Current BSA Policy Vs local option poll

[packsaddle]

I just noticed something. I think this was mentioned some time ago, but since this new bulletin is kind of experimental, here goes.

Note the time stamp in the upper left corner of the post box. I am clicking "post at 10:58pm, local time click

If you are in Eastern Daylight Time, then the fact that the server is in Central Daylight Time might explain that one hour difference. It used to in the 'old days' a few months ago. I'm just not sure about it today so I could be wrong.

[DigitalScout]

Four gay NFL football players are considering coming out. http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9137573/brendon-ayanbadejo-says-four-players-considering-coming-gay

 

It will be a significant event when these pro athletes came out since pro football it is such a huge part of American culture. If the NFL players come out before the May meeting, it would certainly add more pressure on the BSA to open up scouting to gay people.

 

[AZMike]

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

 

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

 

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

 

[Sentinel947]

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

 

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

 

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

The sport did not produce those players. Society and their crappy parents produced those players and coach. Certainly one could argue that the because of their skills at a meaningless game they were given free passes in life, but plenty of famous people with good talents get free passes on things the average citizen would not receive.

 

Plenty of NFL stars like Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Donald Driver, and plenty more have wonderful life stories and are good people and role models. The game didn't make them good people. Their parenting and other role models like their childhood coaches did.

 

To say other wise would make an argument read as such: "The Boy Scouts of America produced pedophile Scoutmasters, therefore all Scoutmasters are bad role models."

Doesn't that argument sound a little bit idiotic, AZ?

 

Let's us judge people based on their individual merits.

 

Yours in Scouting,

Sentinel947

[AZMike]

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

 

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

 

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

I would agree with you, Sentinel1947. We should judge the person, not the occupation. So why should the potential prospect of 4 overpaid professional athletes coming out of the closet change the moral views many people have about homosexuality, or on the prudential choice of changing BSA policy? Don't you think THAT argument is a little idiotic?

[Sentinel947]

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

 

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

 

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

I didn't agree with Digital Scout, I don't think it will have any impact on the question of the BSA keeping or disposing of it's ban on gay Scouts and leaders.

[WAKWIB]

Despite the challenge of trying to navigate this new version of the forums, I am still drawn like a moth to the flame...

 

Just wanted to post something a little more in line with the original poll that started this thread.I'm a member of a Linked-In group that is comprised of about 30,000 Eagle Scouts. The moderator started a poll about the same time as this one. The poll is interesting in that the results are a flip of the one here.

377 votes in favor of current national policy, versus 232 in favor of lifting the ban and going local option. A 61% to 38% split.

However, when you skim through the nearly 1,300 comments posted to that poll, those in favor of the local option seem to be the most prevalent.

[packsaddle]

Despite the challenge of trying to navigate this new version of the forums, I am still drawn like a moth to the flame...

 

Just wanted to post something a little more in line with the original poll that started this thread.I'm a member of a Linked-In group that is comprised of about 30,000 Eagle Scouts. The moderator started a poll about the same time as this one. The poll is interesting in that the results are a flip of the one here.

377 votes in favor of current national policy, versus 232 in favor of lifting the ban and going local option. A 61% to 38% split.

However, when you skim through the nearly 1,300 comments posted to that poll, those in favor of the local option seem to be the most prevalent.

In what I think we can agree is a fairly conservative organization, does it present a shock to anyone's intuition that the Eagle Scouts produced by that organization thereby reflect what the BSA was or IS, in terms of it's legacy policy and views?

[ghjim]

Despite the challenge of trying to navigate this new version of the forums, I am still drawn like a moth to the flame...

 

Just wanted to post something a little more in line with the original poll that started this thread.I'm a member of a Linked-In group that is comprised of about 30,000 Eagle Scouts. The moderator started a poll about the same time as this one. The poll is interesting in that the results are a flip of the one here.

377 votes in favor of current national policy, versus 232 in favor of lifting the ban and going local option. A 61% to 38% split.

However, when you skim through the nearly 1,300 comments posted to that poll, those in favor of the local option seem to be the most prevalent.

So if I am understanding many of the posts here in recent days, each council is going to get a number of votes consistent with the size of their membership (seems like the US Electoral College). Therefore it will be really interesting to see how the vote comes out in May. That may be the first time we see what today's BSA volunteer membership really wants.

[Gone]

In what I think we can agree is a fairly conservative organization' date=' does it present a shock to anyone's intuition that the Eagle Scouts produced by that organization thereby reflect what the BSA was or IS, in terms of it's legacy policy and views?[/quote']

 

Well, given that the vast majority of the COs are religious organizations and how they feel about the topic in general, I think that gives you your answer about why the Eagles may be more conservative. But to be honest. I don't know that many Scouts that are really following this issue -- or any political issue for that matter. Most really could not care one way or the other.

