littlebillie

You know, it wasn't the owners of the tea who dumped into the harbor - yet the Boston Tea Party is held up as an example of Civil Disobedience in the most approving light. No one asked Rosa Parks to ride the bus, and she knew the rules when she did...

This kind of struggle has a long and respected history. just not when it strikes close to home, I suppose...

tj - good luck. you've chosen a tuff path. I really gotta wonder, how many folks would change their minds about gays if enough of the people they respect, know, work with, admire - if enough of everyone around them came out to them? Would that change anyone's mind? "oh, hey" someone would say "tj's GAY? heck, he's a great guy - maybe I've been all turned around on the issue!"

Well, ok, maybe not so many - at least not at first. but folks need to recognize that the gay-straight divide ain't as wide as they think!

and tj - you're helping to do that.

God bless you.

HERE's (glass held high)to tjhammer. thanks for risking so much, and trying so hard. I almost agree with Merlyn, but since tj HAS come out to a few trusted individuals, I'm guessing that ranks as avowal for the BSA.

HOWEVER - perhaps not. and if not, then everyone calling for a resignation seem to be misdirected. after all, if tj is not actively advocating a lifestyle for others, then perhaps that's not avowal.

either way - good on ya, tj!

Quixote identifies an issue. IF there is a genetic component or cause - will it be identified as a 'disease' or 'disability' or rather as a trait or characteristic?

I am short (but cute!), and I have blue eyes. These are genetic as much as Quixote's example. I do not, however, wear lifts or lenses! So.

" If there is a homosexual gene, it is just as much an abnormality as other genes that cause

other conditions and defects in man and is something to overcome as it is definately NOT normal. "

in an overpopulated world, is homosexuality a defect, or a response to population pressure? once again, a God-given gift of redirection!

"Is it POSSIBLE that God does indeed test his children and place obstacles in their way to draw them to Him by seeking His help in ACCEPTING their personal condition?" Some things aint never gonna get OVERCOME, and your argument needs to encompass those as well, I'd say!

But even taking Quixote's argument as it stands - IF it is ever (wrongly, I'd say) classified as a DISEASE or DISORDER, then Scouting opens its door to exclusion of the disabled, the ADA, etc. OR it spins a new position, a new policy, and new criteria.

NJCubScouter, yeah, I do know what you're saying, BUT - so far, even among the anti-evolutionists, I've not read ANYone saying gene theory is wrong. I know there will be plenty who say that even if it is genetic, the Lord is testing them, and they should abstain totally. Even so, I'd hope these, and some of the less entrenched would at least step back and say, genes are part of God's design for humankind, and so a genetic homosexual must be part of God's plan as well.

Oh, yeah, some would fight this, remaining entrenched; some would likely say that even genes can be affected by Satan or sin, and end up calling it a birth defect of some kind - but even ths, as abhorrent as it may be, would be a foot in some doors.

Bob White - "My point...is that scouting has never based its decisions on membership solely on genetics and so why would it choose to do so for

homosexuality? " My point, too! No need to exclude if its genetic and not free will! It accepts all other boys' genetic traits - it should accept this too.

Thanks!

Bob,

Facile, but false. I'm not sure if you used the examples of girls being genetically different in reference to qualifying for an organization chartered for boys out of confusion, but if so, I'm not surprised this blurs too.

No, see - this would be the Scouts saying "you're not allowed because of behavior associated with a genetic trait", rather than saying it's because of an act of choice for a certain 'lifestyle'. Quite a difference. Between being, say, avowed and born. You can't, for example, 'avow' your natural eye color.

It's quite a difference, i'd say.

"So then BW, we agree that since no other membership exclusion is determined genetic origin then we could expect no further exclusionary requirements should a genetic link be found with homosexuality."

From your perspective, I imagine that's just as facile, and just as false, as I viewed yours, eh? :-) but that's what makes a horserace!

le V - thanks, and much appreciated. also, duly noted, it takes a mensch - and it looks like you are!

Bob White - talking about being a girl is one thing - one thing well off the point. Yes, it's genetically determined - but girls are not even in the Charter, which doesn't say 'heterosexual boys only'. So let's look at some other genetic determinants - like being black, or having various physical challenges, both of which you can be while a boy! Scouting is blind to race and disability (genetic OR other, of course).

So if it turns out that being gay is genetically determined, even for some, then frankly, I'd expect a lot of re-evaluations to go on, all over the place. For example, many folks call it human perversity - but if it turned out it was a God-given trait, I'm guessing a whole lot of discussion and justification at the least, for those.

And soooo... I was just curious if Executive had anything in its bag of position statements NOW to cover that possiblity whenever THEN...

Bob White,

exactly what I meant when I said "it's not

Scouting's position that they should actively disparage and decry the lifestyle." Scouting does not do this. They exclude, yes - and I hope that will change. But to date, I haven't heard ANY official homo-hate speech. I doubt that I will.

