Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[David CO]

My mistake.  I am not a lawyer, and I should avoid getting into legal arguments.  I was thinking of the Catholic Charities vs State of Illinois adoption case. 

[Stosh]

There are those who join only to disrupt and destroy. It's called having a political agenda, or corporate espionage, or some such reason. They may also think that they gain credibility, too.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Seriously? One gay person wants to join my unit. Our CO says they don't allows gays. There's your standing.

 

What's the CO?  If it's a church, they won't lose.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

My mistake.  I am not a lawyer, and I should avoid getting into legal arguments.  I was thinking of the Catholic Charities vs State of Illinois adoption case. 

 

That doesn't resemble the BSA situation at all.

 

The state of Illinois told Catholic Charities that they couldn't both accept state money for adoption services and discriminate;  Catholic Charities sued and lost, so they closed down.  They could have either continued with state funding and not discriminate, or without state funding and discriminate, but they didn't choose either of those.

 

The BSA is (finally acting more like) a private club; they can discriminate.  Allowing gays in some units won't change that.  The national BSA has backed up BSA units that don't allow women SMs, and a church-sponsored unit that didn't allow a Muslim SM.

[T2Eagle]

You joined the grouping KNOWING of this policy!! I hope someone joins something you hold dear and totally changes it to something you can't abide by so you can walk a mile in our shoes.

I joined decades before there was even discussion of whether there was such a policy.  I don't know what I myself would have thought back then, but my own views, and the views of many other scouters, have changed as I've learned about, became aware of, and became friends, colleagues, and family members with, people who happened to be gay.  

 

Scouting IS something I hold dear, and the policy has been hard for me to abide, but I believed that the balance of the program enabled me to serve my scouts despite what I saw as a pretty big flaw in it.  So I have hiked many miles in those boots that now feel uncomfortable to you, and Scouting was dear enough to me to keep on hiking.

 

Despite what many would like to believe, this change isn't being driven by some conspiratorial group of outsiders.  Going back as far as Dale and arguments about the Philadelphia council and their headquarters, most of the time it is someone outside of the unit or the council who has complained about participation by gay and lesbian scouts and scouters.  Usually the people who know and see the person as an individual, not as a characteristic, don't have a problem with that person.

 

Scouting has a lot to offer young people and those who want to serve them (as of course do many other programs).  The chances that you or your unit will be asked to have someone you would not want participate are passingly small.  If you're part of a religious CO you'll be allowed to maintain your choice and send that person to another unit.  If you're not part of a religious CO than  you will need to decide whether to remain or change units.

[MattR]

 Seriously you'd be wary? Someone turns up who is not just there for the time their kid will be there, instead they want to volunteer for the sake of it? I'd rip their arm off.

I've never seen it happen before, so yes, I'd be weary if a random adult with no scouting experience and no child in the troop showed up asking to help. It's not that I'd say no but I would be weary. I'm also a bit weary of adults from other troops that walk right in to my troop site and start working with scouts. There are plenty of scouters I don't want around my scouts and this has nothing to do with sexuality or YP. I have adults in my own troop that I do not want as ASMs because they just don't get it. They are more than welcome on campouts but I do keep an invisible leash on them. There are adults with outdoor skills but no scouting experience that have helped out but there is always at least an ASM or myself around to see how they work with the boys. Trust takes time to develop and the parents trust me to make sure the adults working with their sons are trustworthy. So weary has its place.

[perdidochas]

Local option is best, it ensures that the boys who get seduced are the sons of the people who wanted gay leaders there.

 

If YPT and good leaders are involved, there will be no seduction, no matter the orientation of the leaders.

[perdidochas]

The difference being now my CO takes the liability and not the cowards in Dallas. So what exactly does national, council,and district do for us besides make our lives more and more difficult.

 

Thankfully my work in BSA is almost done. Sadly, my grandchildren won't be participating in this once noble organization. Pathetic.

 

That's what I'm afraid of as well. At least my sons have had the opportunity to benefit from Scouting. 

[David CO]

Some people may be surprised to hear that conservative, traditional religions don't teach that bad people come with hideous features; fanged teeth, cloven hooves, and horns sticking out of the tops of their heads.

 

Neither do we teach that bad people take on the behavioral characteristics of cartoon villains with hissing, sneering, cackling, flamboyant gestures, and rudeness.

 

 

We teach exactly the opposite. We teach that evil and disorder can come in forms that are pleasing to the eye and soothing to the senses. Not all that glitters is gold.

 

If I have heard the gay inclusion story once, I must have heard it a thousand times. The story teller goes on to say how, upon discovering that gay people, aside from being gay, look and act much like the rest of us, a conclusion is reached that it must be OK to be gay. There must be a script.

