littlebillie

"Homosexuals came after BSA, not the other way around." Ummmm - weren't the original position statements made in the 1970's? And haven't we seen lifelong scouters come out since then, folks involved in Scouting before the proclamations? These are folks who were gay AND Scouts before there was ever a position on the subject. Some of these 'activists' saw their entire contribution devalued by a "position statement". "Came after" the BSA - or stood up for themselves, and what they had stood for? Spin is everything.

KoreaScouter "the Thai government having a condom-issue program for large international gatherings such as WJ should not lead one to automatically assume... that BSA national policies are somehow inherently flawed. " not sure if I've juxtaposed this properly, but really, the Thai condom policy is apples to the US mebership oranges. It (the Thai policy) has no relevance to flaws in any US membership policy - it neither supports nor criticizes it. kwc57 - actually, I have to wonder about the BSA attending any world function, since to do so runs the risk of acknowleging the legitimacy o

There is a group promoting "responsible" or moderate drinking for alcoholics. Haven't seen them in any parades yet, but they're organized. Do we need a stated, written policy about this? And regardless of who gets admitted and who doesn't, when does the membership get to vote on it? the volunteers? the kids? just a question on the nature of ad hoc unilateral position statements issued without referenda.

Um - there IS a difference between being against relgion, and being against the use of public tax dollars to either promote certain religions or celebrate the selected observances of only a few religions. Just as there IS a difference between defining the BSA as a strictly Christian - or even monotheist - group, rather than as a faith-based but otherwise religiously open group. Along with the right of free association and NOT being a public accommodation comes freedom from public support. To demand access to public funding in any form is to re-beg the question of public accom

"no way the same as any type of homosexuality!" ANY type? I guess that's where you and the BSA diverge, eh? The only type they rally against is the "avowed" type. Which of course puts us in the don't-ask-don't-tell camp. Which is how ALL sexuality should be handled in Scouting (Cub and Boy - L4L and V'ing are different).

evmori, you can expand your statement to be a little more in keeping with the overall position... overt sexuality - staight or gay - is ... not consistent with the values of the BSA. this statement actually covers more of TwoCubDad's post.

As long as everyone seems to be in agreement that public dollars should not fund a private organization, and recognizes that it just ain't right to allocate gay or atheist taxes to support a private group that excludes them - well, I think we're all in agreement. Cool!

"The bible clearly rejects that claim." Rooster, don't know if you've ever been one of those who advises us just to look around us to see proof of God and the Bible, but certainly Baden-Powell was (God, anyway). Yet in nature we see homosexuality. God put it in nature, so - why? If not that it IS natural, at least for some...?

ah, heck - I'll vote for NJ. No surprises there, eh? But I gotta also point out that - since this involves a WORLD J - gay scouts are already in the mix, since the US position is by no means universal, and many national orgs do not have the restrictions that the BSA has in place.

adaptation to the point where the name that fit one species needs to be changed to another? is THAT different from evolution? or...? if you read the entries here, you find descriptions of misinterpretations of words from original Biblical text. Since my understanding of Biblical literalism is that there are no errors in the given and inspired Word, I'm wondering what the view of this kind of corrective information is. If one explanation is evolution - well, I, for one, am happy to hear it.

...but if the Scoutmaster (or, I suppose, any Troop-associated adult) were a doctor, AND was told of the condition, which mantle would be in control - the doctor thing, even if you're not the kid's personal physician? or the Scout thing, with its various Constitutional and moral aspects?

KS - did you pick up any of the Jamboree - um - itms? I bet an Official Scouting Condom could fetch a lot on ebay!!!

