Homosexual Scouts

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

What I mean, Merlyn, is your perspective on not having any facts regarding this Scout. Interesting.

 

I was pointing out that you can't assume that something he posted on his Facebook wall is equivalent to stating it in public, since we don't know what kind of settings he has for his facebook page. But some people are improperly assuming that.

 

Besides that, everything in this thread is just hearsay to anyone who has no direct experience in the matter, so strictly speaking we do NOT have any facts - just hearsay.

[Beavah]

Also if its on the internet its in public domain.

 

Yah, I reckon that if it's out there it might be available to da public. That's not da same thing as being in the public domain though! Most of the stuff on the net is copyrighted material.

 

A lot of the kids don't quite realize how their Facebook comments do go out into the world and never come back, eh? I know a few undergrads who were shocked when employers asked 'em about old Facebook comments and pages, and when they possibly lost job offers as a result.

 

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

NickP412 writes 2010:

Also if its on the internet its in public domain.

 

Wrong. If it's on the internet, it's likely written by someone in a country that is a signatory to the Berne convention (which is most of the world), and it's copyrighted by the author. It might be considered to be published, depending on how it's "on the internet".

[Scoutfish]

IN this kids defense...as well as many others...I had a friend - super conservative type... make all kinds of apologies because HER account was hacked and apparently her account sent out some borderline almost pornographic videos of women in "barely bathing suits" to all her friemndds as well as adding quite a few new friends.

 

All publicly too.

 

Not saying that was what happened in this particular case, but something to think about in other cases.

 

As long as I create an account, I can claim to be the CM of my pack - as long as I know my CM won't see my account OR if my CM doesn't even have a computer or facebook account.

 

Why would somebody do that? Dont know. Don;'t know why people spray paint water towers or vandalize cars either. Just because they can I guess.

[NJCubScouter]

Ignoring all the stuff about Facebook (which I have so far resisted having an account on), this discussion once again brings us around to the age-old question of what the policy IS, exactly. Eagledad thinks that a gay Scout is being dishonest under the policy, but that can only be true if the policy says "a gay person cannot be a Scout." If you can find a policy that says that, please share it with us, along with the source. The statements and press releases from the BSA that I have read say that an "avowed homosexual" (youth or adult) cannot be a leader. None of them say, or imply, that a youth who is gay, or thinks he's gay, or is in the process of discovering he's gay, is supposed to quit. The attitude of the BSA is that if you're gay, you should stay in the closet -- which for youth members, is probably what the vast majority of them would do anyway, Scouting or no Scouting. Now some people come along and say that if you do what the BSA wants you to do, and keep quiet about your orientation, you're being dishonest. Where is the fairness here? And where is the evidence, Eagledad, that supports your "interpretation" of the policy?

 

Or should I say, as I have in the past, "policy."

 

I also think it is a mistake to equate the BSA and military policies, because they are not the same. From what I have read about the military policy, it is really not a "don't ask don't tell" policy, it is more a "we won't ask unless you give us reason to investigate, and the reason may not involve actually telling anyone" policy. The BSA policy actually is a "don't ask don't tell" policy in my opinion, but the terminology is confusing. Instead of calling the policy by a slogan that just creates confusion, let's talk about what the policy actually is. The BSA policy deals with "avowed homosexuals." While it may not be perfectly clear in any given case whether a person is an "avowed homosexual", it is clear that someone who keeps quiet about their orientation is not violating the policy.

 

I mean, the policy is bad enough as it is without people trying to make it worse.

[evmori]

We can assume anything we want, Merlyn.

 

If this young man didn't want people to know about his sexual orientation, why did he put it on Facebook? Why did he blab it all over the press. Heck, if this was someone stating the BSA is a religious organization on his Facebook page you would claim it's fact, Merlyn!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

We can assume anything we want, Merlyn.

 

Sure, if you don't care anything about facts.

 

If this young man didn't want people to know about his sexual orientation, why did he put it on Facebook?

 

And what, exactly, did he write on his Facebook page?

