Current BSA Policy Vs local option poll

[Huzzar]

I tend to side more with the "splitting the baby" line of thought, which worked for Solomon, but usually not for these kinds of issues. If the resolution doesn't pass, they'll be in bigger pudu than they already are. I recall that Wayne Brock said at the All Hands meeting something to the effect that, regardless of the decision made, we'll be revisiting it in a few years. I'm glad that youth members won't have to worry about not getting Eagle, but sad they'll be kicked out at 18 (or 21 in Venturing and Sea Scouts, they are still considered youth). That should be interesting. How will they handle the issue of openly gay Venturers who are youth over 18 on camp staffs, Philmont and other high adventure staffs? Hmmmmmmmmmmm . . . They also can continue to work on awards like Quartermaster.

You've given very good reasons for the resolution to be voted down. This is not a done deal and if it doesn't pass BSA can state explicitly that the membership was given the opportunity to change and declined. Nationals' collective butts are nicely covered whichever way it goes. (sorry about the pun given the subject. :-) )

[Huzzar]

This just will tick off everyone, and will fix nothing. While I agree that youth shouldn't be kicked out, and the majority of us have up to now considered this to be their stance already, so basically this proposal is proposing what they are already doing.. Even with this some SM will deny signing eagle rank to gay youth (they will need to appeal to council & national) or kick gay youth out of their unit based on their units rules..

 

My DE was talking to it yesterday.. He just recently tried to get some jewish churches to sponser a BSA they read him the rite act on their exclusive ways, and as long as we have it they will not support a BSA program.. He also has very little corporate donations for FOS but 2 lists one group that will donate if policy is left alone, the other which will donate if it is changed to be inclusive.. As he says this solution will mean he will get no donations from either group..

 

National may think they are done for a few years, but the in-fighting has escalated over their latest muck-up, and it will not die down because they proclaim this as a solution and tell everyone to cut-it-out.. Sorry, both sides are now up in arms and will not lay down their weapons over this wimp-out solution.

BSA estimates that groups like your Jewish temple will bring in 10,000 to 20,000 new members, which is nowhere near enough to cover the 100,000 to 350,000 that would be lost if openly gay adults were admitted as leaders.

 

The infighting will only continue if the minority voices like yours keep the fight going.

[Nike]

What's wrong with "All units shall abide by their CO's anti-discrimination and membership policies?" The only question left is if Lone Scouts can be gay/atheist and the BSA pros.

[Rick_in_CA]

There are very few moms out there that would knowingly send their teenage boys into the wilderness for ten days with 2 gay guys as the leaders. That ain't bigotry it's common sense.

 

Of course it's bigotry. Unfortunately it's a rather common one. Many of those same moms would happily send their teenage boys into the wilderness for ten days with two strait female leaders.

[AZMike]

In light of Moosetracker's comments, the wording of the executive summary is interesting. According to the Executive Summary (with my comments in brackets),

 

 

 

 

"The Parents Study Group was charged with listening to the voice of parents and leaders, including parents who currently do not have youth in the program. Research on parents was conducted by North Star Opinion Research on parents of boys younger than 18â€â€both members and nonmembers [so this is looking at a sample group of parents, many (how many?) do not have sons in Scouting - and may have no interest in participating in Scouting. One could argue that this group MIGHT be interested in entering their sons in Scouting if the policy changed, but there's really no indication either way on that. That might have been a useful survey question to ask: "If your child is NOT involved in Scouting, would you be interested in doing so if the BSA's policy on gay membership changed?". If they are not in Scouting, and have no interest in involving a child in Scouting...how is their opinion relevant?]

 

 

 

• The research finds a significant shift in attitudes regarding the BSA policy on homosexuality. • Three years ago, parents supported the current BSA policy by a wide marginâ€â€58 percent to 29 percent. Today, parents oppose the policy by a 45 percent to 42 percent margin. [so, a poll group of affiliated and non-affiliated parents oppose the policy by a 3% margin. Neither group tracks over 50%, still. It would also be useful to see a breakdown of what percentage of that group were affiliated with scouts currently or in the past, and what percentage were people who just happened to pick up the phone and don't have skin in the game.]

 

 

• "Three years ago, 57 percent of parents of current Scouts supported the policy. Today, only 48 percent of parents of current Scouts support the policy." [Given the significant statistical change on this affiliated group, it would have been nice to include the percentage of those who OPPOSE the current policy, given that many parents may be unsure or undecided. Is that 48% still the majority? Stating that "only 48% support the policy" leads to the unstated assumption that 52% may oppose the policy, when in fact, it may be only 46% or 44%, or even less. There could be some weasel-wording going on here. It would also be nice if the BSA issued a breakdown of the exact stats, pro- and anti-, by survey group - has anyone seen this?]

