Petitions delivered by Eagle Scout over Anti-Gay Policy

[BDPT00]

Lest we forget, when the term "gay" is used, it is immediately translated by some to include transgender and bisexual. Not that that matters to some, but it may to others. Just sayin'

BDPT00

[NJCubScouter]

I don't know, BDPT00, I see and hear the expression "LGBT" a lot these days, which makes the distinction. In any event, I don't think bisexuals really present a different policy issue, so in this context I don't think people discuss them separately. (I other words I think the BSA would regard an "open or avowed bisexual" as the same, for purposes of the policy, as an "open or avowed homosexual.")

 

I'm not sure what the BSA policy is on transgendered persons, if any.

[Trevorum]

Waiting in the airport this afternoon I saw on the TV, but couldn't hear, a news piece covering Zach Wahls delivering his petition. Did anyone catch the TV story?

[Oak Tree]

Here's a link to a CNN article:

 

I find several of the statements of the official spokesman to be a bit odd. Some of them are exactly correct, but others...

 

"Our membership policy is not meant to be a blanket statement on a group of people" - except for the blanket statement that "a known or avowed homosexual is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law".

 

Also, "This (scouting) is not the place to reconcile diverging viewpoints" - but I would swear that there is lots of information about how to deal with diverging viewpoints on all types of topics in Scouting literature.

 

And "There has always been an open dialogue about this in scouting." Hmm, well, maybe on this board. I wouldn't have exactly called the official stance to be an open dialogue.

 

It is certainly true that "Any policy of the Boy Scouts can be changed." That does sound like a good, true statement, along with a hint of a possibility.

 

I see in another place it was reported that "The Scouts reiterated they do not grant membership to open or avowed homosexuals, because the group is concerned it would 'become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.'" Not so sure about this one. The Scouts have stated other, more explicit reasons, including the one listed above ("not appropriate role models"). Also, it seems like the issue is a bit of a distraction right now. Would it be more of a distraction if the policy changed? The BSA might lose members, or lose money, or lose chartering organizations - but really, the problem is that it would be a 'distraction'?

[scoutingagain]

I think the petition and publicity indicates the issue will not go away quietly. I'm sure it's not something BSA executives really want to deal with so in that sense it's a distraction to them.

 

I found it interesting that when Obama came out in support of Gay marriage there were members of the Republican Party that openly expressed concern that their party would ultimately find themselves on the wrong side of the issue. I suspect some of that feeling is beginning to creep into the upper echelons of BSA leadership.

 

 

SA

[SeattlePioneer]

Hello scoutingagain,

 

 

As I understand it, of the 34 states that have voted on gay marriage, 34 have rejected it and zero have approved it.

 

In Washington State, the legislature approved gay marriage this year and signatures well in excess of the numbers to require a referendum on that law have been filed which will put the issue to a vote.

 

I see no reason to suppose that the Republican Party is on the wrong side of the issue, but plenty that Democrats are.

 

Democrats are being led around by the nose by homosexuals demanding that Democrats approve issue after issue after issue for their special interest group. They are NEVER happy.

 

The gay marriage referendum could well be an issue that will draw voters to the polls, and very likely a significant majority will be voting it down. While Obama may still win Washington's electoral votes, that issue could help Republicans win other offices farther down the ballot.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Nothing to worry about SeattlePioneer, we all know how public opinion never changes:

 

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/20/us/politics/fvethirtyeight-0420-ssm2011/fvethirtyeight-0420-ssm2011-blog480.png

[scoutingagain]

Seattle,

 

I wasn't commenting on the validity of gay marriage, just that I thought it was notable that some Republicans openly made comments concerning their party's postition on it.

 

What you have said is true but there are indications the winds of change in society are moving. I believe at least one poll last week indicated for the first time a majority of Americans would approve of gay marriage. For now I realize those are not voters.

 

SA

[nldscout]

Here is what is funny about your so called polls. If the majority of americans favor Gay Marriage explain to me why it was voted down in 34 out of 34 states where people had a vote.

[Fehler]

Actually, it was voted down in AZ in 2006 (prop 107). Passed in 2008, but still, a defeat.

