The Press and discriminatory story writing.

[BrentAllen]

OGE,

Your idea about COs choosing their leaders might work, if those leaders were only involved at their unit. Who makes up the District Committee? Who teaches at Scouters Academy, University of Scouting, etc.? Who serves as Unit Commissioners? Who serves as Camp Directors at District events? Who are the volunteers who staff Day Camp?

 

Answer: Scouters from Packs and Troops.

 

Are we then going to have a policy that states gays can serve as unit leaders, but not in any other capacity? Sounds like a huge conflict, waiting to happen.

[Eamonn]

The daily newspaper in th area where I live (The paper most people in the area read.) Is owned by a family that is known to support right wing Republican views.

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton making mention of them when Bill was in trouble.

The paper does support local Scouting and has been the sponsor of the Annual Council Eagle Scout Recognition Dinner.

Scouting stories that deal with program and events as a rule only make it to one of the sections of the Sunday Paper, while stories about things that have gone wrong are deemed newsworthy and make the daily paper.

If I were to try and categorize the people who live in the area where I live I think I'd say they are mostly "Blue Collar".

We do seem to have an over abundance of churches!! I think due to the fact that one time the town was very prosperous. (11 Churches for a town of 4,700).

Talking with some of the older people they seem to like the idea that Scouting (BSA) has and is still holding on to the "Traditional Family Values". The semi-old people (Me!!) seem to be like John Edwards. While we believe that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not right and falls under much the same heading as discrimination due to race, color or creed or disability and many like me think that a civil union is fine and dandy, however I'm of the opinion that marriage is a "Church Union" and I'd be happy to leave it up to each denomination to choose if they wanted to approve same sex marriage.

The young people I talk with seem to think this is all silly.

They see nothing wrong, good or bad about someone wanting to be gay or homosexual. Some think that the BSA is being very unfair and that discriminating because of sexual orientation is just wrong.

Some of the kids they go to school and college with are gay and have "Come Out".

A very good friend of mine who is a member of the LDS Church and lives in the UK was upset when the Scout Association allowed Gay Leaders to serve in the UK.

He was upset, but continues to serve.

I can see that some CO's might not want or allow avowed homosexuals to serve as youth leaders of their youth.

I think the best thing the BSA could do would be leave the choice up to the CO's.

Parents would also have the final word, they would decide if they want to send their kid to a unit with openly gay leaders.

I'm sure there would be a big fuss for a while, but I feel it would be a storm in a teacup.

Of course the press would have a field day for a week or so.

Some of the big CO's might huff and puff for a while, but I feel they would get over it.

Ea.

[LongHaul]

 

Does anyone think if we leave it up to National that the local COs and volunteers will huff and puff about it for a while then get over it?

 

Do you think that all those who have an ethical problem being part of an organization that excludes girls, gays and those who do not believe in god should exspress that dissatisfaction by resigning their membership? Wouldn't the drop in members better get the attention of National?

 

Do you think that the dissatisfaction with National is not that great as to warrent leaving the organization? "This is a great organization, I want to be a member, I just don't agree with what it stands for."

LongHaul

[OldGreyEagle]

Where I live, just about everyone on the District Committee is from a Troop, I am not sure I know anyone not in a troop of some kind, but even then, if you are not affiliated with a Troop and register with a District, then you follow the registering organizations rules.

 

As far as University of Scouting and all other training, its troop adults that present, how is it done by you?

 

[BrentAllen]

My point exactly, OGE. A decision made by a certain CO isn't just going to affect that unit - it would affect the District, and even the Council. Will gay Scouters from that unit participate in District and Council events and committees? How will the other units in the District feel about that?

 

Yes, our Scouters Academy is staffed by Scouters from around the Council. Same with Day Camp staff, Unit Commissioners, etc. If a "local option" was allowed, how would you suggest Districts and Councils deal with it? The "local option" isn't just local to the unit, is my point.

 

Ea.

I'm not sure your prediction would be supported by the reality in Scouts Canada. Am I wrong?

