Help me understand your point of view

[DigitalScout]

Having said all of that' date=' I am concerned about an individual that is so wrapped in his or her sexuality that s/he must be identified as Jack/Jill the gay Scout leader. Why can't it just be Jack or Jill the Scout leader? [/quote'] You just don't get it. There is this fantasy that we are going to get gay scout leaders showing up in a feather boa and high heals, and shouting in front of the scouts "let me tell you how great it is to be gay!". It's total BS. The problem is that you declare your sexuality every time you introduce your wife as your wife. Gay leaders just want the same freedom to get dropped off at an event by their "partner" without the fear that somebody is going to report them and cause pain for them and their unit. "Don't ask don't tell" doesn't work because "telling" really means "someone found out and complained".

 

No, not really. Every time I introduce my wife, I'm introducing my wife. I'm not telling anyone anything about my sexuality. Sometimes a wife is just a wife. You say "...gay leaders want the same freedom to get dropped off at an event by their partner..." how would "don't ask, don't tell" impact that? It wouldn't. Let's be honest with one another here for a moment - we've had gay leaders in Scouting for as long as we've had Scouting. And I'm sure that "gay leaders have been dropped off at events by their partners" from time to time. And maybe even those inclined to wonder why Mr. Jones is always being dropped off by Mr. Smith, the youth really didn't "know" anything about the sexuality of the adult leaders. Sure, they may have guessed. They may have intuited it as they got older. But it wasn't out in the open so to speak.

 

So what we're really talking about is that those who feel passionate about forcing the Scouts to accept gay leaders really do want to have "Joe the gay leader" instead of "Joe the leader". I'm not smart enough to know why this is so important, but suspect it has something to do with mainstream acceptance and changing the cultural and moral values of our country. But that's just a guess. I may not get it.

The big problem with DADT is that it takes away all rights from the person. A gay scouter doesn't have to tell anyone about their sexuality but it allows them to be tossed out if anyone complains for any reason and there is no recourse. Jennifer Tyrrell is a good example. Her pack was fine that she was a lesbian because she was a great leader and she never discussed her sexuality. But someone had an ax to grind, maybe she crossed someone, a complaint was made to the council and she got tossed out without any hearing or anything. How is that fair?

 

Also, how do you hide the fact that you may be married or in an long-term relationship with someone who is the same sex? Do you think you can hide the fact that you are married? How do you keep the scouts from talking about "my mom and dad" or "my two dads" or "my two moms?"

[ghjim]

Having said all of that' date=' I am concerned about an individual that is so wrapped in his or her sexuality that s/he must be identified as Jack/Jill the gay Scout leader. Why can't it just be Jack or Jill the Scout leader? [/quote'] You just don't get it. There is this fantasy that we are going to get gay scout leaders showing up in a feather boa and high heals, and shouting in front of the scouts "let me tell you how great it is to be gay!". It's total BS. The problem is that you declare your sexuality every time you introduce your wife as your wife. Gay leaders just want the same freedom to get dropped off at an event by their "partner" without the fear that somebody is going to report them and cause pain for them and their unit. "Don't ask don't tell" doesn't work because "telling" really means "someone found out and complained".

 

No, not really. Every time I introduce my wife, I'm introducing my wife. I'm not telling anyone anything about my sexuality. Sometimes a wife is just a wife. You say "...gay leaders want the same freedom to get dropped off at an event by their partner..." how would "don't ask, don't tell" impact that? It wouldn't. Let's be honest with one another here for a moment - we've had gay leaders in Scouting for as long as we've had Scouting. And I'm sure that "gay leaders have been dropped off at events by their partners" from time to time. And maybe even those inclined to wonder why Mr. Jones is always being dropped off by Mr. Smith, the youth really didn't "know" anything about the sexuality of the adult leaders. Sure, they may have guessed. They may have intuited it as they got older. But it wasn't out in the open so to speak.

 

So what we're really talking about is that those who feel passionate about forcing the Scouts to accept gay leaders really do want to have "Joe the gay leader" instead of "Joe the leader". I'm not smart enough to know why this is so important, but suspect it has something to do with mainstream acceptance and changing the cultural and moral values of our country. But that's just a guess. I may not get it.

DADT is wrong on several levels. But the most important is that you have to hide who you are. This is bad for everyone involved, for the gays, the homophobic, and the kids. It is never a good idea to deny the reality of the world around you.

