"homosexual behavior is automatically disqualifying,"

[Eamonn]

Have to admit that this has never come up with any situation that I have ever been in.

It was stated that:

"If we can say that homosexual behavior is automatically disqualifying"

(The thread was about Eagle Scout rank)

I think that it was surmised that homosexual behavior didn't meet the morally straight part of the Scout oath.

I don't remember ever seeing this anywhere.

I would think that youth members shouldn't be having sex with anyone?

I'm also a little unsure what is meant by "homosexual behavior"?

I of course do know that adults who are avowed homosexuals are not allowed to serve as adult leaders.

I can't help wondering if a Lad who has casual sex with a girl is any less morally straight, than a Lad having sex with a boy?

I'm in no way suggesting that either is right.

Eamonn.

[scoutldr]

And there's the dichotomy. I sat an EBOR last year where the 17 yo scout was an unwed father, and "living in sin" with the girl under her parents' roof. One of the BOR members (a troop committeeman who until then was unaware of the situation) strongly objected (on "morally straight" grounds), and the Eagle was denied. The scout appealed to Council, a new district level EBOR was held and the Eagle was granted.

 

Apparently some sins are more "immoral" than others. In some cases, "boys will be boys" and in others it's "off with his head". No wonder today's kids are confused.

[Eamonn]

That might well be the case but it was stated that " homosexual behavior is automatically disqualifying"

I'd like to know where the BSA has this? as I've never seen it.

Eamonn

[packsaddle]

I will play the role of devil's advocate here (and Rooster7 would probably agree that I'm well-qualified).

I don't remember the context in which the subject statement was made, but I imagine it had to do with the national policy against membership by 'avowed' homosexuals. This kind of discussion often morphs into the argument of nature vs. nurture and sometimes those who agree with the BSA policy and who often reject the 'nature' argument, note that it is the 'behavior' that is wrong...their assumption is that it is a behavior of choice and they don't want to seem to be mean to someone who doesn't engage in the behavior, merely the feelings.

If this is the context of the subject statement, then what might have been meant was that persons who choose to engage in the homosexual lifestyle and whose thus chosen behavior is discovered will be ejected as leaders as soon as they are discovered.

This is the most plausible explanation I can think of.

I myself, in these threads, once was so accused and I believe the accuser has now reconsidered his thoughts.

I will now retract my horns and tail and return to my pretensions of being a mere mortal.

 

[epalmer84]

I'm sure this has been discussed here before, but the two best references are:

 

http://www.bsalegal.org/morally-straight-cases-225.asp

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_membership_controversies

 

Ed

[acco40]

One argument I don't see being brought up very often is this: The BSA states that "You should be faithful to your religious beliefs."

 

Now, I contend that a Scout whose religious beliefs are such that homosexual behavior in NOT immoral should be judged differently that a Scout whose religious beliefs are such that homosexual behavior is immoral.

 

Just like eating ham. Should my sons, who have no religious beliefs that prevent the eating of pork be judged the same as another Scout whose religious beliefs forbid the eating of pork (see Qur'an, Deuteronomy, Leviticus)? IMHO, no. Although the Scouts behaviour may be identical (i.e. eating a BLT on an outing) one would be following their religious beliefs (a good thing according to the BSA) and one would not ( a bad thing according to the BSA).

 

So, before we start condoning or judging Scouts and Scouters about their behaviors, should we not first inquire about their religious beliefs?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Eamonn]

Thank you epalmer84.

I had never read:

" Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position."

Eamonn.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

To be fair, the original quote was " If we can say that homosexual behavior is automtically disqualifying..." So, the original poster did not imply, or I didnt see it as an implication that it was BSA policy, only  "if we can say" which I took as a supposition, not a statement of BSA policy

[packsaddle]

Acco40, there are behaviors that violate, I think, the code for all belief systems. Lying or stealing are examples of this. Dishonesty in general is the kind of behavior that I think would be viewed as negative by everyone.

 

Religious dietary restrictions, on the other hand, are merely quaint traditions that may be based on nothing more than having done it that way for a long time. The practice, for example by certain orthodox Jews, of leaving a light on in order not to have to throw the switch (thus doing work on the Sabbath) is similar. To me it is mind-bogglingly idiotic as a religious expression but I don't get bent out of shape as long as I, myself, don't have to conform to their 'laws'. They are free to waste electricity if they want, in the name of their god. Of course, nevermind the very real 'work' being done by all those electrical appliances during that same time. Leviticus wasn't terribly clear about electrical appliances, I guess.

 

The dietary stuff may have arisen out of the need for best practices for public health. If so that is fine but things are different now. To have them codified into some mindless religious tradition? Why not, I guess, considering all the other weird stuff that comes to mind. I shudder to think what must course through the minds of my Jewish friends when they eat our traditional Italian Christmas Eve feast with 15 kinds of seafood (at least 3/4 shellfish) and a myriad of pastas. I'll stick with the Italians and the tradition of fine dining.

 

Speaking of which, the Pope is trying to 'mend fences' these days. He'd do well to focus some of his attention locally, though. Italy, with the greatest percentage of Catholics of any European country, has the lowest birth rate. Think about it - rhythm isn't one of their greatest talents. As for me, I think I'll have shrimp for supper.

 

[GernBlansten]

The Old Testament is chock full of morality rules that would be difficult to follow today. I've posted this before but this thread seems to need some guidebook to keep it on topic....

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

[Fuzzy Bear]

When I sit quietly on the side of a hill and look out upon the vast expanse of stars and consider the universes possible birth through an inflationary expansion that started from a mere supercooled Higgs field with random quantum jumps within 10 X 35 seconds and/or the relaxation to zero energy and pressure throughout all of space causing a repulsive force and the consequential enormous burst/bang that brought us from the smallest clumps of matter hurtling forward billions of years to fill the voids and to spawn life on the earth with the smallest of bacteria, dinosaurs, people, cultures, nations, armies, conquers, kings, democracies, and Britney Jean Spears and then I consider the sexual proclivities and sanctions of my fellow man; I find a kind of symmetry that I never expected. fb

[Trevorum]

Gern is mocking the beliefs of ancient Near-Eastern nomadic sherpherds!

 

Apostate heathen!

 

I suspect he also embraces the modern heresies of fossils, evolution, and heliocentrism.

[scoutldr]

Fuzzy, for the sin of committing a run-on sentence, I absolve thee and direct thee to do penance by saying three "On my honors" a day for 30 days and repeat English 101.

[packsaddle]

Hey! I thought it was beautiful!

[epalmer84]

Thanks Eamonn.

 

The BSALegal site presents information from the BSA POV of course, including the policies that have been codified in the wake of pressures including legal actions. I might note that BSALegal is run by Bork *for* the BSA. Bork specializes in legal communications.

 

While we can certainly debate the moral correctness of homosexuality and atheism, the policies presented are what we must deal with as leaders.

 

There are a few opinion pieces on BSALegal that rub me the Wrong way, but that's a personal opinion.

 

Ed