Boy Scouts vs. Philadelphia

[DanKroh]

"Much like da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality which is well documented."

 

The multi-partner nature of male heterosexuality is also well documented. So what's your point?

 

Given the ever-improving understanding of homosexuality as a characteristic determined at birth, the idea of recruitment is generally recognized as the farce that it is.

 

I help young men and women explore their sexual and gender identities so that they can be true to their natures and be happy. So tell me, do I also "recruit"?

[NJCubScouter]

Yah, one man's stereotype is another man's statistical prevalence, eh?

 

(I guess I don't need to say "Beavah says", since it is obvious who it is from the intentional and unnecessary mangling of the English language.)

 

With respect to "one man's stereotype", etc., that's sort of my point. If an organization (at least one like the BSA) were going to base an exclusionary policy on statistics, it should only do so if there is a clear and overwhelming correlation, and not just a matter of opinion. In other words, in order to overcome the usual principle that each person is to be treated as an individual, I would set the evidentiary bar pretty high. In any event, as I said, that is not the basis for the BSA's policy anyway, although a lot of people seem to think it is.

 

Much like da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality which is well documented.

 

I don't know how well documented it is. In any event, if someone is openly promiscuous (to use an old-fashioned word), it seems unlikely to me that they are not going to be selected as a leader. What difference does it make whether their promiscuity is directed toward the same gender or the opposite gender? And again, let's deal with the person, not the supposed characteristics of a group.

[NJCubScouter]

vol_scouter says:

 

You are right that the BSA says that the reason to ban homosexuals is that they do not fit into the traditional family structure and as such should not be a role model. Recent studies show that homosexuals have less stable relationships than heterosexuals. They are small minority. So it is not an unreasonable stance.

 

Your first sentence, depending on how one interprets it, may be a correct description of the BSA's position. Your second sentence and what follows from it, definitely is not correct. If you can find something from the BSA that bases the policy, even in part, on the relative stability of relationships between gay and straight people, please do so, but I am sure you will not. The BSA policy is based, if you boil it down to the basics, on the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. It's very simple. It has nothing to do with stability of relationships, health issues or any number of other things. So, therefore, if you were someone who did not believe that homosexuality is inherently wrong, it would be difficult for you to agree with the policy. (Just to be clearr, there have been some in this forum who have seemed to believe, at least to a degree, that homosexuality is inherently wrong but who still disagree with the policy, and conversely, there have seemed to be some who do not believe homosexuality is inherently wrong but who agree with the policy, although I am not sure how someone would get to that conclusion logically.)

 

We now treat smokers relatively badly because of the diseases that they suffer.

 

I don't think so. I think we treat smoking badly, and justifiably so, because of the health problems it causes to both smokers and non-smokers. I don't think we treat smokers badly.

 

Yet, society turns around and says that a male homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle despite significant health issues sustained in that community.

 

I think to focus on "lifestyle" is incorrect. There are gay and straight people with healthy lifestyles and gay and straight people with unhealthy lifestyles. You seem to think the percentages are different, but even if they are, I don't think it matters if the question is whether we are going to exclude an entire group. If you look at certain ethnic groups, you could probably say that the members of certain ones engage in certain unhealthy behaviors in higher percentages than others, but we don't exclude members of those ethnic groups because of that. As a society, we try to get those individuals to conduct themselves in a more healthy manner.

 

It occurs to me that this thread is probably the first time I have discussed this subject since my 2+ year hiatus from this forum. I notice that most of those who used to participate on the same general "side" as me seem to be studiously avoiding the subject. Upon reflection, this seems like a wise course of action that I should probably emulate. These discussions go nowhere -- which is not to say that those who wish to discuss the subject shouldn't, just that for me, it seems unproductive and I should probably resist the urge to waste my time further.

