Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[Hunt]

"As far as the good role model thing, I know lots of heterosexual adults that wouldn't make good role models, for lots of different reasons. But unless I'm expecting a leader to role model heterosexual behavior (NOT!), I see an essential disconnect between a person's sexual orientation and their ability to model behaviors that would be appropriate in the scouting setting. See, this is where the discussion breaks down. I ask for an example (other than their sexual orientation) of what behavior a homosexual leader can not role model in the scouting setting. And I am never given an answer that fulfills the caveat because the opposing side can't get past the sexual orientation thing. "They can't role model morality", you say. But why? Name one aspect of "moral behavior" other than who they love that they cannot adequately role model for a scout? Do they not treat others with respect? Do they not serve their community? Do they not engage in charity? Do they not go to church and show reverence? Are they not honest and trustworthy? What exactly is it that they can't do?"

 

It's not about what they CAN'T model, but about what they DO model. Imagine that Scoutmaster Goodguy is an all-around great guy, except that he lives with a woman to whom he is not married. Is he a good role model for my child? Clearly, it helps if he never dicusses his marital status in front of the boys, but in the real world this is likely to become known. Thus, he's modeling a behavior of which I disapprove. Whether I will pull my kid out of his unit depends on several factors, including how bad I think the behavior is, how much it's likely to directly influence my child, and how impressionable I think my child is with respect to this leader. While nobody is perfect, I would prefer for the people having powerful influences on my kids' lives to to meet pretty high standards. What my standards are might not be the same as somebody else's, of course, but I wouldn't fault somebody for feeling that way. If a Southern Baptist wants a Scoutmaster to be a man who doesn't drink, smoke, or cuss, I think that's understandable.

[DanKroh]

Well, Hunt, first let me say thank you for using a different example of what you consider an innapropriate role model.

 

However, I am struck by this phrase: "Whether I will pull my kid out of his unit depends on several factors..."

 

So, even though the SM is leading an immoral lifestyle (and therefore, by definition, not a good role model/leader), you would not automatically pull your kid from his unit. Interesting. Would you give the same consideration to a gay SM?

 

"If a Southern Baptist wants a Scoutmaster to be a man who doesn't drink, smoke, or cuss, I think that's understandable." Yes, exactly. And if a Unitarian Universalist thinks there's nothing wrong with a gay SM, shouldn't that be understandable, too?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[funscout]

If my son's troop had a scoutmaster who was not married, but living with his girlfriend, then I would privately ask him to consider whether his lifestyle was morally straight. I would ask him to consider whether he was being a good BSA role model for the boys. I would not be rude about this, but would hope he would come up with the appropriate response. If he was unwilling to change his living arrangements or to step down as Scoutmaster, then I would talk to the DE and the COR. If the situation was still unresolved, then I would talk to my son about why we could not stay in the troop. I know of other families who would feel the same way as my family.

[SaintCad]

"If my son's troop had a scoutmaster who was not married, but living with his girlfriend, then I would privately ask him to consider whether his lifestyle was morally straight."

 

Exactly my point. I'm a Den Leader but I am also divorced. Some would consider that to be immoral and therefore consider me a poor role-model. BUT, I am and your hypothetical SM can still be scouters - why the difference with homosexuals?

[evmori]

Wow! Another hasty generalization from Ed. Not everyone is hypocritical about opening up discussion about homosexuality.

 

I never said everyone was. The generalization is yours. I write in one language & you read in another.

 

What is hypocritical is that you don't want BSA promoting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle to YOUR son but it's OK for BSA to demonize homosexuality to MY son.

 

Huh? What's hypocritical about that? It's the same thing!

 

Show me one society where homosexuality is considered moral and normal.

 

Waiting for a queen on the river!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

I love a challenge, Google the word "Berdache"

[evmori]

OK. So that proves .....................................?????

[OldGreyEagle]

Ed you posted

 

"Show me one society where homosexuality is considered moral and normal."

 

and I gave you a term that describes a Native American homosexual. I reviewed quite a few sites and saw where the native American's held no contempt for members of their tribe that were attracted to the same sex and in some cultures were held in high regard. Now, I admit most of the sites I visited were Gay Rights sites or leaned towards gay Rights so I am open to seeing any material presenting an alternative view such as homosexual native americans were shunned by their tribes.

[GernBlansten]

From Little Big Man:

 

Little Horse: [a obviously homosexual Indian approaches Jack] Little Big Man! You have returned. Don't you remember me? That hurts me deep in my heart.

Jack Crabb: [voiceover] It was Little Horse; the boy who wouldn't go on the raid against the Pawnee. He had become a "heemanee" for which there ain't no English word. And he was a good one, too. The Human Beings thought a lot of him.

 

[funscout]

When I looked up berdache, I found one website that said these men were revered, and sometimes taken as "wives" by other men. It did not say whether they were taken sexually, or just used as cook/maid/etc.

 

Other websites talked about the reverence bestowed on these men who were a "bridge" between male and females. They said nothing about these men being attracted to other men.

 

I'm not sure where you found that this meant that a berdache was gay. Perhaps the gay rights websites are interpretting this the way they want to see it.

