Mr. Gates Address At National Meeting

[AZMike]

I hope you realize you are responding to a series of jokes.

 

I would respond to you, but apparently we have been de-emphasized by the Powers That Be.

[perdidochas]

I wish that when the decision was made a few years ago, that local option would have been the choice.  We already allow the local option for almost everything else in terms of BSA leaders, why not this?

[JoeBob]

Stosh will go bankrupt. Moosetracker will take pity and lend him some $$$ with low interest. AZMike will scoff at the newly-formed relationship. Eamonn will express confusion...and the forums will continue to provide the source of pleasure and enjoyment that we all have come to expect and appreciate.

It would be interesting to see who paid the most money to sell their ideas.

 

Being incendiary: If you charged by the word, liberals will go broke first.

[ghjim]

I have the strangest sensation that, like a dust bunny, those who disagree with what seems to be the new position of BSA headquarters are beginning to be swept under the rug...

 

Not sure I would mind, but to repeat my earlier question, how exactly is this change going to come about?   Is there going to be another vote (seems like there should be).  Or is national going to mandate this change on everybody?  Or does nobody know at this point?

[Stosh]

It would be interesting to see who paid the most money to sell their ideas.

 

Being incendiary: If you charged by the word, liberals will go broke first.

 

According to some, my ideas aren't worth 2-cents to begin with, Every time I posted anything, I'd be losing money.  No ROI on that process.

[SeattlePioneer]

<<

I wish that when the decision was made a few years ago, that local option would have been the choice.  We already allow the local option for almost everything else in terms of BSA leaders, why not this?>>

 

 

 

Because the Supreme Court decision said that the BSA's policy could be sustained because it was consistantly enforced nationwide.

 

Since BSA is allowing local councils to get away with homosexual adult leaders,  that protection very likely is already gone.  I suspect that's why Gates said that the courts would likely force BSA to admit homosexuals before long.

 

 

Personally, I'm not espcially antagonistic to homosexuals.  My bias is that BSA should be free to decide for itself it's membership standards.  Unfortunately,  that right seems to be evaporating pretty rapidly.

 

That's a fact of life I don't much like,  but which we all are likely going to have to deal with.

[AZMike]

Not sure I would mind, but to repeat my earlier question, how exactly is this change going to come about?   Is there going to be another vote (seems like there should be).  Or is national going to mandate this change on everybody?  Or does nobody know at this point?

Per NPR, a decision is going to be made by National by October. I think that's what I heard.

[moosetracker]

Wow.. You guys are still at it?..  I figured after being away for the 3 day holiday weekend you guys would have been exhausted by now, and due to the de-emphasis of I&P, which I wasn't aware of until I read to catch up, I thought it had faded into the background..

 

Hopefully the charge to post on I&P will not be per word !!! I tend to be wordy, and looks like I have been voluntold  I am footing Stosh's posts also.. I will have to recheck how wordy Stosh has been (well ok worded that I will take pity on him).. Anyway, whose going to count up our words and bill us, look at how wordy everyone has been??   Much easier to just charge an annual fee to post to I&P..

 

Otherwise arguments all seem the same... No change.. 

 

Multiple choice:  So how did you spend your holiday weekend..?? 

a) "I spent it posting to I&P that the sky was falling"

b) "I spent it posting to I&P assuring people that the sky wasn't falling."

c) "I spent my time trying to figure out if the sky was falling or not"

d) "I was comic relief for I&P"..

[robert12]

<<

I wish that when the decision was made a few years ago, that local option would have been the choice.  We already allow the local option for almost everything else in terms of BSA leaders, why not this?>>

 

 

 

Because the Supreme Court decision said that the BSA's policy could be sustained because it was consistantly enforced nationwide.

 

Since BSA is allowing local councils to get away with homosexual adult leaders,  that protection very likely is already gone.  I suspect that's why Gates said that the courts would likely force BSA to admit homosexuals before long.

 

 

Personally, I'm not espcially antagonistic to homosexuals.  My bias is that BSA should be free to decide for itself it's membership standards.  Unfortunately,  that right seems to be evaporating pretty rapidly.