[OldGreyEagle]

I suppose "gay" leaders chosen by their CO's would eventually get around to be on District Committees and how I would feel about that would pretty much depend on how that leader did his/her job.

[BrentAllen]

OK, OGE, let's get specific. Assume Troop 100, now allowed to exercise the "local option", decides to allow in gay leaders. One happens to be Tim Curran. Day Camp needs a Boy Scout leader to supervise a group of Boy Scouts who teach Scout Skills to Cub Scouts. Tim volunteers and is accepted by the Camp Director to fill the position. He decides to teach the Cubs that homosexuality is OK, in addition to teaching how to tie a square knot. Maybe there is a different answer depending on where you are geographically, but how do you think the parents are going to react?

 

Second scenario - Tim Curran teaches a Merit Badge at a District Merit Badge clinic and does the same thing. How are those parents going to react? For the sake of the argument, let's say Tim did a great job teaching the merit badge/skill.

[evmori]

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 worshiping Allah.

 

And you have "without a doubt" proof of this Trevorum?

 

You are correct, Merlyn. I want ot be with people who want me.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[FScouter]

If the district day camp director selects a gay Scout leader, that is a decision of the district, not the troop that initally approved his application for a troop position. If the district advancement committee selects and approves a gay merit badge counselor, it is the district that did so, not the troop.

 

All adults that serve at the district or council level are selected by the district or council. If a gay adult is not desired for a district or council position, they can select someone else. An adult leader in a unit that also serves on the district or council committee must be dual registered. A district that does not want a gay Scout leader from a troop is not obligated to approve his application.

 

All this presupposes that BSA would make a provision for avowed homosexuals to be members, and that hasn't happened.

[Lisabob]

When I say that I don't think any scouter, of any sexual orientation ought to be initiating conversations with the boys about this topic, I have in mind the sort of thing that Brent mentions in his post. I can't think of very many merit badges where this would come up in context of the material, but I suppose that, if there were some, and the boy specifically brought up the topic of sexual orientation in proper context, then I might be ok with a leader following through on that conversation. I would also hope that the leader would be intellectually honest enough to point out that his or her views were only that - his or hers - and that others disagree. I would hope too, that a leader in that situation would encourage the scout to talk with his family to understand their views on the matter. I'm not advocating muting people, especially in response to a legitimate question asked in an appropriate context.

 

On the other hand, the examples that Brent has given seem to be of a different variety. If my kid comes back from the archery range and tells me that the MBC held a lecture on why it is ok to be gay (or straight) before he let them enter the range, well I'd find that to be out of line. Same with a leader who takes it upon him- or herself to proactively start and teach cub scouts about sexual orientation along with the square knot - this is NOT their job and parents and COs would be justified in being annoyed.

 

I think that the problem we are having here is that not all gay people are going to act like this Tim Curran fellow Brent is describing. In fact I believe that he is probably in the minority. And just because he's gay doesn't make him either a poster boy for all gays, or a fit prospect for boy scout leadership. Anybody who wants to join specifically so that they can openly proselytize other people's kids with regard to sexual orientation is highly suspect in my book. Some people just shouldn't be leaders and for me, this is not a matter of being gay or not.

[packsaddle]

LongHaul, the evidence being considered today is better than it was back in the '50s but it is not conclusive. The question remains.

But I agree with you, as you mention,

"Why is it so hard for us sometimes to separate the discussion from whether we think sexual orientation is biological or learned behavior, and what we think about people being able to choose with whom they associate?",

that the question should not be germane to this issue.

 

If someone (Ed, for example) demands unequivocal evidence for a biological basis, and if such subsequently becomes available, how likely is it that such a person, confronted with precisely the evidence they demand...will change their view regarding morality? I suggest that it is quite unlikely. (Or am I wrong, Ed?)

