City bans: So how do they actually impact things on the ground?

[ScoutMythBuster]

Ok, I'm in Philly. The city LOST!! They are still trying and wants the Supreme Court to now hear there arguments. (Guess they never heard of Boy Scouts vs Dale?)

 

During the trials our numbers dropped off and this is our first recruitment since the verdict that told the city to back off Cradle of Liberty; so far I have signed up 22 new Cubs and 4 new Boy Scouts. Other groups around here are reporting the similar numbers.

 

Solicitor Diaz said, "In my administration, we will not subsidize discrimination." I love this statement. Cradle of Liberty maintains the building themselves, pays all of their own utilities and even pays for private trash collection. The building, built in 1929 at 22nd and Winter Sts at the request of the city's "fathers". The building was built and paid for by the Scouts and turned over to the city with the understanding that the Scouts would be allowed to remain in it rent-free "in perpetuity." So, they were being subsidized because they built the building on city land, at the request of the city and was paying the standard city honorarium of $1 per year.

 

By time the lawsuit had ended, city workers, police and firefighters had turned against the mayor and the solicitor. I remember one person asking if they can't change the Armed Forces Policy why attack the Boy Scouts?

 

How do I think they affect hings on the ground? As with anything in a political type atmosphere, it depends on how you spin it.

 

When everything started here with the lawsuit this is what the papers printed:

 

...citing "rising violence and other urban ills daily threatening Philadelphia's teens," some community leaders said it made no sense to evict the Boy Scout. Also, some questioned the objectivity of city solicitor Romulo L. Diaz, Jr., himself openly gay, in moving to evict the Scouts - arguing that the city could lose $62 million in federal funds with the eviction because of the Support our Scouts Act of 2005 and Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act.

 

The sad thing is, we elected (as a city) Mayor Street twice and Mayor Nutter twice. And in a city that is finacially dying this is how they chose to spend there time and our money.

[onevoice]

Posted by Scoutfish: "GRanted, all media will tweak, dressup and "adjust" info in order get people interested"

 

You are missing the point, many other news organization poll lower numbers, why define the issue by the outlier? Also, why define right and wrong by 51%.

 

Posted by Horizon: "It is not the number of gays who want to be in Scouts, it is the NON-gay parents who do not want to put their son into an organization that they see as bigoted. I could ban all African Americans from my Troop and it would only impact 1 Scout out of 100. However, another 99 would quit my Troop if I did something so racist."

 

So you equate gay with black? It is not bigoted to want to keep someone out of your organization that has values different from the organizations. That is like saying it is bigoted for churches to not ordain atheists.

 

Take out "morally straight", and "Reverent" and no one will have an issue. Or go start the Gay Atheist Scouts. Why are all these people afraid to start their own organization? If the numbers are there, they will come out the winner, and Boy Scouts will wither and die. Why do they feel they must change the BSA?

 

[Horizon]

onevoice: I believe, and science backs me, that there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. Based on that, yes, I equate gay with black - as do many Americans, and as do the laws of many states in the US, as does my congregation, and as does the congregations of of many of my Scouts.

 

Further, I completely disagree with the BSA's interpretation of morally straight to preclude gays. I find it interesting that the BSA allows local control to determine every other aspect of the Scout Oath and Law and how it applies to adult volunteers, but specifically prohibits gays and lesbian adults from serving as volunteers after being reviewed by Charter organization and the Troop Committee.

 

But that is a debate that we have had several times around this online campfire.

 

To bring this back to the original topic - I have plenty of anecdotal data that our policies cost us membership among people who would normally have joined Scouting and become amazing volunteers and contributors to our program. It would be interesting if a credible survey organization was able to gather the data to find out how much our policies cost us in terms of membership and support.

 

As for creating my own organization? I have no need. I simply want my organization to be its best, to continue to provide the best possible opportunities for young men. The bigots can't chase me out. I will continue to be at Roundtable with my "Dress" uniform covered in knots, I will continue to volunteer at the Pack, Troop and Council level, and I will NOT allow the bigots to ruin my organization. Bigotry is not morally straight.

[The Blancmange]

 

As for creating my own organization? I have no need. I simply want my organization to be its best, to continue to provide the best possible opportunities for young men. The bigots can't chase me out. I will continue to be at Roundtable with my "Dress" uniform covered in knots, I will continue to volunteer at the Pack, Troop and Council level, and I will NOT allow the bigots to ruin my organization. Bigotry is not morally straight.

