Eagledad

>>I have some ideas, but I have not approached my District with it, and I am worried about the response of if we can pull it off. If I can convince them the youth can rise to this challenge. I also worry about those on my training staff worring that the youth will replace them so I am looking for ways to include the staff with helping train the youth instructors and making sure what they plan to present is of quality.. I am curious if this is something you guys have already put into action. If so, I would love to know more on how to successfully implement this.

>>Barry, I can never keep track. Was that the good WB, the bad WB or the one in between?

I still have my s/s collarless shirt from the early 70's and 100lbs ago. The neckerchiefs were bigger then and they were important tools as well as uniform. My scouts laughed at me as I tried without success to teach first aid with todays size of neckerchief. Barry

Interestingly our Troop of uses the same list as Stosh's. The list was taught in JLT. 1. Introduce yourself and the subject you are teaching. 2. Hold up and describe all the resources used for the lesson. 3. Demonstrate the techniques or skills. 4. Have students practice the technique or skill. 5. Have students demonstrate and teach the skill to another student. 6. Thanks them and release the class. We also have a rule that a least 75% of the teaching session must be hands on. That rule forced our Council JLTC training to be much more enjoyable and productive. By the way, we learned that list from the old Wood Badge course. They taught every subject using it. Barry

>>Barry feels he works for the parents as he stated in his post

I'm one of those who has complained about parents that are too protective or too ambitious. We can him and haw about all day long but I seem too have either mellowed with age to understand that in much of this, its not a right or wrong issue, it is how well we work with the parents. I have said many times that I learned the hard way that at least 50% of the Scoutmasters job is working with the adults. This is an example of what Im talking about. Our troop never even hinted that a parent was not welcome to come along on a camp out. Personally I think parents who see their kids in action are the ones who buy into the boy run program the fastest. Once they understand it, they do what ever it takes to support it and willingly give you the space you need. Yes, there are the parents who go over the top, but that is where the SM needs to step it up a notch and develop new skills to teach the parents of not only where to stand, but more importantly the why. A lot of problem is that we leaders dont explain our jobs or the program very well. As I got more experienced, I learned better how to justify what every scout can gain while doing a troop activity. I learned to explain just learning how to tie one simple knot improved a scouts character and leadership than from the moment before he started learning that knot. If a boy could only spend one day of his life in a troop program, he will have grown in that one day for life. The adult leaders who tend to get in trouble are the ones who order parents and scouts to fall in step. They use the justification that they are the leader and that is all the justification they need. Its like making the scout wear a uniform without a reason that makes sense for his age and maturity. The scout will follow the adult authority, but he wont respect the absence of wisdom. At some point rebellion follows. That doesnt mean all scout leaders should know everything about scouting or why we do what we do. They just shouldnt justify their actions because they have the authority. In my mind, the SM works for the parent, not the other way around. In reality, we adults have to learn twice as much as the scouts twice as fast just so we can keep up and so that we dont restrict the scouts from growing. Its the adults who dont try to learn that have the most issues with parents. We as leaders really need to quit thinking about good parents and bad parents and instead think of how to deal with the different styles of different parents. Some are rather challenging and may require the style of a different leader to occomplish the goal. Rarely, but it happens that the two will never have a meeting of the minds and a separation is required. But, 99% of the other time, it just a matter of finding a way to get the parent to buy into the program. I love this scouting stuff. Barry

So what you are saying is all sins are OK and not harmful. That is your opinion and so why even do a check on adult applications. Hey, you want pedofile for a leader, you need to become an activist for them as well. A sin is a sin? Well I let you figure how far you want to go with that. Just warn the parents that there are no limits of role modeling behavior as far as you are concerned. The BSA, like it or not, is a values organization and they have to draw the line somewhere. You are lucky that you have a choice of staying with an organization that doesn't represent your principles, OR not. Barry

>>I don't need a big discussion to know that a gay person is not doing anything inherently wrong,

>>I wonder why some who do not prescribe to the scriptures of sexism, seem to want to follow the ones against homosexuality. Just seems inconsistent.

