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

[Mr. Boyce]

re: original post contents. . . mehh!

 

 

BSA members/leaders need to simply acknowledge that sports have been so professionalized that they drown out all other contenders for kids' time. And schools also have originated new kinds of programs, including programming that steps on the toes of the BSA's main deal, the outdoors.

[Tampa Turtle]

Yes there is new competition.

 

I do not know about the Presbyterian Church issue, all mainline Protestant denominations are eroding.

 

I think BSA is in a similar position that the United Methodist Church is in. (This week is the 4 year General Conference, where delegates set policy. It is in Tampa and I am following some of it) Many denominations, especially in the Northeast and Midwest are in serious decline. Some folks say the Methodist church needs to liberalize it's gay position to appeal to folks turned off by the traditional message and grow the church. (That is the theory)Meanwhile, in the Southeast and overseas it is growing. These areas are much more conservative. Concern is that being too liberal will hurt those area's growth. There is a counter-proposal to let some councils set their own policy.

 

Ironically some of the same folks who say the UMC must open up to grow the church in their areas are blocking greater representation of the ultra-conservative African delegates. Politics, politics.

 

So it is really hard for any of us, thinking locally and our own limited experience, to know how a policy change would help or hurt Scouts as a whole. IMPO I think given the folks that make it a priority it would probably hurt more than help.

[shortridge]

"I do not join a club to protest their rules and insist they change....especially when part of the clubs identity is based on the rules it has."

 

Scoutfish: I would normally agree with you on the first part. However, I'm in the situation of having joined in my youth, before I even knew what sex was, let alone sexual orientation. As an older youth, I realized that the policy was wrong, a belief I hold today. Does that mean I can't speak out about how Irving and the churches putting pressure on Irving are behaving in a stupid and ultimately counterproductive manner?

 

I also loudly disagree with your statement that Scouting's identity is based upon the anti-gay rule. There is nothing in the Oath or Law that can, on its face, be interpreted as opposing homosexuality. The closest thing supporters of the ban can point to is the morally straight clause - and yet we don't also give the boot to adulterers, drunks or thieves.

[DuncanHill]

Thanks Shortridge.

 

I'm interested in the comments about Scouting's identity and the ban on gay people in BSA. Do some in BSA not regard British, Irish, European, Australian, Canadian Scouts as sharing your Scouting identity?

[Lisabob]

Scoutfish, I believe it is also relevant to point out that the anti-gay stance of the BSA apparently was not a major focal point of the organization until somewhere in the 1980s. Every adult I've talked to about this who was a scout in his youth tells me that nobody asked or cared about this stuff before then. The focus seems to have been a by-product of the 1980s/90s "culture wars" in our society. Or anyway, that's my impression of things. I know we have some BSA historian-types on here who might have more to say. But the point I'm trying to make is that the ground seems to have shifted under many long-time members' feet, and the bit in the BSA adult requirements about not being an "avowed homosexual" is, I think, a relatively recent addition.

 

As for the original post, I also don't see how a den leader's sexual orientation has anything to do with whether s/he can be a good den leader. Apparently, the rest of the pack leadership didn't have a problem either, and that should have been the end of the story IMO.

[Eagledad]

>>So it is really hard for any of us, thinking locally and our own limited experience, to know how a policy change would help or hurt Scouts as a whole. IMPO I think given the folks that make it a priority it would probably hurt more than help.

[Tampa Turtle]

My $0.02 is I just don't care to know about anyone's sexual identity.

[packsaddle]

"Money is power." - Commodore Vanderbilt

"It's all about money." - Rush Limbaugh

"I have mentioned earlier that money is the primary motivator for National to make major changes in the program." - Eagledad

"The only thing that matters to BSA National is:

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" - nldscout

"I haven't seen a single sexual orientation lobby offer the BSA large sums of cash for a policy change." - qwazse

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:El_Greco_016.jpg

 

[scoutingagain]

Barry has it 100% correct. At this point, the BSA probably retains more members than they would gain by changing their policies. Sure they lose some due to current policy, but on balance few compared to alternative. At some point, as Barry notes, that is likely to change and when it does so will the BSA. I personally think that may come sooner than some expect, but it will happen. At that point those that don't like the changes may start their own organization and maybe the BSA monopoly on scouting will be broken. Who knows?

 

Other than individual units I don't think situations like those described in the OP do much to effect membership one way or another. Far more damaging are articles about scout leaders being arrested for holding or diseminating child pornography or worse. Given the the publicity about priests, coaches, teachers, scout leaders etc. related to sexual activity and children is it any wonder parents hover?

 

Let's face it, the general public probably doesn't quite get why grown men dressed in knee socks and shorts wearing beads and bobbles, want to take a bunch of boys camping in the woods.

 

SA

 

 

[DLChris71]

A scout is obedient to God, a scout pledges to do his duty to God, keep himself morally straight, reverent and clean in body, mind, and act.

