May 23rd predictions and post-vote plans

[eaglewolfdad]

Interesting article about the run up to the vote on Thursday

http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/21/inside-the-boy-scout-battle-to-repeal-the-gay-ban/

[MattR]

AZMike, when do you have time to write so much? Anyway, we have until Thursday, so let's get back to it.

 

I'll pass on the natural law theory, but thanks for the offer.

 

Using Wikipedia is not what I did, but it is a great source just because it shows how much conflict there is in a topic. The bible has been interpreted and caused arguments for a very long time. The Mishnah and Midrash are explanations and commentary on the Torah. They were written from roughly 140 to 1750 AD. If you've ever heard the joke about 2 rabbis and 3 opinions in the same room, this is where it came from. The point is the Torah is surprisingly deep and people keep finding interesting ideas in it. They adapt to what we learn from nature. One such interpretation about homosexuality went something along the lines of: "2500 years ago, male sex was about power or simple gratification. Sex is about love, not power or gratification, so male sex was obviously wrong. Nobody ever thought two men could love each other, so now it isn't so black and white." I'm sure you don't agree, but this is from well educated rabbis.

 

Yep, the phrase "behavior is wrong if it is a choice" was a bad choice of words.It was late. I'll try again. First of all, we're talking about two different things when we talk about being gay. First is the fact that some guy says he's attracted to other guys sexually. The second is when he acts on that. I certainly do not want any scouts acting on any sexual urges, irregardless of gender or direction. So, the scout that did some sexual act with the younger boy was wrong. A 20 year old male venture scout that sexually does anything with a 14 year old girl is just as wrong. Given DADT and venture scouts, both scenarios are possible. An important question is how often does it happen? There are numerous gay Eagle scouts and it appears they didn't create problems. Just as there are many girl venture scouts without any problem. Do European scouts have an issue with boys being molested by other boys? I would think if there were then we'd be reading about it, given the upcoming vote.

 

You mention in several places that boys and girls have all sorts of problems if they have sex too early. I don't doubt it. I agree it shouldn't happen, it agrees with my stance that sexual acts should be kept out of scouting.

 

Another question is, would a scout be immoral if he's attracted to guys? If he doesn't act on it, it doesn't bother me. Acting is a choice. Being attracted to guys is not a choice. You asked if it's OK for some guy to hit on my wife because he can't control his urges. First of all, I'd sit back and enjoy watching my wife clock the guy, but to the point, he had the choice to open his mouth and say something stupid to my wife. So, no, it's not OK. Speaking is a choice, being attracted to the same sex is not a choice.

 

From what you've written, is it fair to say you feel that a scout that is attracted to guys is likely to not be able to control his urges, and that's why you don't want to make it easier for a gay scout to be in scouting? If that's the case, I think I understand where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with it, but maybe we at least understand each other.

 

For me, it keeps getting back to creating trust with a scout that has problems. I see lots of kids with lots of problems they have no choice over. Single parents, dead parents, bipolar, ADHD, you name it. You say that one bad act can completely mess up a kid, and I don't doubt it, but it's surprising how a few good acts can greatly help a kid. I'm just trying to create more opportunity to have good acts. If I keep a troubled kid in my troop and he does a bad act, I messed up. But if I keep a less troubled kid in my troop, and good things happen to him, then I've done a good thing for him and the other scouts. So I do want some kids in my troop that are a bit troubled. Not too much, but it wouldn't be worth anything to have a bunch of perfectly good kids.

