its baaackk.... BSA policy on homosexuals and leadership

[packsaddle]

"God did?" I'd like to hear that from God, please....

Eagledad, you have an 'odd' sense of humor. I like that.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[shortridge]

Well, that's the rub, Beavah. This isn't about changing "our group." BSA is not a democracy. None of us have a vote, except the extreme and final decision of voting with our feet. It is at best a republic, but not one in the U.S. usage of the term. The "representatives" are self-selected officeholders associated with powerful institutions. There is no election and no way to directly hold them accountable. In the U.S., if I disagree with my representative on any level, I can run for that seat. If I disagree strongly enough with what my local jurisdiction has done, I can move to an area where I will be a better fit.

 

Not so with the structure of the BSA. It does not represent me. I was never given a choice about this issue. I do not have a voice that matters to the power-holders on this issue. If I want to remain a "citizen" of this Scouting nation and be true to my beliefs, I have to stay and be silenced. I cannot move to another local jurisdiction whose policy matches my moral code. I can use my right of speech to raise some heck, but I have no real power.

 

So you see, this is no democracy. It is a self-perpetuating oligarchy that espouses grand principles but fails to live up to them.(This message has been edited by Shortridge)

[DLChris71]

So please explain how you arrive at that particular choice without some kind of 'weighting' for the 'relative' goodness or badness of the outcome, or some other rationale?

 

 

I did. I'm sorry if the answer did not generate the outcome you desired or if you did not understand the answer.

[packsaddle]

The outcome I desired was to understand your reasoning. At one time I thought it was a simple enough goal. I was wrong.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Eamonn]

There is a Chinese proverb that says:

Respect the Gods and respect the devils -But keep them at a distance.

 

One of the qualities I most admire about myself is that I'm a very lazy little fellow.

Born and raised in an Irish R/C home I never took the time or was bothered to seek enlightenment elsewhere.

For a little while while at college I did question my religion but it was hard work so I played it safe and started going to Mass again.

I don't think that I'm gay.

Again I really have never wanted to take the time to find out.

I understand how two people of the same sex can have deep feelings for each other but the sex part? Still there again I don't understand people who claim to have a foot fetish. But that might be due to my having sweaty feet?

I'm willing to bet that within the ranks of the BSA there are a fair number of homosexuals who for whatever reason have never come out and will never come out.

But that's OK.

OK with the BSA as it is avowed homosexuals that are unwelcome.

So if the parents of young Cruz had not openly said that they were gay, maybe told a few lies? Everything would have been OK.

 

Being raised in an Irish Roman Catholic home, attending R/C schools and church, you bet I know a little bit about sin.

In Eamonn's little world, I can only be guilty of the sins that I commit.

While there are some things that are illegal and against the law and me doing them might end up with me paying fines, serving time or even on death row! Sin is something that is mine.

Something that is between me and my God.

My religion has said that homosexuality is a sin.

So far it looks like I'm in the clear on that one anyway.

Come to think of it, I'm not that bad of a fellow.

But that's no one else's business other than my own.

I've always been too lazy to cheat on my wife or run around.

We enjoy a good marriage and healthy sex life.

That is also no one else's business.

So why does the BSA think it has the right to rule what other people do, not just in their bedrooms? But also if it is a sin? It's not their sin.

Eamonn.

 

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

...sweaty feet...TMI, Eamonn, TMI!

[perdidochas]

Tampa Turtle wrote:

Sadly one of the factors in this discussion is the fear that the public still associates Pedophile scout leaders with the gay issue. Grown men with boys and all that. So I imagine that is a part of the institutional "drag" on the issue.

 

 

 

I agree 100% with the above. Like it or not, the above is an important part of the issue.

[Beavah]

None of us have a vote, except the extreme and final decision of voting with our feet. It is at best a republic, but not one in the U.S. usage of the term.

 

Well, some of us do .

 

You mistake me. Da BSA is a membership corporation. The governance is that shareholders (well, members...) get a vote. Just like General Motors, eh? Investors get a vote, not consumers. As a purchaser of GM automobiles, yeh don't get a vote on GM's policies.

 

Same with scouting, eh? The people who put their organizations on the line to run scouting programs get a vote. So if yeh want a vote, yeh have to pony up and be a Chartered Org.

 

It was that way in the U.S. for a while, eh? Only landowners got a vote. People who paid taxes and were invested in an area.

 

Beavah

 

[Eamonn]

"sweaty feet...TMI, Eamonn, TMI"

Yes maybe?