[evmori]

OK. So this statement from a Google search

 

The older term "berdache" is a generic term used primarily by anthropologists, and is frequently rejected as inappropriate and offensive by Native Americans.

 

doesn't back up your claim that Native Americans considered "berdache' normal.

 

OGE,

Do you consider homosexuality normal?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle]

Ed, I give up, you are of course correct

 

 

[Trevorum]

As an anthropologist, I can assure you that the early ethnological literature contains many references to persons of mixed gender roles. The word "berdache" was borrowed from the French, and if I recall correctly has been rejected my the modern Native American community because of it's originally offensive connotations. Nonetheless, as popularized in "Little Big Man", there was indeed a "third gender" in many (not all) Native American societies. These persons were generally accepted for who they were (and were not) with little institutionalized discrimination. Often, these persons were considered holy in some way.

 

Coincidentally, in modern India, the third sex is referred to as "hijra" or "aruvani" and often fulfills an important cermonial function.

 

I should point out that historians also agree that homosexuality was accepted, and even promoted, in ancient Greece. The strong bonds between men resulting from homosexual love were especially appreciated in the military. Alexander the Great is widely presumed by historians to be homosexual, although proof positive is impossible at this distance in history.

 

Many cultures traditionally have accepted homosexuality without prejudice. Notably, these societies were predominantly non-agrarian and pre-industrial. Prejudice against homosexuals is most common in agrarian cultures and state-level societies. As religions that developed in an agrarian and state-level society, Christianity and Islam are predictably rigid in their definition of gender roles. As these powerful religions spread across the globe, their view of homosexuality has replaced that of many of the traditional societies with which they have come into contact. Today, the belief that homosexuality is aberrant is dominant among western societies.

 

 

 

 

[Hunt]

Responding to DanKroh--

 

"Well, Hunt, first let me say thank you for using a different example of what you consider an innapropriate role model."

 

I think we need to do this sometimes in order to step back and think through these issues with a bit less passion.

 

"However, I am struck by this phrase: "Whether I will pull my kid out of his unit depends on several factors..." So, even though the SM is leading an immoral lifestyle (and therefore, by definition, not a good role model/leader), you would not automatically pull your kid from his unit. Interesting. Would you give the same consideration to a gay SM?"

 

Well, I would have a sliding scale of lifestyles. There are certain lifestyles that I think are so bad that wouldn't want my child in the unit with such a leader, no matter how quiet he kept it. Illegal drug use would be a good example. There are other things of which I disapprove, but which I don't consider a big enough deal to pull out my kid. An example would be a leader who enjoys legal gambling. As long as he doesn't get the boys involved in gambling and doesn't talk about it too much, I wouldn't pull my boy out. I probably would apply the same factors to a SM who was living in a relationship of which I disapproved, but for many people that would obviously be at the far end of the scale.

 

""If a Southern Baptist wants a Scoutmaster to be a man who doesn't drink, smoke, or cuss, I think that's understandable." Yes, exactly. And if a Unitarian Universalist thinks there's nothing wrong with a gay SM, shouldn't that be understandable, too?"

 

Well, sure. It might also be understandable if a spinter church in Utah thinks there's nothing wrong with polygamists. Despite that, BSA itself has to draw some lines with respect to what it will accept. I think most of us probably support BSA's rejection of people with criminal records--but do you think BSA should reject anybody with a speeding ticket? A decades-old tax violation? BSA has to draw the line someplace--and I think it's reasonable for BSA to decide that certain people shouldn't be leaders, even if what they are doing isn't illegal. The problem with the gay issue is that BSA has drawn such a bright line, without drawing many other bright lines for immoral but legal behaviors. To go back to my example, BSA might in fact kick out a leader living with a person of the opposite sex outside marriage, but this isn't set out as a rigid rule. It leaves reasonable people wondering why for so many things the line-drawing is (apparently) left to the CO, but in this case it isn't.

[ohadam]

When I was in law school a professor of constitutional law said something I took to heart: "Civil discussion is the hallmark and sine qua non (without which, not) of American society. The importance of a party's position on an issue under discussion is always secondary to the importance of the discussion itself."

 

He demanded civility.

 

I try to remember that when engaged in a discussion with a person who disagrees with me (and is therefore wrong--lol!). So I try not to use words that carry pejorative connotations, even if the strict meaning of the word would apply (e.g., the always-tempting "ignorant," which strictly means "without knowledge," but connotes worse) because the other party cannot quickly tell whether the strict meaning or broad connotation is intended. I failed to follow my normal practice when I said fear of the risk presented by homosexuals is homophobia by definition. I meant it only strictly, responding to the (illogical, I thought) statement that "even the least homophobic" individuals fear (or abhor) the risk presented by homosexual leaders.

 

The word bigotry is similar. It is a fine old word meaning unbending adherence to personal views. But because it now connotes worse, I fear the word can no longer be used in civil discussion.

 

Let us remember that we are serving the discussion, here, not the issue.

 

And let us fore-think what we will lose if we close off discussion.

 

And if we find some views expressed here to be reprehensible, and some people to be abusive or of bad faith, let us remember we can take our business elsewhere, and in the meantime do our part by speaking with honesty and reason.

 

(Which we've done pretty well, I think.)(This message has been edited by ohadam)