Help me understand your point of view

[MomToEli]

Moosetracker -

 

I don't know what my CO is going to do. As I said, I am not a member of their church and I don't know their position on this. Nor do I know if they, as a small church, feel able to bear the costs of litigation should they take the position to say no and then are subsequently sued.

 

The questions are complex, actually. Even if a CO says they are going to stand firm they and the individuals involved are still inherently tied to the national organization and what it does and does not stand for.

 

As for the karate teacher - if that club/school/whatever represented themselves as standing on one set of values and then changed later then yes, I would withdraw my son. If I went in to it knowing that the instructor was gay I would absolutely NOT attempt to change the school to be anything other than what it is. If I objected I would either have not joined in the first place or would leave and find something different. To try to force them to change to be what I want them to be would be simply wrong. If something didn't exist which suited me, I would find like-minded people and start something which met my needs. Which, frankly, is what I think the homosexual community should have done - and actually has done as there have been several scout-like programs that have been organized to be more consistent with what they believe. (You, too, can google it, as did I.) I simply don't see anyone bent on making those organizations be anything other than what they clearly say they are.

 

So, who is being discriminatory/unfair to whom?

[fred8033]

Sharing a tent? The situation would be VERY DIFFERENT than body odor. It's entirely 100% reasonable that if a girl can justifiably feel uncomfortable sharing a tent with a straight boy, a straight boy is entirely justified feeling uncomfortable sharing a tent with a non-straight boy. Why would you think otherwise? And it's not a matter of being a bigot any more than girls are bigoted against boys.

 

Similarly, if we don't let non-married male/female adults share tents, why would we let two non-straight adult men share tents? It's the same thing.

[NJCubScouter]

As I have said before, I think we can rely on the wisdom of local unit leaders to decide what the tenting arrangements should be for their unit (in addition to following the YP guidelines, of course.) I have no doubt that they will come up with answers suitable to each situation.

[John-in-KC]

Mom to Eli nails a key issue.

 

Will BSA defend a Chartered Partner who denies membership based on their belief system?

 

If BSA fails to, then I suspect Partners will hit the eject button as fast as they can...

[pchadbo]

Fred8033,

 

Not to be mean or righteous, but you may want to re-read my post for a better comprehension, I said the conversation would not be much different: both awkward, both sensitive, both potentially hurtful if not done right.

 

As far as:

 

"Similarly, if we don't let non-married male/female adults share tents, why would we let two non-straight adult men share tents? It's the same thing."

 

sounds like my response:

"Are both parties agreeable. . . ok. Are they a "couple"? Treat 'em as unmarried couple that they are, no tenting together

 

"Two gay male adults to share a tent?" see above, if they are married, do as you would with a married hetero couple."

 

Beyond that, thatnk you all for your well-reasoned and thoughful posts (especially MomToEli) to help me see the other side.

 

[Papadaddy]

When I was unit scouting, the adults always slept alone anyway...because of snoring. Maybe I'm odd, but I wouldn't be averse to sharing a tent with a gay man. I have several gay friends, male and female...never felt any of them to be a "threat" to my hetero self. They never made advances to me, never tried to "recruit" me. They are just people...good people who happen to be wired differently than me. I have trusted my own kids with them, accepted them as "family", and I would not hesitate to do so again. In fact, when we are out socially with them my wife and I get introduced as "they're good people", which I have figured out is code for "they are not bigots and it's ok to be you". If they are violating some moral law, that's between them and their maker, and He has not asked for my opinion...only that I love them and live MY life as I think He wants me to. Politically, I am a staunch Conservative/Libertarian. But I don't believe that gay "marriage" is a threat to me or my family.

[moosetracker]

Well, I don't think descrimination is allowing you to decide how you want to run your unit.. I could understand feeling your values are desciminated against if they had changed to a policy where all units must treat homosexuals fairly. After all, that would put you in the very position everyone on our side of the issue has felt for a very long time.

