Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

This should have been dealt with at the same time as youth membership.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Pack18Alex View Post
    But the real question isn't risk, it's morality. The Christian Conservative wing considers homosexuality a MAJOR sin. The "diversity" wing considers it to be a perfectly valid lifestyle/orientation/attraction/preference/choose-your-work, and therefore wants to focus on the absurdity of youth protection.
    And this is where I believe you are missing the point. Yes, some religious groups consider homosexuality a sin, some others do not. The BSA says they are completely non-sectarian. People of all faiths are supposed to be treated equally. So why is it that the conservative religious groups get to follow their beliefs in picking their leaders, but the more "diversity" focused churches cannot? THAT is the problem. A Scout is Reverent, He respects the beliefs of others. But not enough to allow them to follow their faith when picking their leaders. The current policy on leaders is in direct violation of stated BSA values.

    There are a bunch of scouters in the BSA's conservative wing (not all of them of course) that don't want the BSA to be non-sectarian, that don't follow the "He respects the beliefs of others" part of the scout law, and have no desire to be part of a diverse and pluralistic BSA. And are fighting to make sure it isn't. My belief is that the only policy consistent with stated BSA values is a policy of local control. If your CO believes that gays are poor role models, then they should be free to say no to those leaders. If my CO believes that they can be, they should be equally free to pick them as leaders. If your CO's religious beliefs trump my CO's religious beliefs, then the BSA is no-longer a completely non-sectarian organization, and the BSAs "all religions are equally welcome" is no longer true. And that is something worth fighting against. Not because "I hate the BSA" or "I want to destroy it". Because I love scouting, and want it to do a better job of living up to it's ideals. Because the values of pluralism is not just a BSA value, but an American value! It is one of the things that make this country great. That all people regardless of race or creed are welcome.

    So is this "Is this a hill worth dying on"? Damn right it is!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Pack18Alex View Post
      The overriding question is not are homosexuals a risk to young scouts (the math is pretty clear, no they're not, pedophiles overwhelming identify in adult relationships as heterosexual).
      I have to say you're incorrect. We are concerned not with an undifferentiated mass of "pedophiles," we are concerned in the Boy Scouts with pederasts who overwhelmingly self-identify as "gay" based on the research literature. I understand that most gays do not consider pederasts as part of their subculture (although that wasn't always the case, and the removal of NAMBLA from gay-pride parades caused enormous controversy and soul searching within the gay rights movement), but we are just arguing semantics when we claim that "gay" men don't have sex with boys, but that those who identify as heterosexuals do. That's utter nonsense and not supported by the academic research.

      Comment


      • So Rick, the Colorado SM who uses pot for recreational use? He's another guy we should allow to be a Scoutmaster? I have a friend in Colorado who is going through this right now. That sets a real good example for the boys, huh? The problem with your pluralism = American values argument is that BSA also applies the Scout Law within that concept. So it's not enough that we simply apply "pluralism" ideals, those who meet that litmus test must THEN meet the Scout Law ideals. So, using your argument, if you want BSA to strive as much as possible to meet your pluralistic ideal, why don't you hold those inside BSA to the tenants of the Scout Law and Oath as much as possible? That would mean adults who are not physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight would be excluded, no?

        Comment


        • Yep, I guess you'll be the only adult left. Be sure to get the lights....

          Comment


          • Originally posted by mozartbrau View Post
            So Rick, the Colorado SM who uses pot for recreational use? He's another guy we should allow to be a Scoutmaster?
            Why not? Or, more to Rick's point, why not let the CO make that call?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by mozartbrau View Post
              So Rick, the Colorado SM who uses pot for recreational use? He's another guy we should allow to be a Scoutmaster?
              That should be up to the CO to decide. If they think he is a good leader, who are we to judge? They are in a much better position to know their potential leaders then we are.

              Yes, there are a few COs making bad calls on leaders. That isn't going to change as long as the COs get to pick their leaders.

