Local YMCA boots troop over gay issue

[Eagledad]

>>So BSA's numbers have been growing by leaps and bounds over the last 30 years? Correlation does not equal causation.

[Oak Tree]

So the BSA is boxing itself in?

 

One claim is that if it changed its anti-gay position, it would lose a bunch of people/organizations immediately.

 

Another claim is that by holding to its anti-gay position, the BSA is hurting membership, losing units, preventing new units from starting.

 

So the longer it sticks to its anti-gay position, the more the organization becomes composed only of those who agree with that position, thereby making it harder to switch.

 

A Gallup poll found that 70% of those 18-34 were in favor of gay marriage. The more the BSA restricts itself to that shrinking 30% of the population, the more it's going to hurt long-term membership.

 

So that's it? Take a short-term hit from which you may or may not recover, or suffer through a slow but continuous decline?

 

I'm thinking there has to be a way out. If the military can allow for gay members, somehow the Scouts can too.

[SeattlePioneer]

Personally, I'm a LOT more interested in finding ways to recruit and retain Hispanic youth --- which are a large and rapidly increasing part of the demographics Scouting needs to be concerned with.

 

By comparison, homosexuals are a trivial part of that demographic. It's really a political sideshow.

 

The market for Scouting is NOT among homosexuals.

[Beavah]

Yah, I guess I'm just an old, more calm sort of fellow. I'm a bystander in the culture wars.

 

Homosexuality is sinful in my faith, and in my experience. I would not advocate that lifestyle choice nor want it encouraged or celebrated in front of kids. But then, divorce and remarriage is sinful in my faith and in my experience. Often da harm it inflicts seems worse than that of lived homosexuality, just because da acrimony leads to so much other bad behavior. At least a gay couple aren't tryin' to cut their own children in two.

 

In fact, lots of things are sinful in my faith, and in my experience. And while I'm happy not to have committed those two sins (Mrs. Beavah's is pretty good with a shotgun), I can assure yeh I have more than a few to my name. At some point, we are all sinners and da sons of sinners. We can never be to others the best people we could or should be, and that hurts da kids we work with. We get impatient. We care about ds wrong things. We get angry when we shouldn't. We don't listen when we should.

 

So we count on others - our spouse, our family, our friends and colleagues, to be the good example when we are not. And then we trust in da conscience of our kids and the actions of Divine Providence. Puttin' faith in human institutions doesn't get yeh far,

 

So are we boxin' ourselves in? Of course we are, if we want sinless leaders. And there's a risk here when we pick one sin rather than another as being da make or break issue. Why a policy on homosexuality and not abortion? divorce? blasphemy? loaning money at interest? Probably because we're more willing to condemn other people's failings than our own.

 

Now, do I want kids told that divorce, or abortion, or homosexuality is OK? Nah. Nor should such behavior be held up as examples to 'em. But at some point I reckon we also have to recognize that aside from the Messiah there are no perfect examples, and be compassionate toward good people with flaws. Our kids are goin' to know such folks their whole lives, eh? And work with 'em, and live next door to 'em. And they should learn to treat 'em as neighbors and friends and colleagues and bosses and fellow souls made in da image and likeness of God.

 

Our policies must be measured in that light, eh? While I support the BSA position, I do worry at some point that maintaining the position and da polarization it causes may cause kids to lose sight of the real issues of personal weakness and compassion. And that might be a worse example.

 

 

B

[Eagledad]

>>Our kids are goin' to know such folks their whole lives, eh? And work with 'em, and live next door to 'em. And they should learn to treat 'em as neighbors and friends and colleagues and bosses and fellow souls made in da image and likeness of God.

[Beavah]

The irony of that statement is its the lack of knowing the likeness and image of God that is influencing the acceptance of homosexual behavior.

 

Yah, exactly.

 

Yeh can't begin by teaching against homosexuality, eh? Yeh begin by teaching about God and real love and compassion and da things we learn from Scripture and from life. The necessary lessons about abortion and homosexuality and all da rest come out of learning about godliness. Not the other way around. Yeh can't get to godliness by stakin' everything on excluding those who sin from your company, as Christ taught us by repeatedly sitting down to supper with some of da worst of sinners.

 

So I worry that if our focus is too much on excludin' folks (and only a subset of those that seem to upset us), we are teachin' the wrong thing. In order to find God kids need to be inspired, to stretch and look beyond themselves. That's how they learn to get and to keep a real marriage. That's how they learn to treasure the challenge of children to their "lifestyle." None but the most malignant of spirits gets inspired by excluding people, eh? So that can't be the lesson. Instead, we have go back and start with da real lessons of scripture and godliness and build back up from there.

 

B

 

 

[fred8033]

Beavah Nicely said.

 

I just want BSA out of this debate. Both sides are using BSA to advance their own political agendas. Sexuality is not part of the BSA program and BSA encourages scouts to follow their church's religious beliefs. So we already have inconsistencies there. Look at the large list of official BSA religious emblems. There's many faiths represented that allow homosexuality. Isn't that already a contradiction and a little two faced? BSA is asking COs to tangibly support units, but BSA won't support the CO's teachings? Hmmmm..... To be consistent, should BSA start dropping charter partners? That wont happen. (to be clear... I don't want that to happen.)

 

America values tolerance. All BSA needs to say is "BSA will not discriminate based on sexual preference. BSA offers a youth program structure used by many organizations (charter partners) wanting to provide a rich youth program. It is up to those charter partners to select unit leadership that reflect their own values and teachings."

 

Also, BSA is already extremely inclusive. Many many faiths. Leaders of both genders. Many political parties, even a few democrats I hear.