 

[Trevorum]

Nlds, it could be because all those referenda occurred in the past. Take a closer look at the scatter plot ; notice the trend lines? Of course, past performance does not guarantee future returns (!), but the data strongly suggest that we are now at the tipping point in public opinion. And whether it happens this year, or next, or in 5 years, it's never going back in the bag. The only real question, is: how much will BSA lag behind?

[SeattlePioneer]

It's a pointless issue for Scouting.

 

The real issue is finding ways to recruit more Hispanic, Asian and African American Scouts.

 

Among those critical demographic groups, none have much interest in homosexuals. If they do, they probably favor the status quo.

 

Homosexuals are of interest mostly to white liberals, who aren't going to have much interest in Scouting in any case.

[Horizon]

SeattlePioneer:

 

You might want to take a look at the changing trends of attitudes regarding gay marriage by group:

 

http://features.pewforum.org/same-sex-marriage-attitudes/index.php

 

The slides in this deck show breakdowns by religion, by some races, and most importantly to the future of the BSA - by age. Gen X (51%) and the Millenials (63%) both support gay marriage. They are the current round of Scout Leaders, and they are the ones that we are losing - because they won't join. I had my eyes opened up to this at a meeting with the student publishers of a conservative newspaper. They asked me why so much ink was spilled 25 years ago regarding gay issues. For them, it was fiscal issues that mattered. They truly did not care about gay issues, and considered it a distraction to their conservative mission.

 

You mention the Asians. One of the first 5 questions I have at every new parent night is one of my Asian parents asking me if their son will be OK as a Buddhist, since the BSA is a fundamentalist Christian organization. That is their perception, and one I have to fight each time.

 

By party - 59% of Democrats, 52% of Independents and 23% of Republicans (guys like me) support gay marriage.

 

Ignoring this issue won't make it better, it instead will be one of the factors impacting recruiting. You won't know why that one dad didn't bring his son to the meeting, but it will be one of the factors. I have mentioned before - I know Eagle Scouts who earned their badge with me who will not enroll their sons in Scouting due to the anti-gay issue. They would be amazing leaders, but they can not go against their principles. I don't know how many we are losing because of this, and I think it would be a great survey - except that we would then have to decide what to do with the results.

[BSA24]

There was a time when black people were believed to not have souls or to be the evil children of Cannan marked by God with dark skin. People heard this at Church, and they believed it was true. They used it to justify treating them unequally for a long time.

 

Anybody here want to say they believe that way? Used to be that when a black kid came to apply for membership at a white troop, he was turned away. Anyone still do that? It was surely going to be the end of the world for us if we let "them" in our troops. They don't have souls, you know. That's what they said.

 

I heard an adult say it to his son in one of our meetings when I was a boy. "They don't have souls. They are going to hell. They are black because they sinned against God and are the children of Canan."

 

I remember scout leaders telling everyone how they would quit if we let them in. How the churches would abandon us. How we'd be finished as an organization.

 

Look what actually happened. We have the likes of Black Eagle making web sites like crazy to help everyone do Scouting better. A black scout leader took scouts to meet the President.

 

Seems that we have a lot of things we are really sure about. We have a lot of reasons to label a group of people as being "them" and then not talk to "them," live next door to "them," sit on the bus with "them."

 

Young folks are going to do away with our prejudiced practices eventually anyway.

 

Look what happened to the military when they let people be openly gay: Nothing.

 

Maybe if we let the gays in, we'll finally get a decent uniform that looks nice and is functional? ;-)

 

[SeattlePioneer]

I've had people say they wouldn't participate in Scouting because homosexuals weren't accepted as leaders. Not since about 2007.

 

Most people realize that BSA has a constitutional right to determine it's membership, despite current political fads and fashions.

 

Questions about religion are a lot more common, and generally pretty easily answered.

 

But white liberals are never going to be happy with Scouting, in my opinion. So I wouldn't bother trying to appease them, which is pointless and futile.

 

Observe how Clinton, Obama and the Democrats are hag ridden by one demand after another from homosexuals. Why bother? They simply aren't important in the numbers game.

 

Concentrate on what IS important --- recruiting the millions of Hispanics, Asians and African Americans, few of which give a fig about homosexuals, except to be disproportionately suspicious of them.

 

IF BSA decides to accept homosexuals, I have no objection. Neither do I think it's at all important that they do.