The Press and discriminatory story writing.

[tjhammer]

Keep 'em coming Ed.

 

Over the last decade, the age (and rate) in which gay people "come out of the closet" has dropped dramatically. When I was in high school, I couldn't relate to any gay people, and the prevailing prejudgment told me I was one of the worst kinds of people.

 

The church I attended, and the Scouting program I loved, both wanted nothing to do with me if I was gay (so I hid it). This didn't jive with what I knew in my heart to be true (that I didn't choose to be gay, and that I wasn't a bad person). But you can nonetheless imagine the internal conflict. The "closet" is a brutal place to put oneself, though in retrospect I can't accept all the blame for being in there.

 

The "closet" and all the conflict that causes can be too much for some people... I made it through relatively sane and healthy, but many don't. I've written before on this forum of one of my Scouting friends, driven to attempted suicide at 18 years old, before emerging from the closet and continuing on to be a great person (in no small part as a byproduct of his Scouting).

 

I think the "closet" also causes a lot of the stereotypical "lifestyle" that you believe is universal. In fact, this "lifestyle", and much of the "gay culture" is vanishing at an astonishing rate. Young people are far more open and accepting of gays than ever before. I'm only in my mid-thirties, but even I'm astounded at how different life is for a gay kid coming to grips with his sexual orientation today than just a few years ago.

 

And the more people who realize just how "normal" gay people really are, the less cause for the "closet" to even exist. The less "closet" time gay people spend, the more assimilated they are into the community... and more and more it's an end to the "lifestyle" you imagine.

 

 

 

>>why isn't homosexuality as prevalent as heterosexuality

 

Beats me... must have something to do with biology and God's plan for the species.

 

 

[theysawyoucomin']

Merlyn,

 

Because the safe rides program is run by a Venture crew, the crew is part of the BSA. The BSA contends that there are certain joining requirements that they hold dear.

 

Nothing forbids Sam the anti-theist from starting a ride program based on his love for his brother. His service would be just as valued.

 

Best of all, he would not be trying to change a widely respected organinzation to suit his beliefs. Beliefs which are contrary to one of the core beliefs of the organization and it's founder.**

 

 

 

Seems simple to me.

 

 

 

** "To be loyal to God means never to forget God but remember him in all that you do. If you never forget him you will never do anything wrong. If, you when you are doing something wrong , you remember God, you will stop doing it.

 

BP, written in 1938

[evmori]

skeptic writes:

So, if you do not believe in [a god], then why would you even entertain joining the BSA?

 

Hmm, how about if your school has a SafeRides program, and you're, say, an atheist teetotaler with a brother who was paralyzed by a drunk driver, and you want to volunteer to help prevent drunk driving accidents -- and then you find out the SafeRides program is a Venture Crew, and atheists can't join. Why should an atheist student NOT join the SafeRides program?

 

Then you find some other way to help! Everyone is not entitled to everything they want or want to do.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[tjhammer]

BrentAllen - I acknowledge your response, and agree it does no good for us to prejudge each other based on some stereotype.

 

I'm curious, though... I responded to YOUR WORDS... you claim to know something about my "lifestyle". How do you know about my values, home life, friends and the manner in which I spend my time? What do you believe those things to be, based on this predefined image of my "lifestyle" you have proffered?

 

[BrentAllen]

tjhammer,

I think you are assuming more than I am stating. By "lifestyle" I simply mean living in a physical sexual relationship with a member of the same sex.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

uz2bnowl, skeptic wanted to know why an atheist might want to join the Boy Scouts; I gave him/her a valid reason. The legal issues with the SafeRides program is in another thread, I was just giving an ordinary example of why an atheist might want to join a group, possibly not even being aware it's part of the BSA or that it excludes atheists.

 

Why do apparently intelligent people ask such questions? Do people not understand why black golfers might want to join a whites-only country club? Seriously, is this too hard for some people to understand? I'll start using shorter words if that's true.

[packsaddle]

Brent, perhaps I should have included the words, 'consenting adults'. I hope you knew that's what I meant.

But in case you offered your absurd hypothetical for serious consideration I respond that if the other person (of either sex) is an adult, a physical relationship with a 10-year-old (of either sex) is a crime in most localities. Isn't this true for yours?