[AZMike]

Matt, I understand that the theologically liberal can always cherry-pick arguments that support their own side, but there is a saying in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni and Torat Kohanim) which is also brought down in Rashi (Leviticus 20:26) that says: A person should not say, “I don't like porkâ€Â, “It is uncomfortable for me to wear a mixture [of wool and linen],†or "I don't desire forbidden sexual relationships"; rather one should say, “I indeed wish to, but what can I do-my Father in heaven has imposed these decrees upon me?†This is consistent with the Judaeo-Christian belief that one may feel desires yet not act upon them. The Midrash is also one of the few ancient religious documents that mentions the possibility of gay marriage, but only to condemn the concept as that of a sinful world: ""Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"

 

"From what you've written, is it fair to say you feel that a scout that is attracted to guys is likely to not be able to control his urges, and that's why you don't want to make it easier for a gay scout to be in scouting? If that's the case, I think I understand where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with it, but maybe we at least understand each other." Impulse control is low in adolescents, as well as many adults. The CDC research indicates that adolescent males who self-identify as homosexual or bisexual have lower levels of impulse control as a group than heterosexual adolescents.

 

While many gay adolescents are able to control themselves, the risk of sexual abuse is high enough that we restrict those who have a sexual interest in the potential victim population from sharing tents, showers, and other intimate situations with those with whom they declare they are attracted. In the same way, we do not allow adult males or adolescent males access to such intimate environments with adolescent girls, even in Venturing - I presume you would not be okay with your teenage daughter sharing a tent or a shower with an adolescent boy, however well we know him or however much trust we place in his ability to "control himself." This is simple prudence. This is a not unreasonable response, as it is not a requirement of our society that a boy be in scouting, as we require him to be in school - there are numerous other youth activities that can serve their developmental needs.

 

One could argue, as many LGBT advocates have, that it is safer to have declared homosexuals rather than closeted homosexuals, as one could somehow "watch them" or something. The obvious answer should be that one should have neither, for safety - if one were hiring males to be security guards for, say, a domestic violence shelter, one would exclude those who are found, through observed actions or a criminal check, to have battered women in the past. One would also exclude those who say they have an interest in hitting women, but will never act on it on the job. Again, one must weigh safety against fairness, but simple prudence says that the risk to the victim of abuse must outweigh the perception of "fairness" to those who may wish to be involved in a voluntary youth activity.

 

would further argue that if accepting a self-identification as homosexual or bisexual is as unhealthy as the evidence shows, we should not condone the identification. If a boy feels some kind of SSA but recognizes it as unhealthy, does not engage in such behavior (flirting, the sexually oriented "games" or dares described in the other thread, discussion of his attractions or outside sexual behavior, etc.) within or outside the troop, and does not attempt to normalize it to himself or other adolescents in the troop by declaring himself as "gay," he can certainly be involved in Scouting under our current policy. I don't think unhealthy behavior should be normalized. Your mileage may vary.

 

And as your comment about your wife hitting the guy indicates, the reaction to unwanted sexual advances in our culture can often be violent. You are okay with your wife reacting that way as a reflexive action, would you be okay with a boy reacting to a sexual come-on or touching by another boy in the same fashion? How will we deal with those issues, and the natural reaction of boys to such behavior, if the policy changes? We discourage fighting among boys, how would you feel about a boy reacting in the same way your wife would in the heat of the moment?

 

Your discussion of the situation of another man who is obsessed with your wife reflects the same view as I have, so we may not be as far apart as you think. We can't observe another's internal life, so the only way you would be certain that he wanted to have relations with your wife is through communication, either verbal (declarations of love or sexual interest, emails, texts, notes) or non-verbal (inappropriate touching, gestures, longing glances, etc.) - so, "declaring" himself to you, your spouse, or your associates of his interest in your spouse - in essence, being an "avowed" potential adulterer. Otherwise, how would you know he is attracted to her? As you say, such a declaration would NOT be okay (and most husbands will agree with you.) If he feels something, but keeps his mouth shut and never acts on his attraction (and, we hope, fights against the urge he feels), he could continue to interact with you both.

[Pack18Alex]

For what it's worth, I think that penalizes someone for same sex attraction is wrong and violates our Pack's religious orientation. Regarding sexual activity, what are we defining that?

 

Boy admits he's attracted to boys, that's not a sin.

Boy admits he's attracted to girls, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses another boy, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses a girl, arguably that is a sin (since we're quoting Midrashim and Rashi, can we bring up Shomer Negiah, observing the separation of the sexes).

