Aquila

OGE has the best answer: "Just because I disagree with a BSA policy does not mean I dont follow it."

100%? No. But I *DO* agree with 100% of its core values. The rest of the stuff can be dealt with. If I could not in good conscience agree with the fundamentals, I would find a group that better fit my family.

A lot of worthy organizations "discriminate" in their membership. DAR won't take me, my sons won't be getting scholarships to Yale from UNCF, I can't get into the Army, Hillel won't be giving us any funds, etc etc. That I don't meet their requirements doesn't mean they are wrong -- it just means I don't meet their requirements.

The Boys & Girls Club is explicitly inclusive, and serves more youth than the BSA (4.8 mil vs 4.6 mil). Or 4H (also inclusive), with 6.5 mil. Those are viable alternatives, if you don't think SS is. It's not about dodging the question.

That homosexuality is immoral is not "I don't like your pants." It's a fundamentally held belief. Those who continue to fight against the BSA and punish it do so not because they have no other recourse -- they do so because they want to bring down those who would stand up to their immorality and perversion.

According to Merit Badge Orientation Training: Supplemental Adult Leader Training, "When the counselor is satisfied that the requirements have been met, he or she will sign the Application for Merit Badge, keeping the third section and returning the first two sections to the Scout. The Scout turns in both sections of the Application for Merit Badge to his Scoutmaster so the merit badge can be secured."

Is the badge EARNED when the MBC is satisfied it's earned, and has signed off on it? Or is it EARNED when the SM signs off on it?

I've always thought it was the former, but our SM's wife is insisting it's the latter. We have a Scout in the troop whose parent was the MBC for a badge. The troop policy is that when it's the parent, there must be an additional Scout working on the badge (as an aside, is that kosher?). The second boy decided not to work on it after opening it, and the SM wants to review it with the first boy before signing it.

My concern is precedent, since after reading the story about the Scout who recently completed all the badges (Dalton or something, up in Utah), he's decided to hit them hard. I'm the counselor for eight or nine of them. While I hope others might want to do them, too, I certainly don't want to have to scramble and recruit a Scout to do so. Our troop is mostly boys 13- who are working on one or two badges.

Can someone please point me to something official stating when the badge is earned?

There are literally tens of thousands of papers about the genetic component of extreme violence. The search engine is your friend.

As far as buzzwords, to adjudge actions as unacceptable is not to hate a person. But by throwing out "hate" and "prejudice" (and other buzzwords), the discussion changes to an offensive/defensive posturing rather than the issue of behavior.

The bottom line is that the BSA is highly unlikely to ever change their stance on this policy, and those who strongly disagree with it would probably be better served in an organization like Big Brothers or the Boys and Girls Club.

Feelings are just that... feelings. It's the ACTIONS that are the problem.

Pack, I'm sure there is both a nature and a nurture component to homosexuality -- that does not excuse it. In the same way that there is a genetic component to rage, it is what's done with that predisposition that matters.

I don't hate those practicing homosexuality, though I confess to being curious as to how long it was going to take for someone to bring out the buzz words. The actions disgust me, but it is compassion that I feel for the people caught up in that lifestyle. I don't hate junkies, prostitutes, thieves, liars, or the sexually promiscuous either. But I'm not going to purposefully expose my children to them, or condone their lifestyle.

Gern, you miss the point completely. EVERY time a person voluntarily engages in sex, they are CHOOSING whether it's heterosexual or homosexual sex.

4H has a good program, and it's EASILY tailored to individual desires. You might also look into American Heritage Girls, if their values correspond to your own.

I'm not Ed, but I choose to have heterosexual sex every time I engage in the marital act. Sex is a CHOICE. People CHOOSE the *action*.

Erick, I would agree that you could swap "boys" for "girls". Though I am no proponent of GSUSA, I agree with them that their program is stronger with female leaders -- just as BSA is stronger with male ones.

Gern, fortunately for me and the majority of the nation, BSA's policy obviously shows they disagree. I doubt very many people believe it's a sin to be blue-eyed.

The point remains that it's a policy here to stay. Those who cannot deal with that ought to put their efforts into youth programs with a different perspective. I know that Big Brothers welcomes homosexuals with open arms. So do the Boys & Girls Clubs. And Spiral Scouts. Why would someone *want* to be in an organization that considers their lifestyle immoral? What GOOD PURPOSE could that individual have? What *motive* might there be?

It's not about not knowing people - it's about people who have chosen to live an immoral lifestyle. "Tolerating" others does not mean accepting immorality. If you choose to teach your children that there is no absolute morality, that's your decision. I think you're doing them a great disservice, but they're your children.

It's not about "judging them incapable of being good citizens", it's about standing for what is right. If you don't agree with BSA's assessment of what's right in regards to homosexuality, there ARE alternatives. BSA is not for everyone. It's never been intended to be for everyone. It's a private organization for those that agree with its values.