It's not their position to promote marriage either - or swinging singlehood! Scouting's OFFICIAL position may be characterized as one of respectful exclusion.

I object to the exclusion. And I speak out against it. But really, my desire is that the BSA be PERSUADED to reaccess its position, rather than forced to change it.

I wonder - should a genetic link ever be shown - if Scouting has a policy in place to be announced to address something like that???

homophobic? moi? very amusing. please go back and check my post history. I have long supported a gay presence in Scouting, I'm a member of S4A, and I regularly get sniped for being pro-pink.

YOUR question addressed Scouting's policy as a hate crime. I consider it (the policy) short-sighted and unfair, and I speak constantly in support of change thereof - but I do not consider it a 'hate crime'. (My first response). Scouting's policy is mostly that sex ed of any kind it not part of the program - that belongs in the home, gay OR straight. That's its official stance. I was emphasizing that. And if Scouting lives up to its ideals, even in and especially in this regard, then the kids should NOT be made aware of the politics or the position, not directly, and not explicitly. Sure, they may pick it up from the news, but again - it's not Scouting's position that they should actively disparage and decry the lifestyle.

Me, I'm in favor of mature, relation-committed gays as Scout leaders, and gay kids as Scouts. Perhaps the problem is the use of the words 'hate crime' in this regard...

lV - mudslinging? how so? that's a serious question - what mud got slung? - please visit http://www.usscouts.org/advance/boyscout/religious.html to see support for my comments. Scroll down and see how UUA is mentioned, and note as you do so all the religions represented.

I rather think it mudslinging to describe the theoretically neutral and diverse religious Scouting stance as kow-towing... but that's just me. Perhaps you're right, but I hope not.

"In the future try to be more civil. If you can't then don't opine..... " hmmm - so much for freedom of speech AND religion, eh?

Ed, perhaps more importantly, the BSA should NOT and does not limit its religious frame of reference to the Bible. The Talmud and the Quoran, as well as Buddhist, Hindu, Zoroastrian and other teachings - these are all acceptable to the BSA.

Even different Christian faiths see different things in the Bible.

IT IS NOT THE PROVENCE OF SCOUTING TO CHOOSE ANY ONE FAITH ABOVE ANY OTHERS. Or to single out any religion for special treatment, postive or negative. The UUA comes to mind...

this from one of the gay-friendly contributors here...

NO. Not if it's handled correctly. Scouting, ideally, is sexless. It's not gay - but it's not about promoting straight, specifically, either. There are single volunteers and single professionals. IF WE GO BY POLICY, that entire aspect of their lives is a black box. The boys should know nothing about this either way.

So at the worst - ideally - the offical stance should promote ignorance... and confusion.

kwc57,

sorry for confusions - my recent responses have been addressing evmori's "If a Muslim was to walk onto the floor of Congress & prayed, so what. If he is an American citizen, that is his right guaranteed by the Constitution." I still don't think that the Constitution gives the average joe the right to do this, uninvited and without warning. Your point, I got - Ed seemed to suggest that sponateoulsy using the Senate as an ad hoc House of Prayer was the right of every American... and whatever, THAT, it should be right of ALL - or of NONE. I don't see how anything in between is just or Constitutional.

sorry for the blurrage!

"Wouldn't ruling him put of order be a violation of the 1st Ammendment? And what is the difference where he/she is?"

well, as I said, an interesting question. Let's say a burglar is being arrested, tries to fall to his knees to pray, and is not allowed to pray out loud, say, or clasp his hands, in a moment of crisis. Sh/Would this be grounds for some kind of suit further on?

is it allowable that anyone go into any publicplace at any time and begin a prayer that is disruptive?

As I say, I don't know the legal OR moral OR ethical answer. But whatever - allowed or prohibited - it's got to be all or none.

A religious snake handler should be able to take out his rattlers in public if the Moslem is able to sit on his prayer rug, etc. Or else NO ONE's allowed.

Or so it would seem...?

evmori,

I'm a little rusty on my Robert's Rules, but unless one has the floor, I'm not sure how that would fly - probably get ruled out of order... Interesting question, but of course now we've gone from ANY American citizen to member of Congress.

Outside on the steps - now, that'd be a different matter, too. I think...

"If a Muslim was to walk onto the floor of Congress & prayed, so what. If he is an American citizen, that is his right guaranteed by the Constitution."

Ummm - I'd expect that ANY uninvited person, intending prayer or not, entering a legislative session in progress and beginning a loud prayer or speaking in tongues, would be ushered out PDQ, and possibly arrested into the bargain.

Praying to yourself - that'd be different. But an uninvited disruption of the proceedings? I don't think that's protected...?

California judges, what is nature, the right to protest, KKK, SNL, UUA and ecumenicism... if I'm following the thread correctly, I feel forced to ask a question.

hey, how 'bout those killer bees, huh?

