homosexuals, so I would say that "testimony" is a bit more credible than that of the nay-sayers.(This message has been edited by fgoodwin)

[packsaddle]

Cajuncody, we had a female gym teacher who used to check on us BOYS in the locker room. So we showed her what a 'bank walker' is. Didn't faze her at all.

 

And although I can't vouch for Howard Dean's accuracy, I can tell you that the good people at the Baptist church down the road have been told by their minister that to associate with members of our church is to associate with Satan. H'mmm, I guess that makes us Demoncrats

[NJCubScouter]

Very good post, Hunt.

 

I see the thumbs are still there above the message thing, but I haven't voted in months. Does anyone still do that? (Not to hijack the thread or anything, but maybe this one needs it at this point. I think that most if not all of the usual suspects have already been heard from, so now we just go aroundandaround in the usual big circle for 4 or 5 more pages. But that's part of the charm of this forum, I suppose.)

[packsaddle]

Hunt, I think I agree with your initial point. Given the realities of todays sects, a moral judgement on this is probably going to have a sectarian element to it.

 

However, I think that the nonsectarian Church of Moral Thermodynamics might conclude that since it is evolutionarily maladaptive, it could be considered immoral (see, Ed, there's something you can like about evolution).

 

But that does not account for inclusive fitness or other, even less-quantifiable benefits. So after reconsideration, it would probably equivocate. And besides, who's business is it anyway?

[DugNevius]

Oh come on Fgoodwin, what percent of homosexuals are either members of NAMBLA or agree with them? No more then the percent of heterosexuals who either partake in or fantasize about having sex with young girls. Also, there are PLENTY of teachers, coaches, babysitters and parents that have abused children of the opposite sex, in fact, just last week here in NYC 2 or 3 teachers were busted for engaging in sexual relationships with students and were pregnant, from the same school district. To use NAMBLA as a representative group would be like saying NYC public school teachers were rapists and pedophiles.

 

But EVEN SO, whether a heterosexual male, a homosexual male or a member of NAMBLA, adults dont sleep shower or allow themselves to be alone with the youth. The purpose for this is for the protection of Adults against fraudulent complaints of abuse and to protect the youth from abuse. When enforced a homosexual, whether he was part of the distinct minority of homosexuals that like young boys or NOT, would not have the chance to abuse, rendering CMs points moot.

 

[ehcalum]

Ed:

 

What is good about being gay you ask.

From observations and talking to some friends who are gay (both make and female)heres what I got:

 

1. They tend to have better outlook on life

2. Tend to be more friendly to all people

3. They have their own clubs where they feel belong and hang out with peers

4. They accept who they are and accept people for who they are and put difference behind them.

5. They are gay in the true sense of the word:Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.

 

[DugNevius]

6. Great fashion sense.

 

haha

[Fuzzy Bear]

As far as whom the BSA lets in and does not let in is their business, as far as who is attracted to whom once they get in is a different story. Youth Protection means that what ever happens should best be done within sight of a second person. A good leader will have a third and a fourth and a fifth person to watch what happens. A better leader will question and keep the lines of communication open for anything else that is missed.

 

People that want to do the wrong things like it done out of sight and without verbalizations. Keeping a safe environment for Scouting should be our primary mission. It doesn't insure 100% effectiveness but those that want to do the bad things will seek out easier targets.

 

 

FB