[packsaddle]

NJ, because I'm probably one of those people you mentioned in the last part of your message, I'll respond for myself as I can't for the others. For me, it is the end of the semester and I've been just too busy to take the time to try to respond to views I consider to be based on prejudice. As you detected, part of the reason is also because from past experience I understand my efforts to have been ineffective. I also note that there are also some from the OTHER side of our views on this topic who have also remained strangely silent. Call it tit-for-tat if you want but I see this issue as continuing in stalemate. BSA is what it is and they will do what they want, regardless of what I (we) think is fair or right. I submit that there is probably nothing you could bring to the forum that would cause Beavah or vol_scouter to change their views as well as the other way around.

On this topic I merely content myself with the knowledge that gay scouters exist, always have, always will, and they pose no greater threat to the boys or the organization than heterosexuals do. The policy of BSA toward gays is sad but it isn't effective at much more than allowing those who disagree with you and me....to feel good about their views and deceived about gays in the organization. Make that doubly sad. But you can at least understand that you are not alone in your view.

[Hal_Crawford]

Packsaddle and NJ:

I am fairly new to this forum and have tried to stay out of the political discussions. I just want to weigh in that I too agree with your point of view on this subject and feel the same frustration with the policy and with the views of many that are based on misinformation and stereotypes.

 

A previous post said that "People in the forties and fifties would have never dreamed that homosexuality would become first tolerated and now in some communities accepted". I doubt that many in the forties or fifties would have dreamed that an African-American would be elected president of the United States but but guess what, it happened. Many in those times would have given you all sorts of "statistics" and "facts" showing why African-Americans were unsuited to serve in high office, teach, serve in combat or even sit in a classroom with white children. I hope we all agree that they were wrong.

 

Many in the forties, fifties and sixties would have told you that women were unsuited to work as anything other than teachers, nurses or secretaries. In Scouting they couldn't be anything other than Den Mothers, certainly not Scoutmasters. Whatever your political bent you have to admit that women are in statehouses, governor's mansions, the congress and the cabinet. Women head major corporations. Though women are still technically excluded from combat that hasn't stopped them from military service (up to and including the ultimate sacrifice) and a woman was just promoted to four star general. Women are also Scoutmasters and are well represented in this forum. I think we can all agree that those stereotypes were also wrong.

 

Gays are still the victims of the same sort of stereotyping and prejudice that confronted blacks and women (and Jews and the Irish and the Indians to name but a few). I wish that the BSA was out in front on this issue rather than behind but that too will change as more voices like yours' are heard. They are not just voices in the wilderness.

 

Thanks,

Hal

[Beavah]

And again, let's deal with the person, not the supposed characteristics of a group.

 

Yah, da real issue, at least as seen by those of us who talk funny from da point of view of you east-coasters, is not the person, eh? I'm all in favor of treatin' individuals with respect and dignity. (Even folks who think or speak differently. ).

 

The real issue is the behavior. That's not the same thing as an individual characteristic like skin color or autism. And because it's not that kind of characteristic, it's disingenuous to pretend it's the same sort of civil rights issue. Sayin' "we want to have sex with whoever or whatever we're attracted to" might be a personal belief, eh? As with some of the conservative Mormon fringe sects, polygamy, virtual enslavement of women, and ephebophilia might even be a religious belief of sorts. Religious or not, personal belief or desire or not, it's not somethin' we want to accept as a society, want our kids exposed to at a young age, or want our kids to learn is acceptable "diversity." We don't believe it is. Nor do we believe it's responsible social policy to accord such relationships the same status as marriage.

 

I'm far less sanguine than DanKroh about da biological nature of homosexuality. I think that's special-interest research, and special-interest research is always extremely suspect. Especially when it sure seems like a genetic trait that should be strongly selected against. Da question is who is funding or allowing any research on the other side, lookin' at homosexuality as the product of aspects of nurture or pathology? What IRB would approve that work at our nation's liberal universities?

 

Yah, and Dan knows as well as I do that the number of promiscuous homosexual male partners vastly exceeds on average the number of promiscuous heterosexual male partners. Both aren't healthy, eh? Neither is a good example. But one does tend to be a bit uglier.

