What about gay parents?

[tjhammer]

For the record (again, and again, and again), I LOVE what Scouting teaches, and so does nearly everyone on this forum. Many of us just believe BSA's dead wrong on this issue, and while we support Rooster and his CO to determine the moral fitness within their unit, we also support every Scouting parent and CO to do the same.

 

For you to suggest this specific rule "exist to define what the BSA movement represents" is a complete bastardization of Scouting's purpose, in my view. It separates us from our founding principles more than connecting us.

 

=========

 

BW, again 80% of your post is red herring. Enough already... we all understand and AGREE that the BSA has a right to set its own rules of association. No one is debating that.

 

To hide behind "it's the rules, we're just enforcing the rules of membership" also deliberately avoids the point in its entirety. This debate is NOT about what the membership rules are, it's about the underlying issue of whether that membership rule is right or wrong and should be forced on all parents.

 

>>The whole idea behind the freesom of association is to allow groups of people with similar interest to associate without interference.

 

Yes, and those "groups of people with similar interests" should be parents, at the local level, where every other decision of moral fitness is made.

 

 

We're not talking about a girl, a four year old, an army veteran or any other silly example of "not eligible" you can come up with. We're also not talking about Rooster's favorite slippery slope, pedophiles.

 

We're talking about a boy, who for one reason -- and one reason only -- was rejected by "us" - because as he came of age, he discovered he was gay, and he chose to not be ashamed of that fact in every aspect of his life (away from Scouting).

 

"We" decided to reject him because the majority of OUR churches and COs disagree with HIS church (also a CO though more expendable in BSA's view). BSA violated its own Declaration of Religious Principles to be "absolutely non-sectarian" by picking and preferring the beliefs of one "owner/religion" over another.

 

>>To say that the rule is saying that the the person is "unworthy" is simply a tool you and some others use to feign martyrdom.

 

More nuance and double speak, just to try to make us feel better about ourselves. That's not your "intended" message, you say? If a 14-year-old kid "hears" "unworthy" in your message, it's in his mind and his problem?

 

Would you be more comfortable with "undesirable"?

 

How about going completely innocuous and simply saying "unqualified"? Would that make you feel better standing face-to-face with a boy and saying "Son, I know you've been with our group since you were 8, but I heard through the grapevine that you've acknowledged you're gay. Suddenly, you're just unqualified to be amongst us."

 

That might be an easier message for you to deliver, but do you think there's much difference in the adjectives for this boy? Do you think this boy is going to walk away from that conversation "hearing" unqualified? undesirable? unworthy?

 

All that boy is going to know is that the BSA carved out a special national policy explicitly to label him, and it doesn't care what his parents, troop leaders or church has to say about the matter.

 

More likely, he's going to struggle with prejudice elsewhere too, but Scouting may be "the unkindest cut of all". Et Tu, Boy Scouts? (Maybe it would be better to go back to thinking this policy "doesn't affect youth at all" (present company excluded, of course)?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[evmori]

I'm stuck on the caution of John 8:11.

 

This is the last verse in the account of the woman who committed adultery & was about to be stoned. Jesus tells her He doesn't condemn her then tells her to leave her life of sin.

 

Where's the caution?

 

I understand this as Jesus forgiving her for her sin & telling her to sin no more.

 

Where's the caution?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Matt, TJ, all the necessary histrionics aside, but what are you doing to change the BSA policy? It may be fun to listen to people on the forum, but I think you only find here what we all expect. Some Pro, some Con, some ambivalent, but I doubt you will change anyone's opinion.

 

So, what is the goal?

 

 

[packsaddle]

The views on this issue are not likely to be easily changed, so just a few observations. I have known gay parents to be as loving and nurturing as any other parents.

And while someone asserted that the term 'parent' is in question in this case, any adoptive parents are subject to that criticism. It has more to do with care and responsibility than it does with gametes.

 

This troop does not exclude gay parents, avowed or otherwise, from activities. If a gay parent, avowed or otherwise, signed the application then I would raise no objection to their membership. For that matter I would also view the application by a gay non-parent in a similar way. I suspect that I am not alone.

 

Matt, I agree with your feelings on harming children. It continues to elude me how bigoted people seem to think there is no connection between how a family is treated and how a member child is treated. I see the harm very clearly and it extends from BSA policy, at least in the way it is interpreted by some.

 

I do take small issue with one assertion. In the past couple of years I have met hundreds of young persons or all kinds who have, in various ways, threatened their own lives. Such a decision can be rationalized in many ways and they can claim their actions originated from many influences but in all the cases I met, the decision itself came from within, not without.

 

TJ, as I have mentioned in the past, things are changing for the better. They may not be changing quickly but I see it. However, the gom jabar is always going to be there in some form. I'll stand with you and Matt in fighting it.

 

As for the last post by OGE, sometimes the best way to change things is similar to the best way to address an enemy... live well.

[Bob White]

Oops sorry, John 8:7

[Prairie_Scouter]

Matt and TJ,

 

There are always going to be those who are going to take the easy route by hiding behind the shield of "that's what the rules are". There are no end of historical references that can be made about people who were just "following the rules". And, to some extent, in history and in BSA, they are doing the "correct" thing; the question is whether they are doing the "right" thing.