[AZMike]

Some analysis from the anti-Resolution folks on why, from their POV, this is bad policy:

 

 

AN OPEN LETTER TO BSA DELEGATES: TEN REASONS TO “VOTE NOâ€Â

 

 

 

A Legal and Ethical Analysis of the Proposed BSA Resolution to Allow Open Homosexuality in the Boy Scouts

 

 

 

1) The proposed BSA resolution is logically incoherent and morally and ethically inconsistent. Under the proposed change in policy, open homosexuality would be officially consistent with the Scouting code throughout a Boy Scout’s life until the moment he turns 18, when it suddenly becomes a problem. Under the policy when a 16- or 17-year-old “open and avowed†homosexual becomes an Eagle before his 18th birthday, right after he turns 18 he is removed from Scouting. No troop leader would want to put himself in the position of enforcing such an irrational rule. A de facto change in the rule against openly homosexual adult leaders would also occur almost immediately. This inconsistency between the membership policy of youth and adults will surely draw an equal protection lawsuit by gay-rights activists groups against the BSA in which the association rights established by the Supreme Court will no longer be available. (See #7 infra.)

 

 

 

2) Opening the Boy Scouts to boys who openly proclaim being sexually attracted to other boys and/or openly identify themselves as "gay" will inevitably create an increase of boy-on-boy sexual contact which will result in further public scandal to the BSA, not to mention the tragedy of countless boys who will experience sexual, physical and psychological abuse. BSA’s own Youth Protection videos indicate that “70% of abuse to boys is by teenagersâ€Â. Two-deep leadership will have to be at least three-deep for units with homosexual youth. The complexity of sleeping arrangements will create a myriad of social and liability challenges. Sexual awareness and harassment training will be required in all Scouting units. The leaders setting forth the proposed policy clearly did not have the safety and security of the boys in the BSA as their paramount concern.

 

 

 

3) The proposal forces and requires every chartered Scouting unit, regardless of religious convictions, to facilitate open homosexuality among boys in their program. The proposed resolution is much worse than the original idea for a local option where each troop would decide whether to allow open homosexuality in its unit. It fails to respect or reverence the religious beliefs, values and theology of the vast majority of Christian churches which charter well over 70% of all Scouting units.

 

 

 

4) If the proposal is enacted, it will gut a major percentage of human capital in the BSA and utterly devastate the program financially, socially and legally. Of the faith based Scouting units, the vast majority of them are Latter-day Saints, Methodists, Catholics or Southern Baptists. Despite what denominations may decide for political reasons, the majority of local churches that charter Scout units will not be able to embrace this policy without violating their religious convictions. The BSA’s own “Voice of the Scout†surveys provide solid evidence that tens- and possibly hundreds of thousands of parents and Scouts will leave the program if the proposal is adopted. The financial impact from such a significant membership loss would be enormous. Camps will close, executives will be let go and properties will be sold off as a result of the vast loss of finances from major donors, private foundations and declining membership.

 

 

 

5) The Resolution robs parents of the sole authority to raise issues of sex and sexuality with their kids. Parents should have the exclusive right to raise issues about sex and sexuality with their children in their own time and in their own way, in the privacy of their homes; not brought up by other older boys around a campfire. Allowing open homosexuality would inject a sensitive and highly-charged political issue into the heart of the BSA, against the wishes of the vast majority of parents. Under the longstanding current policy, boys who have a same-sex attraction are not banned or removed from the program unless they act out in a manner that distracts from the mission of the BSA. Under the new policy all Scouting units would be required to accept a 17-year-old gay activist openly flaunting his sexuality and promoting a leftist political agenda.

 

6) The proposed policy directly contradicts the BSA’s comprehensive 2010-2012 study which unanimously concluded last summer that prohibiting “open and avowed homosexuality†was “the absolute best policy†for the Boy Scouts. Only months after the BSA affirmed the policy that was clearly in the best interest of its boys, a handful of top BSA officials caved from the pressure and criticism they received from their own adult peers. What kind of message are we sending to young people when the adults trying to teach them to be “brave†cannot muster up the courage to stand up for the values that are clearly best for the BSA? Sadly, instead of looking out for what is best for the safety and security of the boys in the program, BSA’s top leadership is more concerned about what is popular in the polls taken outside the Scouting family. To try to undermine the results of the unanimous 2012 study, the 2013 Voice of the Scout national survey was a carefully crafted tool to persuade and “condition†those surveyed to the idea of openly gay BSA members. The full survey results were not even reported publicly or to the wider Scouting family.

 

 

 

7) The proposed resolution leaves Scouting units with no options or legal protection if they refuse to allow open homosexuality among the boys of their units. This proposed policy completely retreats from the principles hard-fought in the U.S. Supreme Court case BSA vs. Dale in 2000. The legal protection under Dale will be completely removed for both adults and youth members. Any Scout unit which refuses to accept or abide by the new policy will either have their charter revoked by national BSA leadership or become fully exposed to legal attacks for alleged violations of nondiscrimination ordinances. Many units and chartering organizations will be forced to fold, unable to withstand the enormous time and cost associated with the legal attacks.