 

Regardless of the nature of the urge, the issue is behavior. All of us have urges or temptations - to take stuff that isn't ours, to sleep around, whatever. Some things, like a propensity toward violence, may also be genetic in nature, eh? But we restrain our behavior, and we teach our children by word and example to restrain their behavior. Perhaps it even makes us less happy not to be able to steal or sleep around. I know some faithful but unhappy married couples, eh? That doesn't mean we should be encouraged to explore petty theft or wife-swapping to make ourselves more happy and fulfilled.

 

I'm glad folks like Dan care for the emotional needs of folks who need that care. That is a work of love and service. But it's not the same thing as makin' a decision on social policy, or on what is appropriate for a youth educational program.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Hal, because you've not been involved with the many threads that have replowed this ground I'll repeat something I've written before. BSA policy has a fatal flaw - in that it only prohibits 'avowed' gays. It can never do anything else. That addresses Beavah's interest in regulating behavior, not that heterosexual behavior IS promoted as part of the program. It is my understanding that adult sexual behavior of any kind is off-limits within the scouting program.

 

I consider BSA's approach to be disingenuous because they KNOW the policy cannot keep gays out. It is a 100% certainty that gays are already 'in' and probably always have been. They probably always will be. Moreover the policy is deceptive because it provides a 'smokescreen' for people who are very concerned about 'behavior' and keeping gays out. It allows them to believe gays ARE out.

Until there is a mechanism to detect gays who are not 'avowed', this is probably the way it is going to remain for the near future at least.

It isn't perfect but it seems to satisfy the members who are most concerned about this kind of membership exclusion.

[skeptic]

If the pro's on this subject would simply stop the foolish "in your face" attitude, it would surely be a lot less negative. As Pack has said, Gays have been, and are in the program; but they do not seem to have had the need to make it "an issue", so it wasn't/isn't. But, both sides of the argument tend to wear blinders and are unlikely to change spots based on what is said here. Even though I agree with the current policy over "no policy"; I would prefer that it be made a CO decision on a local level. Eventually it will like work itself out. But it would likely happen more quickly if "radicals" on either position would stop their idiocy.

 

JMHO

[DanKroh]

"The real issue is the behavior. That's not the same thing as an individual characteristic like skin color or autism. And because it's not that kind of characteristic, it's disingenuous to pretend it's the same sort of civil rights issue."

 

And herein lies the major disconnect between the two sides of this issue; the definition of homosexuality.

 

A homosexual person is still homosexual even if he or she never engages in a same-sex relationship. Homosexuality is an identity, an inherent personality trait, independent of who one has sexual relations with. Just as a bisexual is still bisexual even if he or she is currently (even permanently) in a heterosexual relationship. It *is* an individual characteristic, and it's disingenuous of heterosexual people to insist that they understand what make homosexual people tick better than homosexual people do, or that their sexual orientation is a "choice".

 

What people who object to "homosexual behavior" are in essence saying is that gay people are acceptable as long as they pretend not to be gay. That the only way for them to be "acceptable" is to be a total and lifelong celibate, or to engage is a lifetime lie of self-delusion by pretending to be heterosexual. Sorry, but I think either of those options is a travesty of the human condition.

 

Beyond the fact that homosexuals do not exhibit the pathology of disordered thinking (despite what Benedict may say) like people of true sexual disorders (perversions if you prefer), I have to say again, another difference is that healthy, adult, consentual relationships that happen to be same-sex do not cause harm. That should be the guide for our conscience, not the cherry-picked verses from a book of religious law written several thousand years ago that some have attributed to a deity.

 

"Especially when it sure seems like a genetic trait that should be strongly selected against."

 

Actually, not all traits present at birth are genetic. The best current theory (and has been for some time) is maternal influences in the womb. Which means that there is no influence of natural selection on it. Even if there were, there are many other traits that seem like they would be selected against, which persist in the population for some reason we cannot fathom (cystic fibrosis anyone?). Research doesn't look at a "side" of homosexuality. To assume that kind of bias is a great disservice to a field full of honest researchers who are interest in the science, not an agenda (unlike some of the religious-driven "research" by places like the AFA and FRC).