 

Why did he blab it all over the press.

 

What, exactly, did he tell the press?

 

Oh, you don't know the answer to either of these questions, do you?

 

Go ahead, just make something up then, and "assume" it, and defame him some more if you like. I'll just assume you're an idiot.

 

Heck, if this was someone stating the BSA is a religious organization on his Facebook page you would claim it's fact, Merlyn!

 

No, I claim it's a fact when the BSA says so in official court documents and courts find that the BSA is, in fact, a religious organization.

[shortridge]

I know this was a few pages back, but wanted to clarify something that bacchus wrote:

 

"When somebody uses a phrase (such as morally straight) you need to apply the definition at the time that the phrase was used. You can't change the definition by using the modified fad definition from the past decade that morality is really "anything goes". You can argue he was wrong to apply morals to scouting if you so desire, that does not change the fact that it was included in the scout oath, and we must use the original meaning."

 

and

 

"How so? Because he didn't live by your definition of "moral" or "clean" or whatever? To whom do you refer when you say "your"? The person who initiated the definition 100 years ago? Who are you to change Lord Powell's definition?"

 

It's important to note that the phrase "morally straight" is an American invention - it's not from BP's pen.

 

The original Scout's Oath was simply:

 

On my honour I promise that -

1. I will do my duty to God and the King.

2. I will do my best to help others, whatever it costs me.

3. I know the scout law, and will obey it.

 

The whole "morally straight" line was from James West. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._West_(Scouting)#Scouting)(This message has been edited by shortridge)

[Mr. Boyce]

Over the past two years or so, I"ve lost a great deal of sympathy for the homosexuals due to their antagonist activism. I try hard to overlook their aggressive, stop-my-fingers-in-my-ears approach when it comes to dealing with any reasonable objection to their desires and political whims!

[evmori]

Oh, you don't know the answer to either of these questions, do you?

 

No I don't Merlyn and neither do you. I am basing my post on what I read in this thread just like you are.

 

Go ahead, just make something up then, and "assume" it, and defame him some more if you like. I'll just assume you're an idiot.

 

I love it when you call people names, Merlyn. It brings out your true colors.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Oh, you don't know the answer to either of these questions, do you?

 

No I don't Merlyn and neither do you. I am basing my post on what I read in this thread just like you are.

 

But I'm not the one making unwarranted assumptions; you are.

 

For example, you keep assuming that everyone can read his Facebook page, even though it's possible to restrict that to just friends, or to customize it even further and restrict access to specific people, or to restrict access to specific postings.

 

But you have steadfastly ignored this possibility.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Mr. Boyce says:

 

Over the past two years or so, I"ve lost a great deal of sympathy for the homosexuals due to their antagonist activism. I try hard to overlook their aggressive, stop-my-fingers-in-my-ears approach when it comes to dealing with any reasonable objection to their desires and political whims!

 

Yes Mr. Boyce, it sounds like you were a great advocate for fairness and equality for gay people before you lost sympathy for them. Imagine the nerve of them, wanting to be treated like everybody else.

[evmori]

Well Merlyn, this was posted

 

His Facebook issues and comments are not for publishing on a public forum

 

as was this

 

Yes, the article is a bit vague, but the boy has made public statements about being homosexual

 

And because you disagree that this Scout has made his sexual orientation public doesn't make it a fact that he didn't.

 

What are you going to call me now, Merlyn?

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed writes:

Well Merlyn, this was posted

 

His Facebook issues and comments are not for publishing on a public forum

 

as was this

 

Yes, the article is a bit vague, but the boy has made public statements about being homosexual

 

Guess what Ed? Neither of those statements reveal what kind of restrictions might be on his Facebook page.

 

And because you disagree that this Scout has made his sexual orientation public doesn't make it a fact that he didn't.

 

Remind me Ed, what, exactly, did he say or write in public? Oh, you don't know that, do you?

 

What are you going to call me now, Merlyn?

 

You're still an idiot, Ed.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Ed, Merlyn

 

Merlyn, Ed

 

Please stop