Well said.

[perdidochas]

Horizon,

 

Objective science doesn't back a biological basis to homosexuality. It also doesn't deny it. The research results are inconclusive, except for results of research done by politically active gay researchers who have an obvious bias.

 

If gay volunteers were allowed, I would predict the Boy Scouts would disappear. IMHO, for the most part, the people that claim that the gay issue is why they aren't in Scouts wouldn't join, and the current members would be wary of sending their teenage boys out into the woods with gay volunteers.

[shortridge]

Solicitor Diaz said, "In my administration, we will not subsidize discrimination."

 

Actually, it was Mayor Nutter who said that. But you're close.

 

 

As to what Horizon said - hear, hear!

[onevoice]

Posted by Horizon: "I believe, and science backs me, that there is a biological basis to sexual orientation. Based on that, yes, I equate gay with black"

 

I never said it didn't have a biological base. However, it is not the same as skin color, black is simply pigment, being gay is a birth defect that effects behavior. And yes, any condition that inhibits any species desire to recreate itself should be labeled a defect.

 

Posted by Horizon: "As for creating my own organization? I have no need. I simply want my organization to be its best, to continue to provide the best possible opportunities for young men. The bigots can't chase me out. I will continue to be at Roundtable with my "Dress" uniform covered in knots, I will continue to volunteer at the Pack, Troop and Council level, and I will NOT allow the bigots to ruin my organization. Bigotry is not morally straight"

 

First off, it's not your organization, its all our organization, and no here cares how many knots you have. No bigots are trying to chase you anywhere, or ruin BSA. It is you that is trying to change the status quo. I would maintain that it is you who are the bigot. Why is your version of bigotry only when someone else doesn't agree with YOU? You want another organization, you go form it!

[onevoice]

Posted by Horizon: "To bring this back to the original topic - I have plenty of anecdotal data that our policies cost us membership among people who would normally have joined Scouting and become amazing volunteers and contributors to our program. It would be interesting if a credible survey organization was able to gather the data to find out how much our policies cost us in terms of membership and support."

 

Yes, that info would be great, but from what I have read, it would have to be substantial. And it really doesn't matter anyway, there are people that will never change. My understanding is that the Mormons have said they would pull 400,000 scouts if gays are allowed. The fighting will eventually kill BSA, and the change will eventually kill BSA. Pick your poison.

 

 

[Horizon]

onevoice: "First off, it's not your organization, its all our organization, and no here cares how many knots you have."

 

The knot comment was there for the posters here who have followed all of the threads on adults wearing knots, etc. Yes, it is our organization, which makes it also my organization.

 

onevoice: "No bigots are trying to chase you anywhere, or ruin BSA. It is you that is trying to change the status quo. I would maintain that it is you who are the bigot. Why is your version of bigotry only when someone else doesn't agree with YOU? You want another organization, you go form it!"

 

You just immediately contradicted yourself. You first tell me that nobody is trying to chase me out, then you tell me to leave if I don't like it. No thanks, I will stay and instead keep on working on changing things from within. I am not a quitter, and I know that I have many allies out here in the trenches.

 

Finally, show me a statement by the LDS church (or any other group that controls a significant percentage of our youth) that they will leave Scouting if local control is passed.

[Penta]

Wow, did the original topic last even 24 hours before drifting? Count me amused.

 

I have one query for both sides: What makes you think things would change even if local control were passed?

 

After all, it's not a given that the LDS will leave the BSA. Setting up their own program would take years.

 

Similarly, the Catholic Church - Yeah, I don't see the bishops pulling support from the BSA. They have a ready competitor in CYO, but I don't see CYO succeeding outside of the urban dioceses - which, amusingly enough for an organization started to serve kids in the cities, is where BSA seems weakest.

 

And you can't presume that new COs would just flock in once local control was passed. It would take years.

[Horizon]

Penta - it would take years, and that is fine. I doubt there would be a huge shift, and much of it would depend on how each unit deals with it.

 

I know that in my neck of the woods one to two units would be created overnight at my church. Our youth group (mainly a high school group) would add a Venturing Crew component, and we might also start a Boy Scout Troop as well if we had enough boys of the right age. The Crew Advisor would be the same gay male that runs all of our youth programs, who takes the kids on ski trips, and who wrote the letter as the religious leader for my son's Eagle rank.