If they DID change their moral code as a result of biological reality they would have to abandon certain matters of faith (which have NO biological basis) and adopt a more 'naturalistic' approach to morality. Indeed this could open the door to all sorts of rational approaches to morality (and life in general) further marginalizing the supernatural as a basis for anything.

 

For this reason, when I hear someone with strong faith-based views regarding the moral status of gays, and when they ask for the objective evidence for a biological basis, I have to wonder if they have thought about this at all carefully.

 

OGE, I haven't read much from TheScout recently but his general advocacy for decentralization for government is persuasive to me in the case of BSA. However, I suspect that the top of the hierarchy (theocracy?) in BSA would consider any such decentralization as a threat to their status quo. Alternatively, they may actually be allowing such local choices quietly and discreetly...already. Seems like something like that already happens in LDS units for other regulatory matters, so why not membership issues as well?

 

Lisabob, I was typing at the same time, I think. I agree with your assessment.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[BrentAllen]

Lisabob,

If you visit http://www.timcurran.com/scouting/ you will find that Tim Curran was an Eagle Scout. His SPL described him this way:

"In my seven years as a Scout, I never met a boy who conformed more to the Norman Rockwell image of clean-cut, good-natured service to others than Tim did. To no one's surprise, Tim rose rapidly to the rank of Eagle, which, as everyone knows, is the pinnacle of a scouting career and is often assumed to presage great success in the business world."

 

So, if the BSA policy was changed to allow in gays, are you going to tell Tim Curran he can't join?

[LongHaul]

>>"Why is it so hard for us sometimes to separate the discussion from whether we think sexual orientation is biological or learned behavior, and what we think about people being able to choose with whom they associate?", that the question should not be germane to this issue. << Think I failed to make myself clear on this. When I said "..what we think about people being able to choose with whom they associate.", I was referring to National's choice not to associate with gays. Packsaddle, If Ed were to say "OK I accept that homosexuality is biological but I still think the desires are abnormal and should not be acted upon" Make and difference in your accepting his view?  Morals are a funny thing sometime.  We try to justify ours with arguments that don't always stand up to scrutiny.  The Pedophile thing hinges on the child aspect.  We feel a child isn't capable of making choices along sexual lines.  We allow parents to impose religious beliefs, cultural dictates, racial prejudice, political opinions, and moral values just as long as it doesn't involve sex in a manner WE don't like, there we draw the line.  Western civilization seems to be preoccupied with sex.  Several years ago a leader came back from the World Jamboree with a very amusing story.  Seems he was out with about 6 or 8 of the boys in his Jambo unit when they met an equal number of scouts from a Northern Europeans country most of whom were female.  My friend remarked that the  "other" leader was not only female but very attractive.  One of his boys asked if it would be alright to exchange uniforms between the two groups.  As this was something that National had spoken about in the pre Jamboree publications and there was some advice as to what types of patches to put on a uniform a boy wished to offer in trade my friend said that it would be alright.  At this point the European scouts began to remove their uniforms, this included the female leader.  She quickly realized my friends shock and the exchange was moved to a more Western World friendly site, the bathroom where uniforms were shuttled back and forth by fully clothed individuals.  My point is that not everyone shares our moral views when it comes to the human anatomy and physical expression.  Why can't we accept that in each other?  In the 1940's a Scout in Mississippi would have been morally straight supporting segregation where as a Scout in New York would not have been?  My morals are to be dictated to me by those around me?  A stronger argument for choosing who I surround myself with I couldn't make.

LongHaul

[evmori]

No pack, you are correct. And since there is and in my opinion never will be unequivocal evidence that being gay is biological, I don't think I will ever have to deal with this question.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten]

So Ed, if you are as adamant that sexuality is a choice as tjhammer is adamant it is not, does that indicate that in your past, you faced the choice? Did you foster both homosexual urges and hetero urges and choose hetero? Once you made the choice, do you have times that you face it again? Or once you make the choice, that's it.

 

OK, lets say it is a choice. This indicates that with a proper stimulus, anyone could be made to switch teams. What level of coercion or torture would make you choose differently?