 

Boy has sex with another boy, that's a sinful violation.

Boy has sex with a girl, that's debatable as a sin actually... Sex out of wedlock is prohibited actions, but there is certainly precedent in Jewish Law and Church Canon that this establishes a marriage between the two, but contemporary sources do not permit marriage created via sexual activity, so we're back to a sin.

 

A certain segment of the population has had sexual relations of various levels with members of the same sex and opposite sex. Given that, I'm sympathetic to those that believe our value code should encourage those with both sets of attractions to channel it in a heterosexual direction, while the normalization of homosexuality reverses that. For the small segment that is 100% same sex attracted, I'm not sure what to do, but one that prefers their same gender but has an attraction to the opposite, historically would be heavily encouraged to channel it heterosexually, when they fail to maintain that, it's a big embarrassing scandal.

 

That's what makes the local options somewhat appealing and consistent with BSA's non-sectarian nature. Liberal Christian and Jewish groups, as well as secular groups, would obviously have no problem with homosexual members. Conservative Christian groups appear to have strong problems with homosexual activities (and possibly even attraction, I'm not sure), while Conservative Jewish and Muslim groups might have a problem with ALL sexual behavior, same sex or opposite sex.

 

Since we are fundamentally a values organization that teaches general American values PLUS the faith based one in a non-sectarian manner, I think that this is best pushed to the local level.

 

Youth protection is another story, and part of what makes this all VERY odd. Two thirds of BSA's members are in the Cub Scout program, and quite frankly, Cub Scouts have no bone in this fight. While you can argue if gay leaders present the values BSA wants to present (and if that overrides the local CO's values), there is no Youth Protection issue at the Cub level from SSA. The concern at our level is pedophilia, we're pre-pubescent. Since Boy Scouts overlaps with puberty, you need to worry about pedophiles and simple attraction. For better or for worse, we culturally don't worry that a female scout master will be attracted to a 17 year old boy in her charge (the female teacher with male students issues makes the news and results in chuckles, not panic), yes we think that putting a gay scout master in that position with 17 year old boys is more problematic. Quite frankly, we assume that men will sleep with anything that moves if they can without a downside, while women are more discerning.

 

Honestly, I find it VERY unlikely you're going to find gay men wanting to be alone with teenage boys, where such an attraction might be an issue. i know that there is no way in hell I'd go off on a camping trip with another heterosexual male leaders and a troop of 16-17 year old girl scouts, that's just waiting for trouble.

 

But at the Cub Level, where we need a higher parent:youth level in daily activities, this current policy deprives us of valued leaders.

 

Whatever will be, will be. My biggest issue with this is that GLAAD and other groups have absolutely engaged in bullying behavior towards the BSA, and I'm concerned that any change in policy, despite the support on the ground, will look like we've given into bullying. Any approach to do it needs to be cognizant of that fact. Look at Augusta, they refused to allow women in when the pressure was on to NOT give in to bullying, then when they decided to, they invited women in, and did NOT allow the bullies to claim a trophy.

 

But I'm not sure why we'd kick a Scout out for fooling around with a boy in high school but not a girl. I'm okay with a abstinence only policy for Scouting, but not sure why an orientation one makes sense. Either we're against illicit sexual actions or we're not.

[King Ding Dong]

Does the BSA have a policy on sexual relations inside or outside of scouting? If a 16 year old gets caught in the backseat of his car doing the deed with a girl will National eject him? If he publicly declares he has had sexual relations with a female and will continue to do so will national eject him?

[perdidochas]

The big vote is right around the corner. Any thoughts on how it might turn out?

 

Personally, I suspect it will go in favor of allowing gay scouts. I just don't think there is enough support for the exclusion of kids. If this were a combined vote, asking people to allow or disallow gay scouts and adults at the same time, I think there would be far stronger support for maintaining the current ban.