              Originally posted by mozartbrau View Post
              The problem with your pluralism = American values argument is that BSA also applies the Scout Law within that concept.
              And how is the scout law incompatible with pluralism? In fact, I would argue that pluralism is in fact part of the scout law:

              A Scout is Friendly.
              A Scout is a friend to all. He is a brother to other Scouts. He offers his friendship to people of all races and nations, and respects them even if their beliefs and customs are different from his own.

              A Scout is Courteous.
              A Scout is polite to everyone regardless of age or position. He knows that using good manners makes it easier for people to get along.

              A Scout is Kind.
              A Scout knows there is strength in being gentle. He treats others as he wants to be treated. Without good reason, he does not harm or kill any living thing.

              A Scout is Reverent.
              A Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.

              Looks pretty pluralistic to me.
              Last edited by Rick_in_CA; 05-03-2014, 02:15 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AZMike View Post

                According to the CDC?

                Higher risks of suicide, of substance abuse, of depression, of promiscuity, of risk-taking behavior, of not wearing seatbelts, of smoking, of unhealthy eating habits, and many more.

                One could reasonably argue that all those behaviors are just a result of society's aversion to homosexuals, but we see similar rates (or worse) in societies that are more accepting of homosexuality....
                I wouldn't even make it an argument. It seems entirely impossible to believe that gay people would be offing themselves just because they are gay and not because of societal or cultural discrimination, persecution, etc. In youths you can pretty much draw a direct line between bullying and suicide. There are, sadly, so many cases that prove this.

                There would be fewer suicides, fewer kids turning to drugs and other harmful behaviors, if there wasn't so much hatred and discrimination thrown their way just because they are gay.
                Last edited by EmberMike; 05-04-2014, 09:25 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by mozartbrau View Post
                  So Rick, the Colorado SM who uses pot for recreational use? He's another guy we should allow to be a Scoutmaster? I have a friend in Colorado who is going through this right now. That sets a real good example for the boys, huh...
                  And what example is that? I don't understand... a person in Colorado can be a law-abiding citizen and smoke pot legally, same as anyone who uses alcohol or any legal drug. What's the issue here? Do you really think pot use should make someone ineligible for leadership? It's legal afterall, so if you're going down that road you would also need to kick out leaders who use alcohol or legal prescription drugs.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EmberMike View Post

                    I wouldn't even make it an argument. It seems entirely impossible to believe that gay people would be offing themselves just because they are gay and not because of societal or cultural discrimination, persecution, etc. In youths you can pretty much draw a direct line between bullying and suicide. There are, sadly, so many cases that prove this.

                    There would be fewer suicides, fewer kids turning to drugs and other harmful behaviors, if there wasn't so much hatred and discrimination thrown their way just because they are gay.
                    "It seems entirely possible to believe" is not the same thing as proof, or even correlation.

                    One cannot also "draw a line between bullying and suicide." The studies on teen resiliency don't bear that out, and we don't see a correlation between anti-bullying programs and suicide decline. As I said, the societies that don't have a high level of social stigma against homosexuality still have high rates of suicide, and probably the other correlations that the CDC observed.

                    Anecdotally, of the gay friends I knew in high school, none were bullied (or at any rate, weren't bullied because they were gay) and generally had supportive families and friends. Almost all are dead now, largely due to self-destructive behaviors that weren't related to bullying or social/family stigmatization. Homicide, drug overdose, lung cancer, and suicide. None of them deserved that. But they largely seemed to live unhappy lives. I think there are some good reasons why that is so.

                    All we can say about the evidence is that there exists a strong correlation between homosexuality and suicide and other observed self-destructive, risk-taking behaviors, not all of which (such as promiscuity) can be feasibly linked to bullying.