>>Definition of misogyny (several different sources)- "the hatred of women">but I think the term applies when hatred is not the motivator to the prejudice.

Definition of misogyny (several different sources)- "the hatred of women" That's not a hijack? Even your examples taken out of context don't suggest misogyny. Barry

>>And yet, many people feel they are qualified to be amateur psychologists. Now THAT would be an interesting research topic...

>> Unlike Eagledad, my views were formed before really considering da religious side of things, just because I hadn't yet personally found Christ at the time I was developing my opinion. While my faith supports my view now, my view preceded and is largely independent of my faith.

>>Think back 100 years, we had the same issues with racism and misogyny. I think we've made great progress there. Hopefully in the next generation, it will be a thing of the past.

>>The argument is not about we think something is "natural" or "unnatural." At the end of the day, we only have control over our own decisions and how we mold our own lives.

>>Still haven't addressed why same-sex pairings among humans isn't "natural", or defined what "natural" means>> Too many words the first two times huh. OK, opposite genders have babies, same genders dont. How's that? Our bodies are very complicated and instinctivily use many actions intended just to find the appropriate mate. Its amazing really, but the ways our bodies give off or identify odors, the way we talk, move our eyes, and even walk have purposeful messages when we are trying to attract a mate. The ONLY purpose for all that natural complexity is to produce offspring. From a nature point, it would make no sense to attract a mate of the same gender since that would produce nothing of benefit to nature. There are certainly motivations that would drive a person to seek out a sexual partner of the same gender, but that isn't natural. Instinctively the sex drive is very powerful so as to insure continued population growth. We are safer in numbers and our instinctive nature drives to that end. However, that powerful strong drive can push a weak person toward un natural behavior as well, say children, animals or even cadavers. Humans are given the tools to make choices, sometimes they choose wrong. I think you can circle around this all day if you want, but Im a pretty black and white person. Most behavior is driven instinctily with the natural purpose of survival or adding to the population. Most behavor make sense once you understand that purpose. Ive not seen or heard of anything logical in my lifetime that even suggest that gays are born gay. Gay sex is not natural, and we have to agree to disagree on this subject. Barry

>>Our instinctive behavior to attract a partner for appropriation is very complicated and has many aspects to it, but one thing it doesnt have is the drive to attract the same gender to appropiate. That desire would mean something isnt quite right.>Every living thing has an instinctive drive to appropriate. Our instinctive behavior to attract a partner for appropriation is very complicated and has many aspects to it, but one thing it doesnt have is the drive to attract the same gender to appropiate.

>>What is real? See, now you are moving away from your original argument, that "all sex for gays is deviant and bizarre because two bodies of the same gender are not designed for sex." There are lots of things the human body was not "designed" to do, which have consequences. Are they all "deviant and bizarre", too?

>>Then there is how amusing I find the straw man argument that bodies of the same-gender were "not designed" to have sex with each other.

>>Could it be because....He is the judge? Not you, not I. So tell me...how arrogant is it to say that if you do something for your reasons, it's wrong, but if I do the exact same thing...but for MY reasons, it's nobile?

>>You will find that I NEVER said it was arrogant to follow God's word anywhere. I did say it is arrogant FOR US TO CLAIM God wouldn't like something or that our God would condemn something based on OUR ideals when it was plainly stated that we are not to judge others.

Hey, I'm still just trying get my mind around that its arrogant to follow Gods word in the other discussion. Patriotism is a bit down the list to ponder just yet. Barry

>>Yah, Mr. Boyce, I reckon we do have to be honest in admitting there's an awful lot of deviant and bizarre heterosexual behavior out there.

>>Psst. I'll let you in on a secret. There is a gay agenda, and I know what it is: 1. Spend time with family 2. Buy milk 3. Be treated equally

>>From his description, I reckon Eagledad's troop fell into da second to last group, eh?