 

If, somehow, it goes badly (in my opinion) then there's no future in Scouting for my family. We'll be looking at alternative organizations like the BPSA. I would continue to push the BSA to change the policy and hope that they did eventually change it, and I would continue to hold my Eagle medal and retain my rank (I'm not in favor of giving up the rank in opposition to a policy, I think Eagles should hold their rank and push the organization to right a wrong). But I couldn't in good conscience enroll my kids in the program knowing that after repeated defeats to efforts to make the change happen, it was highly unlikely that any significant change would occur any time soon.

 

 

I don't see the big deal. Gays are about 2-3% of the population. The chances of a gay scout are small.

[King Ding Dong]

The big vote is right around the corner. Any thoughts on how it might turn out?

 

Personally, I suspect it will go in favor of allowing gay scouts. I just don't think there is enough support for the exclusion of kids. If this were a combined vote, asking people to allow or disallow gay scouts and adults at the same time, I think there would be far stronger support for maintaining the current ban.

 

If, somehow, it goes badly (in my opinion) then there's no future in Scouting for my family. We'll be looking at alternative organizations like the BPSA. I would continue to push the BSA to change the policy and hope that they did eventually change it, and I would continue to hold my Eagle medal and retain my rank (I'm not in favor of giving up the rank in opposition to a policy, I think Eagles should hold their rank and push the organization to right a wrong). But I couldn't in good conscience enroll my kids in the program knowing that after repeated defeats to efforts to make the change happen, it was highly unlikely that any significant change would occur any time soon.

 

 

I don't see the big deal. Gays are about 2-3% of the population. The chances of a gay scout are small.

Everyone enjoys making a mountain out of a molehill.

[ghjim]

For what it's worth, I think that penalizes someone for same sex attraction is wrong and violates our Pack's religious orientation. Regarding sexual activity, what are we defining that?

 

Boy admits he's attracted to boys, that's not a sin.

Boy admits he's attracted to girls, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses another boy, that's not a sin.

Boy kisses a girl, arguably that is a sin (since we're quoting Midrashim and Rashi, can we bring up Shomer Negiah, observing the separation of the sexes).

 

Boy has sex with another boy, that's a sinful violation.

Boy has sex with a girl, that's debatable as a sin actually... Sex out of wedlock is prohibited actions, but there is certainly precedent in Jewish Law and Church Canon that this establishes a marriage between the two, but contemporary sources do not permit marriage created via sexual activity, so we're back to a sin.

 

A certain segment of the population has had sexual relations of various levels with members of the same sex and opposite sex. Given that, I'm sympathetic to those that believe our value code should encourage those with both sets of attractions to channel it in a heterosexual direction, while the normalization of homosexuality reverses that. For the small segment that is 100% same sex attracted, I'm not sure what to do, but one that prefers their same gender but has an attraction to the opposite, historically would be heavily encouraged to channel it heterosexually, when they fail to maintain that, it's a big embarrassing scandal.

 

That's what makes the local options somewhat appealing and consistent with BSA's non-sectarian nature. Liberal Christian and Jewish groups, as well as secular groups, would obviously have no problem with homosexual members. Conservative Christian groups appear to have strong problems with homosexual activities (and possibly even attraction, I'm not sure), while Conservative Jewish and Muslim groups might have a problem with ALL sexual behavior, same sex or opposite sex.

 

Since we are fundamentally a values organization that teaches general American values PLUS the faith based one in a non-sectarian manner, I think that this is best pushed to the local level.

 

Youth protection is another story, and part of what makes this all VERY odd. Two thirds of BSA's members are in the Cub Scout program, and quite frankly, Cub Scouts have no bone in this fight. While you can argue if gay leaders present the values BSA wants to present (and if that overrides the local CO's values), there is no Youth Protection issue at the Cub level from SSA. The concern at our level is pedophilia, we're pre-pubescent. Since Boy Scouts overlaps with puberty, you need to worry about pedophiles and simple attraction. For better or for worse, we culturally don't worry that a female scout master will be attracted to a 17 year old boy in her charge (the female teacher with male students issues makes the news and results in chuckles, not panic), yes we think that putting a gay scout master in that position with 17 year old boys is more problematic. Quite frankly, we assume that men will sleep with anything that moves if they can without a downside, while women are more discerning.