 

Matt and TJ, remember that those who oppose you in these forums are mostly well-intended people who's beliefs on gays is based in their religious views. They believe their "Good Book" directs them certain ways, and that is not easily changed. I don't believe that there's any argument that you can make that will change their minds because their opinions in this matter are based on their belief system, and not something where you can point to "evidence" that can be refuted.

 

So, the issue here isn't changing the minds of the many members of BSA, and this forum, who believe that gays aren't appropriate in Scouting. The issue is, what do you/we do about it? As I've said before, gays aren't disallowed from BSA because of some well-defined ruleset; it's a policy seemingly based on interpretation of some phrases in the Scout Oath and Law. As such, it's open to re-interpretation at some point. But, the deck is stacked against us at this point. Working within BSA is the route I've chosen. But, you have to be discrete about how you approach this when working from within, because as soon as you become more public in your views, BSA can toss you out, and has, in some cases. This is not a very open-minded organization when it comes to issues like this. And that, to my way of thinking, is BSA's loss. They are marginalizing themselves at a time when they could be doing tremendous good by being more open. My own view of B-P's writings is that he would have applauded an open BSA, but that's just my view.

 

My sons really enjoy Scouting. We try hard to keep religious ideology out of our time spent there. But, as a leader, I struggle with this all the time, and wonder how long I can quietly work from within in the face of what appears to be overwhelming odds. There are days when I'd like to take the advice of people who, opposing my views on Scouting, say that I, and those who think like me, should just go away. But, I think Scouting is too important to do that. I'm sorry to say that at this point, I don't see much to stop BSA from continuing it's trip to irrelevency in the worldwide Scouting movement. There are those who think that that's just fine, but I find it very sad. We can do better.

[GernBlansten]

BW,

Your application of the membership rules and rights of BSA is spot on. However, your arguement, without modification, could legally justify exclusion of blacks from BSA. If BSA stated blacks where not fit to join, that same membership arguement holds water.

 

Imagine the outcry from society if BSA practiced such bigotry?

 

Just for the sake of arguement, lets say BSA had such a policy. If I as an adult leader, decided to attend a civil rights march or allow a black to marry my daughter, could I be expelled from the club?

 

Sounds like Matt was expelled not for praticing homosexual behaviour, but for starting a club that taught tolerance for homosexuals. He was celebate. He was no different than many other 14 year olds who don't practice sex. Yet he was expelled due to a label being applied to him.

 

If an avowed gay is to be expelled, should a dis-avowed gay be allowed to join? He is still gay, but is celebate (I assume thats what the antonym for avowed gay is). Is he now granted access to the greatest youth educational program in the US?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

tjhammer writes:

And its all those other kids - like the ones in Matt's troop who taunted and teased him under the knowing eye of their leaders - who get a not-so-subtle message from BSA that it's OK to think of gay kids as "less than the best kind of citizen" simply because they are gay.

 

Point of order; that's the message the BSA gives to atheists (via the DRP) - to gays, the message is that they can't be "morally straight" or "clean", according to their official statements in Dale v. BSA.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Bob White]

Gern,

As a private organization the BSA can revoke anyone's membership for any reason they want.

[evmori]

Thanks Bob. That makes more sense.

[Trevorum]

How about a parent who adamantly denies they are "homosexual" but openly admits to being "bisexual". Would this person qualify for BSA membership?

 

Is being labeled by a 3rd party enough to deny membership?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Prairie_Scouter writes:

Working within BSA is the route I've chosen. But, you have to be discrete about how you approach this when working from within, because as soon as you become more public in your views, BSA can toss you out, and has, in some cases. This is not a very open-minded organization when it comes to issues like this.

 

I've argued with Bill Nelson in rec.scouting.issues, and during one argument, he made statements along the lines of:

 

1) only members of the BSA should decide the membership policies of the BSA

2) all members of the BSA currently have to agree with the Declaration of Religious Principle (DRP)

 

I pointed out that this meant that the DRP could never change, due to the Catch-22 situation that any member proposing a change to the DRP obviously doesn't agree with it as written, and so immediately loses their membership - and, since they are no longer a member, they have no business deciding BSA membership policies...

[evmori]

1) only members of the BSA should decide the membership policies of the BSA

2) all members of the BSA currently have to agree with the Declaration of Religious Principle (DRP)

 

I pointed out that this meant that the DRP could never change, due to the Catch-22 situation that any member proposing a change to the DRP obviously doesn't agree with it as written, and so immediately loses their membership - and, since they are no longer a member, they have no business deciding BSA membership policies...

 

Change doesn't always mean disagreement.

 

It might be something should be added or deleted. Maybe there's a better way to state something. Maybe there's a typo.

 

Change doesn't always mean disagreement.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, anyone who wants to change the DRP obviously doesn't agree with it as written, so by the rigid, everyone-must-subscribe-to-the-DRP standard, anyone who wants to change it doesn't quite agree with it, so they've kicked themselves out, and their opinions on what it should be are ignored.

 

There are no typos in the DRP. A "better way to phrase" something, again, would mean the person proposing the change doesn't agree with it as written, and has excluded themselves. So the DRP can never change (as long as the rigid, everyone-must-subscribe-to-the-DRP standard exists).

[Prairie_Scouter]

Merlyn,

My guess would be that among the "suits" that run BSA, you aren't going to find folks who have opposing views.

 

The response from Bill Nelson to your comments is about what I'd expect; they are, I think, and unfortunately, only open to views to support what they already want to do.