Basementdweller Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 Not pushing the agenda Pack..... I am a local option kinda guy and that is my current world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 "what they don't have is the right to redefine terms to make them apply to them" Yes, we should all be opposing the attempt to redifing marriage from "Marry the person you love" to "Marry a person of the opposite sex" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Yes, we should all be opposing the attempt to redifing marriage from "Marry the person you love" to "Marry a person of the opposite sex" It's only very recently that anyone has even associated marriage with the modern conception of love. People have been marrying for reasons other than love since time immemorial. Besides, love is an act of the will; it's not like we have no control over whom we love. If I fall in love with a married woman do I have the right to marry her? Is that part of the definition of "marriage" to which you adhere? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 "Love and marriage, love and marriage, go together like a horse and carriage. This I tell you brother, you can't have one without the other." I guess it depends on what you think 'modern' means as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdidochas Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 CalicoPenn, Until the last 20 years, I've never heard of marriage defined as "Marry the person you love.' the definition has been "Marry a person of the opposite sex that you intend to stay with for the rest of your life." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdidochas Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The above said, I agree with the idea of local option. IMHO, our current position will lead to BSA eventually being forced into the position of allowing gay leaders regardless of CO opinion. The local option will allow groups that wish to stay traditional in terms of gay leaders to stay traditional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdidochas Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Peregrin, We don't have the choice of who we fall in love with, but we do have the choice of who we don't fall in love with. As a married guy, I have chosen not to fall in love with any other women besides my wife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 >>I agree with the idea of local option. IMHO, our current position will lead to BSA eventually being forced into the position of allowing gay leaders regardless of CO opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
perdidochas Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Lawsuits, public pressure, etc. IMHO, if we allow the local option idea, the pressure will be off to make changes. I believe in compromise, and in the idea of local governance on most things. Basically said, I don't mind what you do in your troop, there are certain things I don't want to go on in my troop. I don't believe that homosexual males are appropriate role models for boys in a values-based organization. I do think that your views may vary, and I have no problem with you choosing others to be role models in your local organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Folks, "local option" is a myth. Here's how it will play out: - policy is removed - leader of unit 666 in CO X identifies as non-heterosexual - COR or IH attempts to remove him/her on principle - co-leaders (in the same unit or outside) rally to his/her side citing BSA's newly minted open sexual orientation policy - Council staff tries to explain COR's prerogative to concerned leaders, but the person in question has very strong ties to 666 - leaders appeal to the courts or press (whoever listens) "Discrimnation continues in BSA" - blogs and chat rooms copy headline ... it's pointed out that other scout assossiations (e.g. UK have) no such option. - pressure on National to impose "non-discrimination" on every level. Like it or not, progressives and reactionaries, we're all in this together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizon Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 There are plenty of units who will not allow a woman as a Scoutmaster. I haven't seen the lawsuits against the CORs on that subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 I was going to bring up the same point. The whole idea of local option as it's currently practiced with gender and religion, is that the CO can set their own membership standards and I'm not aware of any litigation or legal issues with units that don't allow women in certain leadership roles or units that only accept members of a specific religion. SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 Seems there is a misunderstanding of the local option. Local Option simply is the option of sponsoring a BSA unit. Once National takes away membership requirements, the sponsoring organization is left without cover for not accepting gay leaders. Given the choice, sponsoring no unit is a lot less hassle. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizon Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 To me, in regards to this topic, local option is an extension of the already existing local option. Right now, a unit can decide if it wishes to discriminate based on faith or gender in regards to unit leadership. A unit can also decide if it wishes to discriminate based on faith in regards to youth membership. None of this has triggered a lawsuit to my knowledge, nor has it caused Charter Orgs to drop for fear of a lawsuit from a Jewish group wanting in a Catholic Troop, or a women's group suing for the right to be an ASM. My unit did not get an attorney when we had our Council Summer Camp registration cancelled so that LDS units could have an all LDS summer camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoutingagain Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 "the sponsoring organization is left without cover for not accepting gay leaders." Exactly. If they feel strongly about the leadership qualities of gay individuals they will be free to not accept them. But they will have to do so based on their own convictions and not hide behind a "National" policy. It's currently the same way for women or religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now