 

Honestly, I find it VERY unlikely you're going to find gay men wanting to be alone with teenage boys, where such an attraction might be an issue. i know that there is no way in hell I'd go off on a camping trip with another heterosexual male leaders and a troop of 16-17 year old girl scouts, that's just waiting for trouble.

 

But at the Cub Level, where we need a higher parent:youth level in daily activities, this current policy deprives us of valued leaders.

 

Whatever will be, will be. My biggest issue with this is that GLAAD and other groups have absolutely engaged in bullying behavior towards the BSA, and I'm concerned that any change in policy, despite the support on the ground, will look like we've given into bullying. Any approach to do it needs to be cognizant of that fact. Look at Augusta, they refused to allow women in when the pressure was on to NOT give in to bullying, then when they decided to, they invited women in, and did NOT allow the bullies to claim a trophy.

 

But I'm not sure why we'd kick a Scout out for fooling around with a boy in high school but not a girl. I'm okay with a abstinence only policy for Scouting, but not sure why an orientation one makes sense. Either we're against illicit sexual actions or we're not.

I and a whole lot of other people openly advocated the local option. It seemed to make sense to me. Conservative groups can be exclusive but they can't make everybody be that way. But the survey indicated that a majority of the membership on both sides of the argument did not want the local option. Given that I have to be supportive of National taking that option off the table.

[nicknovelly]

Does anyone have plans, if the resolution passes, to form a national organization for boys? Perhaps one that parallels the American Heritage Girls. I am saddened that this resolution is even being considered and view it as an unacceptable compromise of BSA policy with that of world's view.

[King Ding Dong]

Does the BSA have a policy on sexual relations inside or outside of scouting? If a 16 year old gets caught in the backseat of his car doing the deed with a girl will National eject him? If he publicly declares he has had sexual relations with a female and will continue to do so will national eject him?

It is interesting no matter how this question is posed. No one will touch it.

[Nike]

Does anyone have plans, if the resolution passes, to form a national organization for boys? Perhaps one that parallels the American Heritage Girls. I am saddened that this resolution is even being considered and view it as an unacceptable compromise of BSA policy with that of world's view.

Maybe AHG would be willing to go co-ed, not by local unit but as a national organization. American Heritage Youth?

[MattR]

AZmike, here's one cherry the religious right seems to have missed in this argument. One of the main points in the Torah is human dignity. A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him. I'm no religious scholar, but I know this type of humiliation is Wrong. Furthermore, human dignity can supersede commandments in the Torah. In this case my rabbis have allowed it.

 

You say these kids can go do 4H, or BPSA, or just do something else. You say they're a danger to the other kids and it would be safer if they went elsewhere. I can imagine lining up 10 kids and walking up to one and saying these things to him. That's humiliating.

 

It seems my religious beliefs don't seem to be good enough for you, that I'm "cherry picking" the "real" beliefs. People that complain about others beliefs not being good enough are the gatekeepers to the dark side of religion. I'm just asking you to respect my beliefs.

[Rick_in_CA]

Matt' date=' I understand that the theologically liberal can always cherry-pick arguments that support their own side,...[/quote']

 

Of course, the theologically conservative never cherry-pick arguments? It's just liberals? Really?

 

[eaglewolfdad]

Our fearless leader is engaging in some pre-vote vote writing. Amazing that we pay this person to write opinion pieces in USA today espousing

views that are in stark contrast to the poll he just commissioned. I wonder what his response will be if his side loses tomorrow.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/05/22/boy-scouts-president-let-in-gay-boys/2351907/

 

[AZMike]

Matt' date=' I understand that the theologically liberal can always cherry-pick arguments that support their own side,...[/quote']

 

Of course, the theologically conservative never cherry-pick arguments? It's just liberals? Really?

Yes. Just the liberals.