 

If we take all of the people of the world, stuff them in the room, then there just will not be a consensus on what is moral and what is a duty to God. What is obedience to God? In fact I suspect there would be absolute anarchy. However a many faiths believe that homosexuality is immoral.

 

So we have one group that is taking part in an act and another group that says that it's immoral. Who's right? The group taking part in the act says that they are not harming anyone, that they are benign, that except for this one thing that they do, which they say is not wrong, they are upstanding people. But to the other group it's not so simple. To accept that there is nothing wrong with the act means that they are going to pick and choose which parts of their religion are enforceable and which are not. For the religious, if we don't agree with all portions of our faith then that means we can really pick and choose what is and isn't moral.

 

A code of morality can not stand if we pick and choose.

 

Now depending on your faith sin or immorality exists in all people. Every person has the potential for great evil. Depending on your faith then a moral code must exist in order to distinguish right and wrong. I've never been able to sit down with an atheist to find out where they think their moral code comes from, that point has always been a minor interest to me.

 

So, it has been said that BSA doesn't "discriminate" against other immoral acts. But what then about the criminal background check, the approval of the CO, the approval of the committee. If a person is an active thief, even a boy, isn't he brought up before the Committee, or turned over to the police if they refuse to repent. How many of us would let a drunk, drive our kids to events or lead a meeting if they showed up drunk? Adultery and homosexuality are no longer, for the most part, criminalized. But every time I hear about adultery on these forums taking place between scouters/parents I hear nothing about positive outcomes. If a CO hears about adultery, especially a situation that disrupts the unit, wouldn't they remove the offending people.

 

Basically to some people when you say:

 

homosexuality = okay

 

Other people by their faith and religious beliefs here:

 

homosexuality = immoral

 

So it doesn't work out:

 

immoral = okay

 

Yes, one day perhaps the a significant portion of the nation will be what is now considered immoral. But when a nation or a people start to change the meaning of morality then there will be consequences. Shake the box and pull out which sin is okay and you may find that others come out or one that you don't like comes out. A person who has a moral code will often have a hard time standing by that moral code. He may meet someone or even work for someone that is immoral. He may have his own moral weakness that is different, but he fights against acting on it because it goes against his moral code.

 

I think a moral code is a hard line. People can say all they like that someone who has a moral code, well if they only were more enlightened or were to receive bribes, they would change their moral code. Isn't that sad. Isn't that sad that people would try and corrupt other people's morality. Isn't it sad when the recovering alcoholic's own family offers him a drink, or a reformed criminal isn't given a job to re-establish themselves in, or a drug dealer offers a child free drugs.

 

I get it. Believe me I do. Homosexuals would like to go through life appreciated for who they are and what they do. I understand. So do thieves, liars, and murderers too. Everyone wants to be accepted. Immoral and moral both. And one way or the other everyone finds acceptance and support, but no one finds universal support regardless of who they are. And I can't honestly say everyone deserves universal support.

 

 

[Lisabob]

"I get it. Believe me I do. Homosexuals would like to go through life appreciated for who they are and what they do. I understand. So do thieves, liars, and murderers too. Everyone wants to be accepted."

 

Your comparison is odious. You can't seriously feel that it is apt.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Lisabob writes:

"I get it. Believe me I do. Homosexuals would like to go through life appreciated for who they are and what they do. I understand. So do thieves, liars, and murderers too. Everyone wants to be accepted."

 

Your comparison is odious. You can't seriously feel that it is apt.

 

Yeah! At least thieves, liars, and murderers can still be scouts:

 

http://www.scouter.com/forums//viewThread.asp?threadID=74652

[John-in-KC]

My two cents:

 

As long as ONE National Chartered Partner is the LARGEST Chartered Partner (by a factor of 4:1 over the second largest Chartered Partner), there will be no change.

[nldscout]

Surprisingly the wishes of the CO's are not the important train thats driving this choice. Yes that one CO may go, but thats just youth numbers, and we don't know if they would go either if there was a local option as it would allow them to keep thier units intact as they are.

 

The train is driven by big alumni donors, All you have to look at is the most recent large donation of a plot of land and a small sum of construction money for some little ole thing called the "Summit Bechtel Family National Scout Reserve ". If you don'r think the wishes and thoughts of the Bechtel family and others like them matter, I got some swamp land for sale just for you.

[DuncanHill]

DLChris71, can I ask you straight out if you accept those national Scouting Organisations which don't exclude gay people as being just as much Scouts as BSA?

 

I'd also point out that just about no-one in Britain would read "morally straight" (not a wording we've ever had in Scouting here) as meaning "sexually straight" - we'd understand it to mean something like "honest, trustworthy, keeps their word". I'd be interested to know if straight was even used to mean heterosexual at the time BSA added it to their Promise and Law.