 

That's a fact of life I don't much like,  but which we all are likely going to have to deal with.

 

You hit the nail on the head, I believe with the 2013 change the BSA lost its assertion that "that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill", without this assertion the Dale case would have been lost.

 

 

Below is a quote from the majority opinion in BSA v. Dale:

 

Dale’s presence in the Boy Scouts would, at the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior

 

This troubles me on so many levels and as a Southern Baptist I am really confounded on what to think, sorry for the ramblings, just so much going through my head.

 

---

 

Here is the Voice of the Scout survey that was conduced in 2013("current policy" stated below was the pre 2014 policy)

 

• 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:

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

—61 percent of Boy Scout parents support it.

—62 percent of unit leaders support it.

—64 percent of council and district volunteers support it.

—72 percent of chartered organizations support it.

 

72% of the chartered organizations supported the previous policy, 72% of the BSAs "customers" were happy with the previous policy and they change it.

 

 

---

 

I have realized that this is driven by the almighty dollar.

 

---

 

After reviewing of the Bylaws and the Rules and Regulations of the BSA it appears to me that changes of the membership standards do not appear have to be voted on at the national meeting.

 

---

 

I am not sure what I will do if they change the standards of membership.  What keeps running through my head is that the BSA will be open to everyone, just like almost every organization.  But then again, is the reason I support the BSA is its beliefs?  

 

--

 

While my beliefs are clear on homosexuality, there is even some varying beliefs among Baptists.  My morally straight, might not be your mortally straight.  But do I want my children exposed to your morally straight??

 

---

 

I believe change is imminent, the only way to keep this from happening is from a push by the chartered organizations.  They would have to push to elect council presidents, commissioners and local council representatives against the change, and they would have to elect a national president and board members who are against a change.  Short of that, it will happen.

Edited May 26, 2015 by robert12

[packsaddle]

It would be interesting to see who paid the most money to sell their ideas.

 

Being incendiary: If you charged by the word, liberals will go broke first.

Holy Toledo! Stosh is a liberal!

[JoeBob]

Holy Toledo! Stosh is a liberal!

Nah.  Stosh just has more ideas.

[packsaddle]

OK, I can go with that. It's still going to cost him.

[NJCubScouter]

Now that someone has mentioned the Dale decision, I guess it is time for me to tell my Antonin Scalia story.

 

A few weeks ago, I met Justice Scalia, although our face-to-face interaction lasted about five seconds. He was the guest speaker at a lunch I attended. When I report on something he said in his speech I am not telling any secrets, because I saw newspaper stories about the speech, although not about the specific thing I am about to relate.

 

He was discussing some past decisions, and at one point he was talking about now-unconstitutional statutes that outlawed gay sexual conduct.

 

But he didn't say "gay sexual conduct".

 

He said "homosexual sodomy."

 

There you are, eating lunch (actually probably finishing up dessert at that point) in a very nice setting (it was actually in a museum) with a bunch of very well-dressed people (mostly lawyers) and the words "homosexual sodomy" go floating by. From a Supreme Court justice no less.

 

I am fairly certain I have never heard those words at lunch before.

[JoeBob]

the words "homosexual sodomy" go floating by. From a Supreme Court justice no less.

 

I am fairly certain I have never heard those words at lunch before.

You have to watch those French caterers.  They'll put the weirdest things on the menu...

[SeattlePioneer]

<<He said "homosexual sodomy."

There you are, eating lunch (actually probably finishing up dessert at that point) in a very nice setting (it was actually in a museum) with a bunch of very well-dressed people (mostly lawyers) and the words "homosexual sodomy" go floating by. From a Supreme Court justice no less.

I am fairly certain I have never heard those words at lunch before.       >>

 

 

 

Nothing wrong with that,  in my view.  Indeed,  it's an example of Standard English.

 

He was describing a particular kind of human behavior in polite terms.  Just what I'd expect from a Supreme Court Justice.