                    If someone is on the fence regarding their sexuality - any many young men who are conflicted are, I don't think it benefits anyone to commit to a gay lifestyle. As the research strongly shows that sexual identity is very malleable in the period from 16 to 25, and the majority of youths who self-identify as gay or bisexual no longer do so at the end of cohort studies, society should not encourage a too early self-identification as gay.



                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by EmberMike View Post

                      And what example is that? I don't understand... a person in Colorado can be a law-abiding citizen and smoke pot legally, same as anyone who uses alcohol or any legal drug. What's the issue here? Do you really think pot use should make someone ineligible for leadership? It's legal afterall, so if you're going down that road you would also need to kick out leaders who use alcohol or legal prescription drugs.
                      Some things are just wrong, like marijuana use. We recently had a man in one of our state parks arrested for coprophilia. Now, just having that paraphilia is not illegal, any more than homosexuality is. You don't break any laws if you practice it. There are no rules against it in the BSA by-laws (presuming the coprophile has never been arrested.) If he is open about his sexual identity, writes a blog about his interest, conducts his sex-life with consenting adults...I would still say he shouldn't be a scout leader, any more than a pothead or an openly homosexual man should be.

                      Even if pot smoking becomes legal and the new normal, it should not be condoned or encouraged in Scouting.
                      Last edited by AZMike; 05-04-2014, 10:19 PM.

                      Comment


                      • You're equating smoking s___ with eating s___?

                        Sorry, it was just too easy.

                        It's not that I smoke weed, but I'm a scoutmaster and I'm hurting. I'm hurting because I'm trying to figure out what my job really is and the BSA gives me s___ to work with as far as explaining how any of this Boy Scout stuff works. I'm hurting because more and more parents are time poor and can't help out. Gays? I don't care. Helicopter parents are a different issue. If national could help me with that and time poor families then they'd be on to something that would have an impact on the program.

                        Comment


                        • MattR, not sure about the s___ but I've smoked mullet and carp over the years. You have to roll them in a sheet of newspaper and suck real hard.
                          Sorry, couldn't resist.

                          Comment


                          • " I'm hurting because more and more parents are time poor and can't help out." I would say that more and more parents have not learned how to prioritize and sometimes "say NO", as well as have skewed perspectives as to what activities are more likely to have long term success in helping their kids become adults who can meet challenges on their own. Too much structure and hardly any down time leads too often to frustration for parents and children.

                            Most of us over 45 or 50 can now look back and realize that some of our best experiences as youth had almost no structure. We simply "hung out"; but we hung outside, rather than inside by ourselves with a screen and things. Our troop outdoor activities are barely structured, other than the absolute necessities getting to and back, sleeping arrangements, and food with its related issues. Funny thing, they seem to generally prefer those outings and often talk about elements of them repeatedly, while more rigid ones usually are less appreciated.

                            Ironically, that is one of the important Patrol Method outcomes, the scouts learning to work together and to make due for themselves. The less we interfere, even when the outcome may be less than optimal, the better. Safety and health should be our main concerns. They will not starve if they burn their meals, especially on an weekend outing. If they cannot properly set up a tent, maybe they will learn to appreciate sleeping under the stars; or maybe they will figure it out. Failure is not a bad word, but rather an opportunity.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MattR View Post
                              You're equating smoking s___ with eating s___?
                              Sorry, it was just too easy.
                              It's not that I smoke weed, but I'm a scoutmaster and I'm hurting. I'm hurting because I'm trying to figure out what my job really is and the BSA gives me s___ to work with as far as explaining how any of this Boy Scout stuff works. I'm hurting because more and more parents are time poor and can't help out. Gays? I don't care. Helicopter parents are a different issue. If national could help me with that and time poor families then they'd be on to something that would have an impact on the program.
                              Have you been to SM Specific and IOLS training?