If both persons are adults, then my answer to your first question obviously is, 'yes'. To the second one, 'no'.

[tjhammer]

BrentAllen - OK, thanks for narrowing down what you mean by "lifestyle". Funny, if someone asked me about BrentAllen's "lifestyle", I imagine Robin Leach narrating about your opulent house, fancy boat, love of fine dining and cadre or fiends.

 

So it's not who I love, my companion of the past seven years, or my household or my friends or my religious beliefs that bother you. What you're worried about is how I might advocate (flip charts?) how I PHYSICALLY spend a collective 45 minutes, during the most private and secluded moments of my week?

 

 

 

 

[evmori]

TJ,

You chose to be gay. Hence, the BSA doesn't want you to be a member of their organization. You decided to lie so you could be a member of the BSA. Now, let's forget you are gay & just go with you being a member under false pretenses. How does that live into the Scout Oath/Law? It doesn't does it.

 

Merlyn,

Always attacking aren't you! You are one angry human!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Trevorum]

Ed, Ed, Ed, Ed.

I thought we covered this already. People don't CHOOSE to be gay any more than they CHOOSE to be AB+ or redheads or 140 IQ. That's just the way we come out. Sexual orientation is not a choice like wearing a moustache or playing the piano or worshipping Allah.

[packsaddle]

Ed, considering the effective policy applied by BSA, what BSA really wants is not to have to confront the issue...and if that means accepting a so-called "don't ask, don't tell" policy, then so be it. BSA seems happy to quietly accept the status-quo reality of the situation, the key being that 'quiet' aspect. Your judgmental sword cuts both ways: if you try to cut TJ down with it, you must also apply it to BSA for the way they apply their policy in practice. They don't exclude all gays, they only exclude 'avowed' gays - and really, not even all of avowed gays.

 

That fraction of BSA members who DO want to exclude people for a variety of reasons, including you, just don't seem to grasp the fact that others can have a different moral code, and that theirs is just as correct to them as yours is to you.

 

I've said this before regarding moral absolutes, the moral relativist train left the station a long time ago. If you run hard you might catch up.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So Ed, does this mean you don't understand why a black golfer might want to join a whites-only country club?

[BrentAllen]

tjhammer,

Robin Leach would be talking about someone else with that description, not me. :-)

 

Allowing gay leaders in the BSA would send a message that the homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable alternative. I believe, and my religion teaches, that homosexual behaviour is immoral.

 

I don't know whether gays choose to be gay, or are born that way. That really doesn't matter much to me. What does matter to me is if they have chosen to live that lifestyle, then the membership policies prohibit them from joining the BSA. The right to free association is guaranteed in the Constitution.

[LongHaul]

>>So, if a 50 year-old man expresses love (physical expression) for a neighbor's 10 year-old boy, you won't think that is immoral? Get rid of the pedophile laws?>People don't CHOOSE to be gay any more than they CHOOSE to be AB+ or redheads or 140 IQ. That's just the way we come out. Sexual orientation is not a choice like wearing a moustache or playing the piano or worshipping Allah.

[OldGreyEagle]

It's been awhile sice we went down this path, so I guess it was time to do it again...

 

I understand what Brent says about his church teachings about homosexuality and I want to respect his views and support him...

 

Then there are churhes that teach that homosexuality is not immoral and even have members of their clergy living with a same sex partner, and I want to respect those views and support them as well...

 

And then I see by doing so, I am attempting to straddle an abyss which has no bottom

 

so, if a Chartering Organization is fine with having a gay leader, and they sign-off on the adult, are they not responsible if a crime is committed? For the legal Eagles of the crowd, if the BSA says all responsibility of choosing adult members of the Troops is held by the Chartering Organizations, can the BSA be held blameless if an avowed gay leader molests a boy?

 

Why isn't this a CO thing? We allow CO's to determine the role of others types of adults in troops, why not this one? If a troop has a known gay leader, then if the troop flourishes then the CO was right about knowing the make-up of its community. If the Troop flounders and fails as no parent wishes their child to be a member in such a troop then market forces will fold the troop. Either way the local community gets to decide what it wants. If the gay leader molests a scout, the avenue is clear, its the CO approved him, (or her) that becomes responsible.