 

 

 

8) The effect of the phrase “sexual preference†in the BSA resolution could be used by LGBT activists to push for transgendered girls in the BSA. If a biological girl “prefers†acting out as a transgendered boy, she must also be allowed into any Boy Scout troop. In October of 2011 the Girl Scouts admitted a 7- year-old boy named Bobby Montoya into their program who preferred to be treated as a girl. Because the vague and undefined phrase “sexual preference†is used in the resolution, it opens the door and requires Scout units to accept any sexual preference expressed.

 

 

 

9) The “whereas†clauses in the resolution are symbolic and not part of the actual proposed policy. While the Resolution includes some positive “Whereas†clauses designed to take the edge off of the new membership policy language by advocating for some type of moral purity, “Whereas†clauses have never been binding in contract law or in the legal construction of a resolution. The only words that will become part of the official membership policy are the 141 words after “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT...â€Â

 

 

 

10) Top BSA leaders completely ignored the collective wisdom of rank-and-file Scouting family members when they proposed this resolution. Nationwide the BSA’s official “Voice of the Scout†survey shows respondents support the current policy by a supermajority of 61% to 34%. This survey also showed:

 

 

• 3 of the 4 major BSA Regions around the country collectively voted that they did not want to see a change in the policy.

 

 

• 72 percent of chartered organizations oppose this change and support the current policy. • 64 percent of council and district volunteers oppose this change and support the current policy. • 62 percent of unit leaders oppose this change and support the current policy. • 61 percent of Boy Scout parents oppose this change and support the current policy. • 50 percent of Cub Scout parents oppose this change and support the current policy.

 

 

 

John Stemberger is an Eagle Scout, a Vigil Honor member of the Order of the Arrow, a former Scoutmaster, a Lifetime N.E.S.A. member and a father with two sons in Scouting. He is an AV-rated Orlando lawyer who practices in civil and constitutional litigation.

 

 

 

For more information visit http://www.OnMyHonor.Net 4853 South Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32806 | (406) 646-6599

 

[Kahuna]

So: What if this? What if that? What if space aliens wanted to join your troop? There is a lot of arguing going on here that has nothing to do with the principal point of all this. Everything turns on what the Scout Oath means when it says "morally straight," doesn't it? Belief in God or the Twelfth Scout Law don't come into it, if different religions have different takes. Ergo, it is purely a matter of your religious belief. Nothing else. Youth safety? We have the best in the world. Adult role models? Psychologists and behavioral scientists tell us that youth sexuality is not determined in the long run by role models. Boys emulate a lot of behavior from adults they admire, but not their sexual leanings. Boys seducing other boys? See above. Besides, boys DO seduce each other all the time in Scouting and out. It's part of growing up and has nothing to do with their adult sexual orientation. The BSA has always been tolerant of differing religious beliefs. We accommodate Jewish boys who are Kosher. We accommodate Hindus who don't like to see meat being eaten. We accommodate Muslims who don't want to cook bacon for their patrol. We accommodate Unitarians who believe who knows what at a given moment. Even the religions who teach that homosexuality is wrong generally (Muslims don't and probably others) subscribe to something like "hate the sin but not the sinner." I'm a Buddhist. HH The Dalai Lama says the Buddhist teachings are that homosexual behavior is wrong, but that it is also wrong to chastise, hate or refuse to associate with those who practice it. So, if this is an organization that holds that a belief in Supreme Being is necessary, but other than that we can practice our religion any way we choose so long as legal and not harmful to others, how can we not make allowance for those who don't believe that homosexuality is wrong? Why should some people leave the program because of a principle that has been there all along? Would you leave because you have boys and leaders who must pray five times daily facing Mecca? It's simple, really!

 

BTW, although I agree with Beavah on most things (excepting that Obama governs from the center ), I strongly disagree with his statement on homophobia. I think there are many out there who do hate and fear gays. A psychologist can explain this to you, but I won't. In my heart, I believe this is the main issue and that the other stuff is just self-justification.

 

Incidentally this Sunday the anti-gays in Scouting coalition OnMyHonor.net is planning a big national simulcast. At least one of the speakers will say that the gay agenda is Satanic and that the object is to tear down the image of Jesus. That, my friends, is pure religion and I doubt that other speakers will say anything that will address the meaning of this as it relates to religious discrimination in Scouting. I mean by this discrimination among religions, not against or for religion, which is a topic for another time.