                              You need to figure out how to harness the helicopters.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Rick_in_CA View Post
                                And this is where I believe you are missing the point. Yes, some religious groups consider homosexuality a sin, some others do not. The BSA says they are completely non-sectarian. People of all faiths are supposed to be treated equally. So why is it that the conservative religious groups get to follow their beliefs in picking their leaders, but the more "diversity" focused churches cannot? THAT is the problem. A Scout is Reverent, He respects the beliefs of others. But not enough to allow them to follow their faith when picking their leaders. The current policy on leaders is in direct violation of stated BSA values.
                                Agreed to a point. In more homogenous parts of the country, the idea that different religions really have different values may seem more theoretical than real, and find the suggestion that this is legitimate crazy. You also do have an issue "above the unit level" though I consider that way more minor.

                                Assume CO-A finds homosexuality a grave sin and prohibits it for their leaders. CO-B considers it a valid God created orientation. A gay scouter joins Unit B, joins the District Committee, etc., and is coordinating things for Unit A. Unit A doesn't want a gay leader, but defacto gets one from District/Council.

                                I think that this is a dumb issue, none of us "answer to" anyone at district/council, but I think it's being made out to be a bigger issue than it is. The "what about Camporees" question does come up. Honestly, the only district/council position that has any direct connection to the scouts/scouters of the unit is unit commissioner, and making Unit Commissioner a "unit position" signed off by COR/IH and you solve that problem.

                                ​The idea of creating a second-class scouter: can be a unit scouter, cannot be a district/council scouter, will just prolong the pain of discussing this, so if BSA national elects a "local" option, if council isn't non-discriminatory, it doesn't solve ANYTHING.

                                That said, this is an extremely stupid fight to be in and it's hurting the program dramatically.

                                I think if the 70% of Units that were faith based were really faith based and not just hosted at a church, this issue wouldn't be here… it would have been pushed to a local option and resolved. I think that conservative BSA members are terrified that they'll be in a small minority and discriminated against… and I don't think that they're wrong.

                                If donating to the highly popular Prop 8 in California is grounds for termination half a decade later, I think that conservative Christian BSA leaders have every reason to believe that this will be "taken away from them" as well. I think that that is a concern that stems from forgetting that this is "all about the boys" but reasonable for people for whom being a scouter is a 15+ year hobby.

                                Originally posted by Rick_in_CA View Post
                                There are a bunch of scouters in the BSA's conservative wing (not all of them of course) that don't want the BSA to be non-sectarian, that don't follow the "He respects the beliefs of others" part of the scout law, and have no desire to be part of a diverse and pluralistic BSA. And are fighting to make sure it isn't. My belief is that the only policy consistent with stated BSA values is a policy of local control. If your CO believes that gays are poor role models, then they should be free to say no to those leaders. If my CO believes that they can be, they should be equally free to pick them as leaders. If your CO's religious beliefs trump my CO's religious beliefs, then the BSA is no-longer a completely non-sectarian organization, and the BSAs "all religions are equally welcome" is no longer true. And that is something worth fighting against. Not because "I hate the BSA" or "I want to destroy it". Because I love scouting, and want it to do a better job of living up to it's ideals. Because the values of pluralism is not just a BSA value, but an American value! It is one of the things that make this country great. That all people regardless of race or creed are welcome.

                                So is this "Is this a hill worth dying on"? Damn right it is!
                                As a member of a minority religion in BSA, I absolutely get the second-class-faith issue, dramatically. Our Council events are exclusively on Saturdays which precludes our unit's participation. My wife is a GSUSA leader, and while 70%-80% of their events are on Saturday, they get some Sunday activities that they can participate in, and the other units agreed to move some things from Saturday morning to Sunday afternoon to include them. World of difference from BSA, where our faith based unit is very respected, but clearly accommodations are extremely difficult.

                                Unfortuantely for those valuing inclusion, the continued harassment by GLAAD and friends after the recent BSA decision will have everyone gun-shy. BSA has not regained ANY financial supporters, and has lost more by having this in the news, there is no reason to believe that this makes anyone more likely to support more changes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X