 

NJCubScouter, I do sympathize with the feeling of banging one's head against a brick wall. I have also checked my impulses to post on several occasions, but still feel the need to weigh in when gross misinformation is put forth as gospel truth. It's not so much that I think I will sway those that post these things, but I want to keep an unsuspecting reader from thinking that a lack of response means that these statements are true.

[packsaddle]

Dan, I would like to offer some evidence for encouragement. When I ask young people about these issues, most are unconcerned about whether someone is gay or not. They seem to be more accepting and more concerned about 'real' issues such as starting a career. Some even respond with frustration or impatience at the way things were in the 'old days'. So while we feel like we're beating our heads against a wall, young people seem to be sliding quietly past the barrier, freer to think about these things and form their own views.

I find this to be reason for optimism. All that is needed is for older people like me to die off and take the fears and prejudices with us. Have a nice day.

[NJCubScouter]

Yah, da real issue, at least as seen by those of us who talk funny from da point of view of you east-coasters, is not the person, eh? I'm all in favor of treatin' individuals with respect and dignity. (Even folks who think or speak differently. ).

 

Nice try, Beavah, but it doesn't work. I've never said anything about how you talk. I have no idea how you talk, or where you live. What I have commented on is how you write. I know you know how to spell "the". If you are not from the New York metropolitan area, chances are that I have pronounced "the" as "da" more times in my life than you have. But I don't write that way. You obviously do what you do just to be annoying, but that's ok, if you want to be known as someone who is intentionally annoying.

 

I also need to go back a few rounds and comment on vol_scouter's repeated comments about how "we should not allow two homosexual males from taking boys camping." I hope you realize that this can happen right now, and there isn't even a rule against it, as long as the leaders in question do not disclose their orientation. Fortunately, the BSA Youth Protection policies do not rely on what people choose to disclose or conceal about themselves. On the other hand, the policy against openly gay leaders has nothing to do with Youth Protection. They are two separate policies for two separate purposes -- one a great purpose (protection of youth), one not such a good purpose (imposition of some peoples' political values on others.) And besides, even if the policy on openly gay leaders were to be changed, the question of which leaders go on camping trips would still be up to the local unit, just as it is now.

[Narraticong]

I happen to find Beavah's quirky writing to be entertaining. Yes, at first I wondered what that was all about. Then I just decided that it didn't really matter. It's just "how he is". But I guess some people might find it annoying, though I guess that would make some of us more accepting people question their acceptance of "diversity".

 

My guessing game has me concluding that Beavah may either be from the U.P. of my adopted state of Michigan, or perhaps Wisconsin or Minnesota. In any case I tend to find myself more often aligned with him rather than those "easterners". I grew up in NJ and did my Scouting 5 minutes from National Headquarters in the 70's. But you could not pay me enough money to move back there. That place is plain crazy!

 

Yah, maybe if we all start talkin like dat, we'll really make da "east coasters" crazy. Or crazier than dey already are!

 

Keep it up Beavah!(This message has been edited by Narraticong)

[packsaddle]

I sort of agree with Narraticong. At first I saw the writing style as an affectation but then it became clear that he wants what is best for the boys just like most of the rest of us and then I finally became amused by it. Nevertheless, projecting my own persona on that type of communication, I think it would take a lot of extra time for me to write like that...unless I also spoke like that. Now THAT thought is scary.

Anyway, I also had him placed in the upper midwest or somewhere like that, maybe on the Dorr Peninsula or around MSP or Eau Claire or maybe Eau Galle. OK, someplace where there's a lot of cheese.

I can't explain why but it would also be just wonderful to learn that he's in Walker, MN on the shore of Leech Lake or maybe Bemidji.

On the other hand, it would be just awful to find out he's someplace like Branson, MO or Arkadelphia, AR. Again, I have no idea why I feel that way...it just doesn't seem to fit.

But Mrs. Beavah, I'm told, makes a really good batch of cookies once in a while. Yep, you can forget all the other stuff, it's really all about food.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I don't think Beavah is from Minnesota, I've never seen him use the term 'uff-da.'

[CA_Scouter]

Merlyn, that's too funny!

 

We have a lady friend who is Swedish and uses that term frequently enough that my wife and I have adopted it... dontcha know!