[WAKWIB]

In what I think we can agree is a fairly conservative organization' date=' does it present a shock to anyone's intuition that the Eagle Scouts produced by that organization thereby reflect what the BSA was or IS, in terms of it's legacy policy and views?[/quote'] Well, given that the vast majority of the COs are religious organizations and how they feel about the topic in general, I think that gives you your answer about why the Eagles may be more conservative. But to be honest. I don't know that many Scouts that are really following this issue -- or any political issue for that matter. Most really could not care one way or the other.

 

I thought the Linked-In poll was a bit of an anomoly compared to most of what I've be seeing on the internet. Even the comments posted to the poll generally reflect more interest in the local option. Keep in mind that this particular group I've cited is not made up of youth, but adults who in the past have received the Eagle Award (following the tradition of "once an Eagle, always an Eagle."). The members may or may not still be active in Scouting.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that most of the noise seems focused on inclusion and the highly touted local option. If I had to bet, I would say it's a foregone conclusion. In fact, I think the decision was made several months ago but the board wants to give the air of open discussion so they kicked it down the road to the National Meeting. Now, I'm going to speculate a bit and suggest that maybe the poll I cited actually reflects what the "stakeholders" really feel, but have not been that vocal about. What happens when the vote in May turns to keeping the current policy? I predict should that happen the Board will simply overturn that vote and change the policy anyway.

 

I'm sure not looking forward to the media circus and Facebook madness that will surround that meeting. Might be a great couple of days to turn it all off and read some books instead!

[EmberMike]

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

 

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

 

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

NFL players coming out may not change any moral opinions on homosexuality. But it will certainly help to further erode the misconception that all gay men act a certain way, look a certain way, can be identified as gay by how they act, talk, etc.

[ghjim]

In what I think we can agree is a fairly conservative organization' date=' does it present a shock to anyone's intuition that the Eagle Scouts produced by that organization thereby reflect what the BSA was or IS, in terms of it's legacy policy and views?[/quote'] Well, given that the vast majority of the COs are religious organizations and how they feel about the topic in general, I think that gives you your answer about why the Eagles may be more conservative. But to be honest. I don't know that many Scouts that are really following this issue -- or any political issue for that matter. Most really could not care one way or the other.

 

I thought the Linked-In poll was a bit of an anomoly compared to most of what I've be seeing on the internet. Even the comments posted to the poll generally reflect more interest in the local option. Keep in mind that this particular group I've cited is not made up of youth, but adults who in the past have received the Eagle Award (following the tradition of "once an Eagle, always an Eagle."). The members may or may not still be active in Scouting.

I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that most of the noise seems focused on inclusion and the highly touted local option. If I had to bet, I would say it's a foregone conclusion. In fact, I think the decision was made several months ago but the board wants to give the air of open discussion so they kicked it down the road to the National Meeting. Now, I'm going to speculate a bit and suggest that maybe the poll I cited actually reflects what the "stakeholders" really feel, but have not been that vocal about. What happens when the vote in May turns to keeping the current policy? I predict should that happen the Board will simply overturn that vote and change the policy anyway.

 

I'm sure not looking forward to the media circus and Facebook madness that will surround that meeting. Might be a great couple of days to turn it all off and read some books instead!

My money says the Board will adopt whatever the majority of councils vote for. I think it is well established at this point that this whole thing resulted from a revolt from inside the BSA.

[Horizon]

Posting more to test the site, but here on the Left Coast a panel in the state capitol is proposing taking away the tax exempt status of the Boy Scouts (collect sales tax on every Scout-O-Rama booklet sold):

 

"

A state Senate committee recommended Wednesday that California revoke the tax-exempt status of nonprofit groups including the

Boy Scouts of America[/url=http://www.latimes.com/topic/social-issues/social-organizations/youth-organizations/boy-scouts-of-america-ORCIG000073.topic]

that do not allow gays and transsexuals to become members."

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/political/la-me-pc-gay-scouts-20130410,0,6792808.story

 

Interesting how they, too, are ignoring the atheist exclusion as well.

 

The LA Times has come out against the proposal:

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-boy-scouts-20130412,0,2815858.story

 

"

For that matter, why not target the Boy Scouts for discriminating against girls and the Girl Scouts for not allowing boys?"

 

The debate (and Terry's work on the site) continues.

 

[Rick_in_CA]

Posting more to test the site' date=' but here on the Left Coast a panel in the state capitol is proposing taking away the tax exempt status of the Boy Scouts[/quote']

 

My understanding is that this bill is basically dead on arrival. The state Senator that is sponsoring it knows that, and is using it to make a statement. Passing it will require a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, which is doesn't have a chance of getting. It is also a bad precedent (as the LA Times editorial pointed out), and the senators know it. I wouldn't worry about it (unless the BSA ends up doing something really stupid in the May meeting).