REading about how there is a universal morality is tedious. There is no such thing and never has been.
The only universal truth amongst the mobs of humans who populate this world is that most of them act in their own best interest and within the limits of what their fellows in whatever culture they live in will allow.
In Saudi Arabia it is OK to behead a man for setting foot in Mecca and not being Muslim. In some countries, chopping off someone's hand is OK. In our country, the death penalty is OK, and apparently so is putting a rather disturbingly large portion of our citizens behind bars.
There is no universal morality.
There is universal negative reactions from others when you try to take their stuff or harm them. That's about it. If you want to cite Natural Law, that is all you can cite.
Everything else is just cultural rules and citing supposed holy books as part of a power grab.
Announcement Announcement Module
No announcement yet.
May 23rd predictions and post-vote plans Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
- Apr 2013
- 1 Like
- Feb 2001
Originally posted by AZMike View PostNo, Merlyn. "Objective Atheist Morality" is a synonym for "subjectively right."
Sorry AZ, anyone using the term "natural law" is really only trying to boost their own opinion by claiming some sort of argument from authority. Your inventing of "Objective Atheist Morality" is what's called a red herring argument, to avoid the subject.
I certainly don't argue for "Objective Atheist Morality" and I never have.
What IS 'Objective Atheist Morality'?
Is there a 'Subjective Atheist Morality?'
Is there an 'Objective Religious Morality?'
I think I can understand the existence of a 'Subjective Religious Morality.' Seems to be what most people think IS their 'morality'.
AZMike, we're probably not going to get anywhere with this discussion, but it's interesting and I'm having fun arguing with you.
I'd never heard of Natural Law before, so I looked it up. In a nutshell, it seems vague at best. I have to agree with ThomasJefferson, the only natural law when it comes to human behavior is best described by Machiavelli. Morality is what keeps us above that muck.
Sexual slavery and debt was real, it was not just POWs that were slaves. Look at wikipedia under the bible and slavery to find a real great quote about selling your daughter as a slave. Comparing criminal incarceration with sexual slavery is not a reasonable comparison. The comment about keeping kosher was really just to point out that many religious leaders, over thousands of years, have been interpreting the rules and stories in the bible.
To answer some of your questions: The behavior is wrong if it's a choice. Just like being stupid is wrong if it's a choice. But what about a scout with Downs? It's not a choice for such a kid. Let me ask you this, do you think gays choose to have same sex attraction? Do you think a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay? If so, then that's where our differences are and there's nothing left to say.
I can understand that some parents will be uncomfortable with gay kids in other troops. Unfortunately the same thing was said of blacks until 1975 when summer camps were finally desegregated in the South. Do you think a gay kid is likely to abuse another kid more than, say, kids with Aspergers, or PTSD (both of which I have in my troop)? Sure, different kids need to be watched differently, but there seems to be no evidence that gay kids are going to be any more dangerous to other kids than kids with other challenges that we already have in our troops. Is it that you don't want gay pride meetings in your troop? Trust me, nobody else wants that either.
"Every kid may come from God, but so do all bullies, racists, alcoholics, and drug addicts. We are allowed to discourage that kind of behavior as well." In all of these instances the kid chooses to do these things. It keeps getting back to choice. Character and morality come from the choices one makes. For a kid that can't make that choice, and isn't harming anyone else, I don't see a problem.
AZMike commented05-21-2013, 03:24 AMEditing a commentMatt, Natural Law arguments can hardly be called vague. They are based on the Thomistic-Aristotelian model. As such, what you and "Thomas Jefferson" are describing as natural law, under Natural Law philosophy is simply the first stage, the "discriminating norm." Describing it simply as "that which keeps us above the muck" is trying to define a cause by its effect. You'll run into some problems with that.
The "discriminating norm" is human nature itself, objectively considered - essentially, the book in which is written the text of the law, and is the instrument by which we classify human actionsas good and bad. Strictly speaking, human nature is the proximate discriminating norm or standard. The remote and ultimate norm, of which it is the partial reflection and application, is the Divine nature itself, the ultimate base of the created order. The binding or obligatory norm is the Divine authority, imposing upon the rational creature the obligation of living in conformity with his nature, and thus with the universal order established by the Creator. While Kantian claimed that we must not acknowledge any other lawgiver than conscience, the truth is that reason as conscience is only immediate moral authority which we are called upon to obey, and conscience itself owes its authority to the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the Divine will and imperium. The manifesting norm (norma denuntians), which determines the moral quality of actions tried by the discriminating norm, is reason. Through this faculty we perceive what is the moral constitution of our nature, what kind of action it calls for, and whether a particular action possesses this requisite character. If you want to read more on this subject, I'd be happy to give you some recommendations.
Probably best not to use ta Wikipedia article as a source on Biblical scholarship. As with any controversial subject, they are edited and re-edited by those with an ideological ax to grind. Here's a tip: when reading any Wiki article, click on that little tab on the upper right labeled "Talk" to view the arguments over re-edits. As many of those note in this article, the Bible does not, in fact, condone slavery. It attempted to regulate a pre-existing practice, as the continuing theme of the Old Testament is the continued failures of even God's chosen people, the Israelites, and the attempts to gradually raise them to a higher moral state, even as they (as all humans) backslid due to "the hardness of their hearts."