 

fred - I agree with NJCubScouter that local units can figure it out based on how their troops are run.. About a year or so back I wrote in a thread, I would give an openly homosexual boy a seprate tent.. Well, someone thought that was horrible, I would be not treating him fairly.. But, as we discussed it, I found out he was from England where a whole patrol (males and females) all sleep in one big tent.. I explained that here we mostly have 2 man tents, and in my troop it was always a priviledge to get your own tent.. If possible it was a benefit for the SPL, ASPL, (and if enough tents) each patrol leader.. So, in our troop while it might be due to the issue of not knowing where to put him.. (can't put him with a girl, a straight guy, or another gay guy).. It would almost be seen as a side benefit, not as isolating him.. But, that solution may not work for another troop if perhaps they have 4 or 6 man tents.. Or the boys love tent mates for some reason..

[Woapalanne]

"but we already have guys insisting on wearing kilts....."

 

So you have a problem with men wearing extremely macho attire? That women LOVE to see? Really? Hmmmm.... Now there's a problem with men being men.

[packsaddle]

Someone please explain how a decision to stop discriminating (local option) amounts to discrimination, if 'local option' means that units can still discriminate if they want to?

 

How is it that greater local freedom is somehow 'wrong' or 'bad'?

 

MomToEli, As I understand it, the policy shift to local option doesn't necessarily change 'standards' if the local CO wants to maintain the status quo. The standards remain in your control. What is wrong with that?(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Tampa Turtle]

In my (bible belt) college I had a gay roommate. Best one ever. Occasionally folks misconstrued our relationship but I didn't care. We slept in the same room and occasionally had heart-to-hearts on the travails on romance.

 

I told him I was uncomfortable changing around him and we worked that out. Showered separate times as well.

 

I think gay boy-straight boy tent buddies situations exist now and the boys accept it or switch as they see fit. Boys switch for other reasons--new friends, smuggled electronics, gas.

[packsaddle]

Tampa Turtle, heh, heh, I sleep alone mostly because I get kicked out. No one seems to like my singing or when I'm humming a tune.

[Sentinel947]

Over my 7 years as a Scout, I camped probably upward of 200 nights. That's a fair amount of camping. I never was advanced on by another Scout, or heard of it happening to anybody else.

 

Does the pro ban people have any examples of gay youth making passes at straight youth? I'd be interested to hear of real events if there are any.

 

Yours in Service,

Sentinel947

[Jeffrey H]

".....I am looking for enlightenment from "the other side" as to why they will be running and screaming away from BSA due to a piece of paper in Texas.

not to call people out, but I am looking for responses from those like: ASM59, airborneveteran, Jeffrey H and raisinemright

why would you leave? What has so catastrophically changed by a piece of paper that still allows you to run your unit EXACTLY THE SAME WAY??..."

 

 

We will continue to run our Pack in exactly the same way with the continued blessing of our Church CO. At this time, I have not heard anything from my CO and/or COR about this issue. Our church CO is a great partner and has always been a strong supporter of our Pack. We will see what happens after the actual vote is taken by the Executive Board.

 

 

 

 

[Woapalanne]

The problem, as I see it, is that now we can't "discriminate" for or against people based on their behavior. (Don't compare it to race discrimination: it's not who they are but what they do). I'm sorry, folks, but behavior has consequences. How are we to teach character to our Scouts when we can't require certain standards of behavior? I've first joined Scouting in 1950. I'm seriously rethinking continuation of my involvement if we can't teach "duty to God" and good character (which is inextricably connected to behavior).

[scoutingagain]

EXACTLY! Those that want to "happily discriminate", well they are free to continue to do so. If they do and continue to run their program the way they have, they don't have to worry about tenting arrangements anymore than they have in the past.

 

Those CO's that do open their membership will have to consider it. But since the BSA's official policy only addressed avowed, adult homosexuals, the issue of youth on youth abuse has always been there and units can continue to deal with it the same way they do now. For adults, the issue has been asked and answered. Two gay men, are they a couple? Are they married? If not to either one, they don't tent together. They either tent with another adult that's OK with it or alone. As noted, due to snoring many of our adults tent alone now. No big deal.

 

We deal with potential attractions in Venture scouting and it's no big deal. The rest of the world seems to deal with it just fine and scouting lives on. But like I said, simply continue to discriminate if you wish and you won't have to worry about it.

 

SA