[onevoice]

Posted by Horizon: "I will stay and instead keep on working on changing things from within"

 

Be my guest, try all you like. Just remember, YOU are the one trying to change things, and you may not like what the organization you want turns into. And please don't resort to leveling the "bigot" charge at anyone that disagrees with you.

 

Posted by Penta: "What makes you think things would change even if local control were passed?

 

Like I said before "We have been torn apart over an issue that barely exists". The issue has been about politics from the beginning. It wasn't about helping kids, it was about pushing their agenda, and BSA was an easy target. Does anyone really think the ACLU gives a darn about whether scouting is strong for the long haul? With local control, the issue would have died long age, because there just aren't enough gays that want to be scouters to make a difference, or if someone didn't want to be in a unit with gay leaders, they would have no problem finding another. But the politicization of the issue has gone beyond that. Both sides have dug in their heels, and the end result will be continued loss of membership with no winner. That is why I think the people who want to change should start their own organization, otherwise, by the time they get done with BSA it will be in shambles.

 

 

[Horizon]

onevoice: "And please don't resort to leveling the "bigot" charge at anyone that disagrees with you. "

 

I don't. I level the bigot charge at people who are bigots. There are plenty who I disagree with, but when someone decides that my friends have a birth defect that makes them unworthy and unwelcome in Scouting - that person is a bigot. Period.

 

Scout units used to keep blacks out, but over time units integrated.

Scout units used to keep Jews out, but over time units integrated.

Scout units used to keep women out of leadership positions, but over time this has changed as well.

 

There is nothing in Scouting that should prevent a gay Scout or a gay leader. It is simply a reflection of our current society (much like the bigotry of the past was a reflection of our society then). However, society is changing its attitude about gays, much as it changed its attitude about women and minorities. There are still units out there that will not take a woman as an Assistant Scoutmaster, and they do just fine. There are units with a woman as the Scoutmaster, and they do just fine. Allow a COR to decide if they are ok with a gay leader, and let others decide to NOT allow a gay leader. Once that is done, get back to teaching boys how to become men through our Game with a Purpose.

[NJCubScouter]

Shouldn't this thread be in Issues and Politics?

 

Just a few quick points:

 

1. Penta, one thing I find interesting is that the Monmouth council still exists at all. Except for Monmouth and Burlington, every other "county council" in New Jersey has been merged into a larger council. The eight northermost counties in New Jerey are now divided into two councils, four counties each (this does not include Warren and Hunterdon counties, which are in a council based in Pa., perhaps the one OGE is in.) The population of one of these, Northern NJ, is many times the population of Monmouth County. Why? I don't know specifically, but the answer must be somewhere in the area of greater financial support and/or greater percentages of youths joining. The BSA does not keep councils independent just for sentimental reasons. So you must be doing something right, or be lucky, or both.

 

2. I agree with Horizon about the gay issue, and about how many non-gay Scouters stay in the program and, if given the opportunity, would help change the policy. Meanwhile, we are spreading the REAL values of Scouting, i.e. trustworthy loyal etc., self-reliance, responsibility etc. etc. Some of us (like me) don't even have a child in the program yet have taken on MORE responsibilities. And yet we disagree with this one policy. And we're not gay, or at least I'm not, and I'd say the vast majority of the people who oppose the anti-gay policy aren't gay either. (That last couple sentences is in response to something onevoice said.)

 

3. If the policy did change (to local option), there would be a ripple of dissent here or there and a lot of grumbling, but in the end I don't think many people would leave, I don't think any large CO's would leave (because it would not affect their units), and in the end the BSA would only be stronger.

[ScoutMythBuster]

You hear alot about the military's "don't ask don't tell policy". I have personally seen people discharged for violation of UCMJ (Uniformed Code of Military Justice) policy for "being homosexual". This is how the media have spun this. Technically they are discharged for violation of the UCMJ. Nowhere in the UCMJ does it outlaw homosexuality.

The charge is based on UCMJ Sec. 925, Art. 125. (a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration , however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense. Basically translated means anything outside of man+woman, procreation meant sex (if you need more exact description of this talk to your parents, lol) is a no no and punishable.

 

I know this is a little off topic but this is how the media spins a rule that restricts everybody and makes it about 1 specific group.