You further claim that "behavior is wrong if it is a choice." You're confusing an attraction with behavior. Do you honestly believe that an attraction to behavior - even if it wholly or partially innate - is uncontrollable? So if another man has an attraction to your wife, his attraction towards adultery (and hitting on your old lady) can be condoned, because, hey, that's just how he is. Sexual attraction may impel, but it does not compel. Addictive personalities may also be partially genetic - do we encourage it? Do you not believe that an addict, or an alcoholic, can also encourage another to the same behavior, even if both parties know the behavior will not benefit them? (continued)
You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?
If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.
On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.
One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.
So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?
Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.
The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.
- 1 Like
Scouter99 commented05-21-2013, 02:19 PMEditing a commentIn point of fact, consensual sex acts between males after age 13 is not "pedophilia" it is homosexuality. Pedophilia ends where puberty begins, and in increasing numbers that is as young as 10. Gay adult-teen sex is a cornerstone of gay culture from Plato to Wilde to "Queer as Folk" and only idealists have the capacity for the blissful ignorance or willful blindness necessary to paper over this simple fact. You can read all about it in the gay history "Toward Stonewall", Chapters 12 and 13. Keep your barfbag handy.
EmberMike commented05-21-2013, 02:27 PMEditing a commentI'm not all up on the letter of the law, but I still believe that any sex act between an adult and someone under 18, male or female, same sex or opposite sex, it's still illegal. Even if the definition of pedophilia ends at 13 (is that accurate? Got a cite?) 13-17 is still abuse.
Scouter99 commented05-21-2013, 03:40 PMEditing a comment"...13-17 is still abuse" Simply put: no. Laws establish only what is legal or not legal. Consensual relationships do not constitute abuse, but they may be illegal. We see the argument that illegality establishes abuse evaporate when we consider that a 20-yr-old can legally engage in sex acts with a 18-yr-old; however, make that 20-yr-old a teacher, and the 18-yr-old a student, and now the same behavior is illegal (even if the 18-yr-old is not a student of the 20-yr-old). Free consent (not made under duress, manipulation, etc) establishes whether abuse has occurred. As a society, we have decided that we don't want people under the age of 18 to be able to give legal consent to sex acts to people over the age of 18, but that does not change the biological desires of minors or of adults, it can only influence their behavior. But 30 yrs ago in the US, that age was 16, and 50 years ago that age was 13; indeed, in many parts of the world, the age of consent is still 12, or they don't even legislate the issue.
"...have a cite?" I assure you, I'm not the one to be cheeky with on this front. Pedophilia is a specific medical term with a specific definition. It means a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. We generally peg puberty to 13. You are free to borrow or buy a copy of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) if you want to check up on that, or pop over to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia
While I'm humoring your citations request, as noted, we "generally" peg puberty to 13, but as I said, "in increasing numbers" boys are entering puberty as young as 10, which you can read (or listen) all about here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012...uberty-earlier
You may read the book I referenced for free here: http://books.google.com/books?id=buD...page&q&f=false But a digital copy is cheap if you want to be able to read all of Ch 13. Might I also suggest "Gay Man's Worst Friend" for a prominent gay publisher's explanation of how it is that you don't know about the intrinsic tilt of homosexuals toward youth despite the wealth of historic and contemporary evidence. You can read about the classical Greek ideal of adult-youth gay sex as the height--the most superior--of love in Plato's "Symposium" which has inspired and influenced homosexuals for centuries.
If anyone was unclear about natural law yesterday, I hope they're perfectly clear about it now, lol.
- May 2011
AZMike and Others.
Regardless of the harsh and at times dismissive comments you are receiving, I wanted to thank you for your time that you are taking to present your side of this discussion and the moral compass that guides you and many others. An open discussion here is most important
Some of the responses here have been on the “un scout like side”
If the argument boils down to behavior and not the desire, would it then not be appropriate to ban avowed heterosexual boys engaging in sexual relations with females ?
- Feb 2013
Interesting article about the run up to the vote on Thursday
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.
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 pork”, “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.
- Feb 2013
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.Last edited by Pack18Alex; 05-22-2013, 10:17 AM. Reason: Forgot to include a point
ghjim commented05-22-2013, 11:54 AMEditing a commentI 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.
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?
King Ding Dong commented05-22-2013, 01:58 PMEditing a commentIt is interesting no matter how this question is posed. No one will touch it.
- Oct 2008
Originally posted by EmberMike View PostThe 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.
King Ding Dong commented05-22-2013, 11:20 AMEditing a commentEveryone enjoys making a mountain out of a molehill.
DigitalScout commented05-22-2013, 08:46 PMEditing a commentTo most Americans it's no big deal. But the BSA has a large number of conservatives who think that once gays are allowed in, they will start recruiting impressionable boys to become gay because many conservatives believe homosexuality is a choice. So to them it is a matter of life and death of the BSA.
Personally we should open the doors and focus on more important matters.
- May 2013
Nike commented05-22-2013, 03:12 PMEditing a commentMaybe AHG would be willing to go co-ed, not by local unit but as a national organization. American Heritage Youth?
AZOwl commented05-23-2013, 12:16 PMEditing a commentNick...
How is it a compromise with the world's view...Most WOSM organizations do not discriminate against LGBT members.