 

 

 

[i'm also curious how this poll was conducted by North Star - it SOUNDS like it was likely done by phone poll - and in questions regarding social issues, the research shows that those responding to phone polls with a human (as opposed to a computerized system) tend to worry about offending the poll-taker or that may be seen as retrograde, and may not give answers that are in accordance with their true opinions. That the stats are as high as they are in this case shows that the traditional option has a level of support that is, frankly, surprising.

 

This is a lot more relevant to our needs:

 

 

"The BSA’s Voice of the Scout Membership Standards Survey was sent to more than 1 million adult members, with over 200,000 respondents. [i know the French aphorism that he who is not present for a vote is wrong, but bear in mind, we are dealing with a response from only a fifth of the polled adult membership. That may a large enough portion to make an assessment, but there is some research out there that shows that those who tilt conservative are far less likely to respond to polls in general, whether phone, mail, in person, or Internet - blame it on our conservative paranoia about The Man, if you wish - but those people may still be more likely to vote with their feet. I agree that all you can do is all you can do when it comes to the size of your survey sample, but keep it in mind.]

 

"The survey found:

 

 

• Respondents support the current policy by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin.

 

 

 

Support for the current policy is higher at different program and volunteer levels in the organization:

o 50 percent of Cub Scout parents support it; 45 percent of Cub Scout parents oppose.

o 61 percent of Boy Scout parents support it.

o 62 percent of unit leaders support it.

 

 

o 64 percent of council and district volunteers support it.

o 72 percent of chartered organizations support it."

 

[As Huzzar pointed out, that's the relevant data, right there. That's money. The people who volunteer the work in the organization support the old policy by a statistically significant majority at every level. We are only given the percentage of those who OPPOSE the traditional policy in the case of Cub Scout parents. Why? Again, if 61% of BSA parents (ALL parents, regardless of age) support the traditional policy in an anonymous survey, it would be useful to know if those who oppose were all of 39%, or was it even smaller with the number of undecided/unsures - 36%? 32%? 28%? I'd like to know this. On the Local Council poll, a full 11% were undecided or didn't have an opinion. If that tracks with the BSA leaders' poll, for instance, does that mean only 19% supported the Local Option?]

 

 

 

 

I'm still undecided about the new option (did ANY of us on this forum predict it?), but suspect it will probably pass, and though neither side will be completely happy, if it passes it will err on the side of youths. The largest religious CO groups have a doctrinal belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, and that it should not be normalized through the recognition or affirmation of same-sex "marriages" but that those with a same-sex attraction should be treated with compassion. This policy will (if I understand it correctly) allow those youths who are unsure or who self-identify as gay to participate in Scouting as long as sexual behavior is not discussed. Approaches to other scouts, discussing sexual matters, etc., could and should get you bounced from Scouting, and that should be understood before any youth enters Scouting. Relationships that normalize same-sex relationships and/or marriages won't be allowed in the leadership. I understand many will not be happy with either option, and it is probably 50-50 whether the new option will pass in May.

 

There are many who feel that our every statement and passing thought about our personal lives is important and should be cherished and encouraged and protected by society (such as the young woman behind me in line at Starbucks yesterday who regaled all of us with every tawdry intimate detail of last night's hook-up), and believe that it is important that a boy's beliefs about his sexual identity should never be discouraged or banned, but the rest of us feel that it is high time that people shut up about personal matters. If you think you are gay and a boy scout, fine. Shut up and talk about something else. Talk about it with your parent or your pastor, not around the campfire. If you still think you are gay at age 18, you can be a lot of things in society and a youth leader in other organizations, but probably not a scout leader.

 

In terms of the practical effect of such a change? About 3% of the population identifies as LGBT (slightly higher among youth). Of that percentage, probably a much smaller percentage would care to be involved in Scouting at all, based on the general public's percentage of involvement. Of that percentage, probably a much smaller percentage would choose to be involved in Scouting, given the old or potential new policy, and heterosexual parents of gay youths may have similar opinions. Similar figures probably apply among gay parents (A large proportion of whom are technically bisexual, in that they had sex at least once to have a child if they didn't adopt, didn't use artificial insemination, or aren't involved with a bisexual parent - it's interesting to speculate what the results would be on the poll if respondents were asked if they would be okay with a "gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered adult leader." The results could have become even more disproportionate. I suspect "bisexual" leaders sound a little creepier and perverse to many parents than "homosexuals."). I don't have any idea what percentage of potential scout leaders are LGBT but have no children, but either way, no. We're ultimately not talking about a very large group, and if the new option passes, I doubt we will be flooded with openly gay boy scouts.

 

 

 

[King Ding Dong]

A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next.

 

That is most important result of the survey. That is huge. Game over. We all now know what the eventual BSA will look like, how we get there and how quickly is the question. That's a very big Band-Aid that is going to have to be ripped off.

[Basementdweller]

This just will tick off everyone, and will fix nothing. While I agree that youth shouldn't be kicked out, and the majority of us have up to now considered this to be their stance already, so basically this proposal is proposing what they are already doing.. Even with this some SM will deny signing eagle rank to gay youth (they will need to appeal to council & national) or kick gay youth out of their unit based on their units rules..