But FFF

(Foot Fetish Free.)

 

It's strange in the jail where I work being gay or being accused of being gay is not cool or whatever the word for cool is.

I have yet to meet a white guy who admits to being gay.

I have met a few black men who are openly gay.

I have never met a black man in jail for being a Pedophile.

Most of the child molesters seem to older married white guys.

This of course doesn't proof anything!

Just thought that I'd mention it.

Ea.

[Beavah]

The outcome I desired was to understand your reasoning. At one time I thought it was a simple enough goal. I was wrong.

 

Yah, me too.

 

But yeh still haven't answered my questions way back on page 10, have yeh packsaddle?

 

What do yeh do for son, student, friend who is attracted to methamphetamine and gettin' into use? Somethin' yeh truly believe is self-destructive for that person, but that others argue is just a reasonable recreational pursuit that should be legalized?

 

B

 

[moosetracker]

Beavah, I will attempt to answer that..

 

Prostitute (no criminal record) Local Option in Scouting

Sin of bible. May not be a sin if following something other than the bible.

Personal Choice even if it may be for survival. (unless is kidnapped and forced into sexual slavery)

criminal

Most danger of harm is to the prostitute, slightly the John as he flirting with the criminal world.

Meth user (no criminal record) Local Option in Scouting

Not specifically a sin of the bible unless linked with body is a temple

Personal choice to start. Then addicted and hard to stop.

Criminal

Cause and effect proof of harm not only to those using drugs, but to others due to paranoia or psychotic violence. They may kill themselves. Plus other drags on community due to their own health issues, or children born from an addicted mother.

Homosexual (not criminal) No local option in scouting

May or may not be sin of bible (depends on how bible is interpreted).

Some think personal choice, Some think naturally inclined.. I believe that definately some are naturally inclined, though some are definately choice also..

Not Criminal

Not (physically) dangerous to self or others.

 

 

So scouting treats the Meth user with more respect. But, I would not.. Even though it is not specifically a sin of the Bible, it does alot of harm to others as well as self. My local option would be to expect my Scouting unit to see them as not Good Role models and not accept them to be a scout leader.

 

I don't interprete the Bible in that it says a homosexuality is a sin, so no problem there. I also don't agree with some odd notion that homosexuality is the reason why there is a higher divorce rate, that is trying to find a scapegoat by pointing the finger at what you wish to condemn.. So as far as I am concern, no harm to others..

 

Definately worth Scouting offering them a local option equal to the Meth users and the Prostitutes.

[packsaddle]

Moosetracker, I answered him in a PM.

Beavah's question didn't address anything about the idea of "morality by degree". I'm not sure, even, what the point of Beavah's question is. Is there anyone out there who would do NOTHING about a young person involved with drugs? Duh!!!

 

My question was about "morality by degree" and intended to see if DLChris71 could articulate his thoughts in a way that I could understand. So DLChris71 stated his choice in my scenario. He made the same choice that I would make based on my use of "morality by degree". As far as I can tell, DLChris71 did not explain how his choice did NOT indicate his use of "morality by degree" in making that choice. But his answer was heart-felt and seemed to satisfy others. That's about all I expect at this point.

[shortridge]

Beavah,

 

Forgive me, but your quaint language and philosophical meanderings have left me mildly confused.

 

Please contrast these two statements:

 

In terms of da BSA policy, as a practical matter the organization is set up as a (somewhat bizarrely insular) representative democracy. Just like da U.S., policy is goin' to be set by the majority of the members.

 

and

 

Da BSA is a membership corporation. The governance is that shareholders (well, members...) get a vote. Just like General Motors, eh? Investors get a vote, not consumers. As a purchaser of GM automobiles, yeh don't get a vote on GM's policies.

Same with scouting, eh? The people who put their organizations on the line to run scouting programs get a vote. So if yeh want a vote, yeh have to pony up and be a Chartered Org.

 

How are we both a representative democracy and a membership corporation, simultaneously? We can't be both.

 

Additionally, we all hold cards that declare us members of the Boy Scouts of America. We pay dues and register. If we're a membership corporation, shouldn't that give us some say-so?

 

I'm also wondering about this:

 

It was that way in the U.S. for a while, eh? Only landowners got a vote. People who paid taxes and were invested in an area.

 

Those requirements were abolished over the centuries as part of a move to a more enlightened form of representative government. Can you explain to my simple mind why the BSA using an antebellum system of governance in which no one is accountable to the broad membership?