OGE: "You may say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one perhaps someday you will join us and the world will live as one"

HOW DARE YOU! Quote the lyrics of a song that clearly promotes atheism. I'm beyond offended!

>>>Why should the BSA abandon their stance on homosexuality? Because everyone else has? Because times have changed? Because a kid would be upset because his gay parents aren't allowed to be members because they don't meet the criteria? Where does it say everyone gets to do everything they want?

The BSA should stick to its guns. In the end, they will be a stronger organization.

>>This thread reads more like a soap opera, Come on you guys the world is a tough place and we all have to survive the ups and downs. So quit your whining and get on with it instead of crying the blues. To do the right thing would be to close this thread right now. We all have had accidents, uninsured as well but we move on instead of moaning and complaining, you should do the same scoutldr.

Agreed, eoleson.

If it's swept under the rug under the auspices of dealing with PFS, and something does indeed ensue, everyone involved can expect to be civily liable for the extreme emotional stress the next victim endures.

We spent the weekend in a rained-out camporee, which we finally left when the state issued a Severe Storm Warning. :-(

>>> And as usual, point to the straight, theist kids being "denied scouting", while ignoring the ones being denied scouting now, all across the country. That's the whole reason the BSA is losing $1/year rent, after all.

It can work, and work well. But it requires a lot of parental involvement. The last one our troop ran by itself went smoothly.

Pros:

The whole family can come to camp. Okay, this might be a negative for some. We had the family camp on shore, and the boys on the boats.

The cost is less. Or not, when you factor in gas and other little expenses.

The food is DEFINITELY BETTER. I couldn't believe what passed for acceptable at our last camp. These are growing boys with hollow legs. A boiled half chicken breast, 2 cookies, and a starchy vegetable do not a dinner make.

Cons:

Boys are stuck with only those MB that fit into the specific activities. If you're on a houseboat for a week, there's probably not any riflery or archery.

All boys end up following pretty much the same schedule. This is okay if they're all at the same level, maturity-wise.

Paperwork. Ugh.

Training and involvement. It takes a lot to get it up and running.

We do our own camp every third or fourth year, just to keep things interesting ;-). We have a very high level of parental involvement, though.

Missed the last page here --

I agree with Beavah. Joni, you need to talk to your SE *NOW*. By bringing in the JASM, you've dumped a responsibility on him that he's likely not ready to handle. PLUS, he's a minor. I'd bet his parents will have some words ready when they find this out. Before it gets any worse, let those who are paid to deal with it do so.

Merlyn, if he's in a homosexual union, then he's a "known" homosexual. He doesn't have to be the one to say so. As we all know, legal does not necessarily equate to moral.

The thing that concerns me the MOST about this particular situation is that the boy said he'd "experimented" with another Scout at Scout camp. I'm sure there would be legal ramifications if a SM *KNEW* about the boy's sexual choices, allowed him to tent with another boy, and that other boy came home to tell his parents about the new things Johnnie taught him.

To answer your question, Joni, I would NOT grant him his Eagle. He has not fulfilled the morally straight requirement.

Here's the quote from BSALegal:

>>● Youth Leadership

Boy Scouts of America believes that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the obligations in the Scout Oath and Scout Law to be morally straight and clean in thought, word, and deed. The conduct of youth members must be in compliance with the Scout Oath and Law, and membership in Boy Scouts of America is contingent upon the willingness to accept Scoutings values and beliefs. Most boys join Scouting when they are 10 or 11 years old. As they continue in the program, all Scouts are expected to take leadership positions. In the unlikely event that an older boy were to hold himself out as homosexual, he would not be able to continue in a youth leadership position.

Ouch, any parent of both boys and girls knows that there are innate differences. Study after study shows that co-ed education is far less effective for boys (and somewhat less effective for girls.) Pretending they''re the same doesn''t change that.

One of the big problems with government schools is that they''re set up for girls. (Part of the reason so many boys are drugged in school, but that''s another topic.) Boys learn differently. Scouts is a place for them to do a lot of that learning -- a place where being a boy is CELEBRATED, where their natures are allowed to bloom.

As for it being no big deal, I''m sure there are many that feel that way. I''m equally sure that the overwhelming majority of people I know IRL (in real life) take it seriously enough to leave the day that happens. Although we love BSA, they aren''t the only Scout organization.

>>At one end we''''ll have a plumber or carpenter, at the other an attorney or doctor. That makes a challenging mix of training audiences.

>> It does make sense to have each MBC registered as a Scouter. I just don''''t want to put too much burden on a guy who volunteers his time for a service like this.

I can''t imagine BSA *ever* going co-ed. And I''m glad for that.

Sure would be nice for those votes to be broken down according to Congressional District rather than a winner takes all scenario.