 

My DE was talking to it yesterday.. He just recently tried to get some jewish churches to sponser a BSA they read him the rite act on their exclusive ways, and as long as we have it they will not support a BSA program.. He also has very little corporate donations for FOS but 2 lists one group that will donate if policy is left alone, the other which will donate if it is changed to be inclusive.. As he says this solution will mean he will get no donations from either group..

 

National may think they are done for a few years, but the in-fighting has escalated over their latest muck-up, and it will not die down because they proclaim this as a solution and tell everyone to cut-it-out.. Sorry, both sides are now up in arms and will not lay down their weapons over this wimp-out solution.

Who says her voice is the minority??????

[Basementdweller]

So summary huzzar has no idea what he is talking about.

[moosetracker]

This just will tick off everyone, and will fix nothing. While I agree that youth shouldn't be kicked out, and the majority of us have up to now considered this to be their stance already, so basically this proposal is proposing what they are already doing.. Even with this some SM will deny signing eagle rank to gay youth (they will need to appeal to council & national) or kick gay youth out of their unit based on their units rules..

 

My DE was talking to it yesterday.. He just recently tried to get some jewish churches to sponser a BSA they read him the rite act on their exclusive ways, and as long as we have it they will not support a BSA program.. He also has very little corporate donations for FOS but 2 lists one group that will donate if policy is left alone, the other which will donate if it is changed to be inclusive.. As he says this solution will mean he will get no donations from either group..

 

National may think they are done for a few years, but the in-fighting has escalated over their latest muck-up, and it will not die down because they proclaim this as a solution and tell everyone to cut-it-out.. Sorry, both sides are now up in arms and will not lay down their weapons over this wimp-out solution.

Hardly, as stated my position is in the younger parents and the youth.. My side will win when the old geezers die off, because their voices will continue to grow louder and louder... OR BSA will continue to grow smaller and smaller until it becomes a historical note.. Take your pick.

[Rick_in_CA]

A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next. That is most important result of the survey. That is huge.

 

I agree that this is a very interesting result. I would really like to see the actual question (or questions) asked that produced this result. Any one know where these questions can be found?

 

Unfortunately I have seen even professional pollsters produce bad questions that skewed the results of surveys. Especially when they are outsiders trying to ask questions about processes and or institutions they are not familiar with. I hope that isn't what happened here.

 

[acco40]

 

LDS spokesman Michael Purdy said Mormon leaders would study the new proposal. There was no immediate public reaction from Southern Baptist or Catholic officials who have been dealing with the BSA membership issue.

 

 

The BSA survey tried to gauge the proposal's effect on financial support. Local Scout councils said 51 percent of their major donors opposed easing the ban, while a majority of Fortune 500 companies supported a change.

 

 

In another revealing section of the survey, the BSA reported feedback from 30 national youth organizations and civic groups, many of them partners of the Scouts in various endeavors.

 

 

Of the 30 organizations, 28 urged the Scouts to lift the ban, and many warned that their partnerships might end if the ban remained.

 

 

The BSA also consulted four experts in the field of child sex abuse prevention. The four conveyed a "nearly universal opinion" within their field that homosexuality is not a risk factor for the sexual abuse of children.

 

So for me, surveys be damned - the fact that a nearly universal opinion of BSA chosen expert stated that homosexuality is not a risk factor for sex abuse in children and the fact that the morality of homosexuality is a religious denominational context (some say yes, other no) and the fact that the BSA states that the scout is supposed to be in alignment with his parents and religious organization well, the homosexuality issue should be dead.

 

[King Ding Dong]

Mother Jones has an April 12 article about the LDS that may provide some insight as to why they are conspicuously silent right now on this issue and appear to have not taken part in the survey. Basically there was a huge internal backlash with prop 8 and at best the leadership is gaining some compassion or worst they do not want more negative publicity. That is not to say they are rolling over as i am sure if they feel shoved hard enough they will push back.

 

It is very interesting and I suggest you have a look.

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/prop-8-mormons-gay-marriage-shift

[packsaddle]

I concur with the view that as the geezers die off, the young will lead us into the light on this subject. I've seen this same transition with respect to other things as well, like racial segregation. It's one way that death can be a creative and constructive influence. Too bad that it has to work that way.

[RememberSchiff]

To channel OGE

"Don't trust anyone over 30." - Jack Weinberg

[ThomasJefferson]

Do you think that membership for gay youth means eagle awards for gay youth? Or are we just assuming that?

 

Because if it does, is BSA going to apologize to all youth previous denied the eagle award and go back and award them in arrears? Will there be some sort of press conference like when black veterans of WWII were given the Honor Medal in the 1990's as a corrective action?

 

Essentially, that would be BSA putting Eagle Awards on grown, gay adults.

 

Will there be lawsuits to have them awarded in arrears to force BSA to do something like this publicly?

 

You think they thought of that yet? I don't.