 

I really don't think there will be an exodus. Hard to believe at times, but we are all mature individuals who learn to work together. My faith says its wrong and I agree with that teaching. My neighbor faith says its okay. Guess what, we live together just fine and we are friends. If you think we'll lose membership, how many units and members dropped when BSA started allowing female scoutmasters and cubmasters? I bet almost zero.

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Fred,

 

In my area, scouting has lost membership because many feel that scouting is too liberal. I know for those who live in liberal areas that this is hard to believe but it is true. I know many dedicated scouters who have been in scouting for 20-40 years or more who say that when the stance on homosexuality changes, the will leave and encourage their CO to do the same. In conservative areas, the losses will be substantial and involve many who form the backbone of their councils.

 

 

[fred8033]

I hear you. I just don't believe it. I don't think it would change the membership in any significant way. And it would re-open so many doors that have been shut recently.

 

And the charge that scouting is too liberal these days? I really just don't know what that means. I never really hear that said.

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Eagledad]

Its not just the loss of present membership that would hurt, the BSA gets a huge huge amount of their funding from alumni. Usually alumni donations go to council resources and professional compensations. The loss of alumni funding really hurt the Girl Scouts and is what nearly killed the Canadian Scout program completely. Alumni Funding is probably the biggest fear and reason to resist change.

 

And dont assume units wont feel the affects either, almost immediately camps go up for sale and the prices for attending camps will rise. Programs like Cub Day Camp and possibly Webelos Summer Camps will go away completely do to lack of resources. I would also expect a lot of districts and councils merging to make it easier for the shortened resources and staffs. The rural areas will almost be completely neglected and have to survive on their own.

 

Ironically scouting might be forced to go back to a more traditional style program.

 

Barry

[fred8033]

I don't buy the doom and gloom. It's the standard response to change. BUT ... BSA will survive. Scouting will look the same. The same supporters will be there.

 

I should step away now. This is a topic of recuring and never ending debate. We won't resolve it here.

 

...

...

...

 

Personally, I think we lose more people by disallowing laser tag... but that's a different thread.

 

(This message has been edited by fred8033)

[Oak Tree]

The military heard stories about how all the troops would quit if gays were officially admitted, too. So they went to an intermediate "don't ask, don't tell" policy as the culture continued to evolve. Now they're going to lift the ban on openly gay soldiers, and it will be no big deal.

 

I've heard that people will leave, but like Fred, I don't really believe it. Maybe they'll all go to the Royal Rangers, but I doubt it.

 

Get Robert Gates in as the next CEO, or Bear Grylls, and let them lead a change. Or maybe Michael Barrett, current Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. The Wall Street Journal reports that Sgt. Maj. Barrett brought out a small copy of the Constitution and referenced Article 1, Section 8. It says, Raise an army. It says absolutely nothing about race, color, creed, sexual orientation. He then asked if everyone in the group joined the Marines to protect their nation, going on to say, How dare we, then, exclude a group of people who want to do the same thing you do right now, something that is honorable and noble?

 

Sgt. Maj. Barrett concluded by saying Get over it Lets just move on, treat everybody with firmness, fairness, dignity, compassion and respect. Lets be Marines.Start with the San Francisco Bay Area Council. I agree it might take people a little bit of time to come to terms with it. Don't just spring it on everyone, but slowly make it clear that's the way things are going.

 

Boy Scouts too liberal? On what issue? The only thing I've ever heard along those lines is that the organization isn't "sufficiently Christian" - and since it's not officially Christian at all, that's understandable.

 

Every story like this is one more item that drives home the BSA brand as anti-gay. I'll bet if you took a poll of random Americans, that's an association that's been rising over time. I do not see how this can help the BSA in the long run.

[packsaddle]

"In my area, scouting has lost membership because many feel that scouting is too liberal."

OK, I know I haven't really heard everything but this is getting toward the edge. If BSA policy was more inclusive we would definitely pick up membership after people had some time to actually start to believe it.

[Beavah]

Sadly, I think vol_scouter is right on this, eh? As is Eagledad, at least for some areas of da country. We'd see more people leave than join, by quite a bit.

 

It's a bit like the current debt limit debate, eh? There are some who are so convinced of their own righteousness and immersed in their own pride that it seems like they are willin' to utterly destroy the economic health of da nation and the lives of millions of people just to avoid payin' the same taxes they did in 2000. Somehow, they're confusin' that with virtue.

 

We've forgotten what godliness and real values look like, I reckon. So much easier to make idols of our own philosophies. We've forgotten that Christians are called to convert people by changing their hearts, not by forcing policies and regulations. To eat with 'em and drink with them, not to shun them.

 

So I can't see how even if we can still set our own leadership requirements within our churches and programs it's better to destroy scoutin' than allow others to set their own leadership requirements within their churches and programs. I'm just not that sort of fellow.

 

I support da BSA policy. I think it's better for the program and for kids. I think it reflects da values of the majority of our chartered partners. But in spite of that, I hope I'll never be the guy who is willing to destroy the thing I love just because I didn't get my way.

 

Beavah

 

[Engineer61]

"But there's a whole group of new GenX and GenY parents out there who have avoided Scouting precisely because it discriminates. They would join in droves if the conservatives lost this battle in the culture wars."

 

Hmmm....an interesting thought... I'm not certain that it would hold. There are many other aspects to Scouting that GenX/Y don't like. The training the use of firearms and other weapons for example.

 

IMO...Scouting, in whatever form, will likely always appeal to Rural America, and have much less appeal in Urban America. Suburban America will fall in the middle.

 

I also doubt Scouting will ever have a huge following in the Hispanic Community. My own observations are that the Hispanic community is very closed to cultural influences that are not native to Hispanics.