 

The normalness of someone's appearance and demeanor doesn't validate their disordered behavior.

[Eagledad]

If YPT and good leaders are involved, there will be no seduction, no matter the orientation of the leaders.

What about orientation of the scouts?

 

Barry

[Rick_in_CA]

You joined the grouping KNOWING of this policy!! I hope someone joins something you hold dear and totally changes it to something you can't abide by so you can walk a mile in our shoes.

I love how this discredited idea keeps getting dragged out.

 

First there are lots of long time scouters that started in the BSA before this "policy" was in place.

 

Second, as it wasn't mentioned in any of the handbooks, or in any official publication outside of press releases or court statements until very recently, there were plenty of people that joined without having a clue about this policy (in my cub pack there were many parents and leaders that didn't know about this policy until it hit the press before the big vote). My local council had multiple COs that were unaware of the policy when it hit the press (and if I remember right, including two COs that informed the council that the existing policy was incompatible with their own non-discrimination policies, and if it wasn't changed they would be required to drop their units - I believe that after the vote, we still lost one of those two units as the vote didn't go far enough). So clearly, many people and even COs didn't know.

 

And how was everyone supposed to know? The signs say "Be a Scout" not "Be a Scout unless you are Gay". It wasn't on the national web site (or my council web site), it's not on the application or in any of the handbooks. It's not in the recharter documents (as I was CC of may pack, I had to read all of them and don't remember a single mention), so how is everyone supposed to magically KNOW??? As far as I can tell, the BSA had a policy of not mentioning the anti-gay rule unless it was directly challenged or violated (in fact, when it was first created, wasn't it only found in a secret memo?).

 

True, there also were scouters and COs that were aware. I was aware of the policy for years because I have been following the issue since the BSA basically kicked the Unitarians units out (that was a few years after I aged out of Explorers). And I am sure there are lots of scouters that were aware of the policy because they remembered earlier press reports. Or because they can across it for some other way and remembered. And I am sure there were at least a few COs that were aware of the policy and actively informed perspective members of it. But for the majority of people involved with the BSA, I just don't think it was on their radar.

 

As for watching people change something I hold dear, that is exactly what happened to the BSA! When I was a youth, the BSA was primarily an American patriotic organization, and then a bunch of culture warriors came in and tried (and basically succeeded) to turn it into a conservative religious one. You want to talk about heart break?! Imagine the faces of a bunch of scouts and scouters that loved the BSA, when they are suddenly officially told by the BSA that their religious faith is "incompatible with boy scout values", and they can no longer wear their hard earned religious emblems on their uniforms. When a council official literally screams at a twelve year old boy scout too "take that fag-loving filth" off his uniform at that scout's older brother's eagle ceremony??? That heart break???

 

I'm am so very sorry that you can not longer impose your religious beliefs on everyone else. But like America, the BSA is bigger than any one creed or religion. And it's about time that the BSA remembered that!

Edited July 20, 2015 by Rick_in_CA

[NJCubScouter]

DavidCo, this is the second time in this thread that you have referred to gay people as being "disordered", but I decided to go back to the first one since you said it more directly there:

 

My religion teaches me that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, so I have to differ with Miami Chief when he tries to equate normal attraction with disordered attraction.

 

...

 

I will never agree that gay youths and adults are not seriously and intrinsically disordered. I will never consider their attractions to be morally equivalent to the attractions that I, and most people, feel.

The issue is, how do we have one organization where some people believe as you believe, but others believe that homosexuality is NOT "disordered", and therefore that it is wrong to exclude them? Should we impose your religious beliefs on others? Should we impose the religious beliefs of others on you? The only way to even TRY avoiding either one is local option. It isn't perfect, especially since not everybody gets to exercise the option. But what we have now just isn't viable, and what is replacing it is better. Sometimes "better" is the best you can do.

[fred johnson]

With all the posturing, the most interesting part of this is that scouting is going to change very little.  The arguments will be remembered way more than any noticeable change.

 

Maybe the biggest change will be that we'll eventually change to completely private and individual bathroom and shower facilities.  No more scout facilities, adult men facilities and female facilities.  It will just be all individual bathrooms.  And given society today, that might be the best thing that happens.

[perdidochas]

Long overdue. This is and has been the only route to resolution that made any sense, while maintaining the scouting ideal of respect for other faiths.

 

It should have been done a few years ago when we allowed gay youth in. They should have made it local option for all units at that time.

[perdidochas]

What about orientation of the scouts?

 

Barry

Well, gay scouts have already been allowed in the organization for years. I haven't heard of any problems related to that, have you? 

 

I think it should all have been local option a few years ago.