"since most of us here in the US were brought up in a Judeo-Christian environment, we see a prayer said in a school or Congress that uses the phrase, "in Jesus's name we pray" as normal and not offensive."

um... actually, MANY Jewish Americans that I know - brought up in that Judeo-Christian environment you mention - DO find the Jesus thing offensive, especially at civic and public gatherings that have no other tie to any religious function. kwc57, I know you're aware of that, certainly, but I wanted to clarify for others who may take it as Gospel (sorry) and follow it down the wrong path.

Rooster7

" I would be a member of a very small minority, and thus my words would serve only to inflame

those around me. "

Sooooo - I guess you're not a Lutheran, huh? :-)

"I realize that you and others want to ignore BSA's rights as a private organization."

ok, see, here's a problem - bad bad phrasing. here's the side of the fence I'm on - I want to see the BSA change its mind willingly. To that end, I'll keep yammering, supporting S4A, writing letters, etc. And anyone who disagrees with that is ignoring MY right as a member and an American.

I want dialog, and open-mindedness, and a recognition of worth for ALL humankind.

I have NEVER advocated retaliatory legislation against the BSA, and I'm working HARD to get my kid's school to re-sponsor the Pack, too.

I'm speaking up, and working, for what I feel is right.

Who's got a problem with THAT?!?

evmori,

until SOMEONE - girl or adult - announces publically and with media attention that she's an atheist and specifically adds that she recognizes absolutely no spiritual side to her or anyone's life, that's gonna be untested.

THEN we'll see what the official GSUSA response is, and where it might end up, courts-wise.

as mentioned, since it's never really been tested, (tho' challenged, briefly, with some quick deflection in terms of optional 'God') we don't know...

the site doesn't come out and say "welcome to the godless" either. hard to tell...

packsaddle,

about the GSUSA and its "diversity", I think in part that image remains because it's never really been tested.

I am not aware on any real media attention on an atheist or lesbian or gay publically "coming out" in the Girl Scouts as has happened in the BSA, nor of any resulting "official" statements by GS leaders.

On the very rare instance that a Girl Scout leader has been accused of molestation, the announcement is made that the Girl Scouts don't promote any lifestyle, that its a family matter, and the offending leader has resigned.

Now take religion. The world organization puts God first and foremost in the charter or constitution. go to http://www.scout.org/wso/index.html and select the Constitution and By-laws Adobe option.

When the GSUSA was challenged on the word "God", they said, sure, put anything you want in there, but they still say the spiritual side of life is important - they just leave it up to the individual to decide if she has that necessary "spirituality" . So until such time a Girl Scout actually publically and with media attention declares herself an atheist AND we get to see what the official response is then, I see the atheist friendliness of the GSUSA as very much like some kind of urban spin-myth. Mind you, I think it's a more open position than the BSA, but I don't think its quite as atheist-friendly as is sometimes saud.

from http://www.girlscouts.org/adults/beliefs.html

"The "motivating force in Girl Scouting" is spiritual. Girl Scouts respects the spiritual values and beliefs of its members, leaving the interpretation of spirituality to each individual and the family"

I leave it to wiser minds than mind to determine if spiritual atheism is a religion or an oxymoron.

ok, this has been a sidetrip - the Girls and the Boys don't really diverge as much as some believe, that's all, at least not officially. Wheich takes us into back the world of "don't ask, don't tell".

The GSUSA is really trying to be all things for all girls; that's great as far as it goes, but when spin, fact and practice all diverge, sometimes all that's left is confusion.

mine, anyway! :-)

evmori,

dude, regardless of where I stand on THAT issue, don't tell me - firstpusk was saying that the BSA was different from an organization that wants to exclude AND wants 'public support'. Free use of any publically owned facility or resource (meeting halls, school auditoriums, national forests, local campgrounds, whatever) that others are charged for IS public support.

firstpusk, the BSA does indeed receive public support in the kinds listed. even if it doesn't happen in your county, I'm surprised that you're unaware of these matters overall.

so, let's see.

If it's packsaddle's def of ecumenical that's in play here, then the BSA is a Christian org.

but if it's pfanns, then with the UUA situation, the BSA has shown itself to be NOT ecumenical - well, of course, since there's no unity being shown.

Either one's pretty bad. I wonder why they they've gone this route?

firstpusk,

"BSA was different. The Supreme Court found in favor of the BSA because it was a private organization. Here we have a group asking for public support that wants to exclude."

Um... has the BSA given up all public support, free use of lands and facilities, whatnot? I hadn't been aware of that. Was that announced at the website? Couldn't find it...?

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=11363

packsaddle, not sure if this is the one you meant, but it IS about a Pack that declared an open membership policy, was NOT questioned by Texas, and was nevertheless kicked out by the school due to Dale...