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01517a.htm I would sincerely like to know what the literalists among us make of this site and its comments. Does mistranslation or misguided schlarship make any real difference? Or is there something else at work that needs to be mentioned? or - well, you know - whatever! thanks in advance for any reasoned analysis.

evmori, contradiction in terms? well, I guess it's how you define the terms, eh? IF homosexuality is natural and part of God's plan (and there are field and clinical observations of homosexuality in the animal kingdom), then there's NO reason they shouldn't join. but IF it is deviant behavior, then gay kids are youth at risk, and we should open our doors to them - it becomes part of the modeling value. (Under this view, the leadership issue remains open to debate, i know). and if all matters of sexuality ain't none of our business anyway - a strong party line for ma

OGE, you raise an interesting legal question. at some point, is Leadership considered acting in loco parentis? if so, what powers are they given thereby? even so, there is a difference between legal issues and moral issues. perhaps the mother was not legally bound to share the boys condition - and perhaps she was, I really don't know. that aside, tho' - I trully believe that she is morally and ethically bound to share it, and as a mother, she must recognize in other parents a certain need to know this kind of thing. thorny...

NJCS - yeah, that's kind of what I thot at 1st, but "under one's skin" isn't necessarily negative, and offering up a prayer (however misguided it may seem :-) FOR ENLIGHTENMENT (however narrowly defined) is probably meant as a kindness. so the prayer may not have been meant MEANly... still, the characterization of ML as trying to undo good - I think - is off base. From ML's own perspective, there has to be a sense of trying to prevent wrong. yes - it's a different kind of wrong than many here would accept as such, but personally, I think that's what MS is after. now, that said i

from http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/hiv_injected021119.html about the boy who was injected with HIV by his father... "... BSJ has also wanted to join the Boy Scouts, but Jackson says the local troop turned him down when she requested that they not disclose his illness to the other scouts and their parents. "I told them that it would be OK, that if they use universal precautions, he would be alright. If anything, they're more of a risk to him than he is to them," she said. "I told them that if they use the universal precautions, there is really no reaso

a. littlebillie, OK I'll play. My perception would be the same... b. lttlebillie, I guess you are correct. I won't play... Ed, since it seems you are unsure of your own intent, is it not possible that your view of what God's true intent might be even the slightest bit askew? btw, no one's even asked you to compromise YOUR morals, but simply to consider what it might mean if there is in fact a genetic component to homosexuality. Your position seems to be the same as the Catholic Church when Galileo suggested the earth moved about the sun. Can't be, not in the Bible,

"In your "what if" it is implied that God would create someone homosexual. Not possible. Why would God create a human being contradictory to Himself. Remember, we are all made in His image." evmori, that's not playing - tsk, tsk, tsk - that's basically saying that there is NO proof you would ever accept that some people may just be born gay. even if a research team could show you a gene involved, you've already determined that it's impossible because you seem to recognize set limits on what God can do or might intend... oh, well. no surprises anyway, and i already said I'd understa

maybe it's like the priest thing - abuse being less bad if it's not one of your parishioners? it's not immoral if you you earn the carnal badge with a scout from another country..?

evmori, I'd like to ask you to play a little what-if with me. I'll understand if you don't wish to - no problem there. here's the what-if - what if it IS shown that some gays are born to be gay? what if it were to be shown to be set prior to birth, even if not genetic? what impact would this have on your perception of gay America? given such a thing, would you feel they might THEN have a right to Scouting? you know - just as a what if?

evmori, ya know, I bet the bigger better question is when will the BSA start doing a purge of their alcoholics! do you really think there are NO alcoholics in scouting? whew... ding! wrong, but thanks for playing our game! so now that's bee clarified, do you have suggestions as to how we can start ferreting these out? you know, identify them so we can kick them out? (oh, and smokers, too!) share awareness, y'all! littlebillie

NJCubScouter, My son's first Pack was sponsored by UCLA's Graduate School of Education's laboratory elementary school. Had been for years - we were the area's Pack 1. And after Dale, we wrote letters to Executive, decrying the policy, promoting local determination, and letting them know our doors were open, etc. We never got a response, and if the University had let things be, we would have been there as a resource for the next court challenge. "Look, here's this activist Cub group at UCLA with gay families and atheist families in their membership, and they've told you about t

Regardless of the sponsoring organization, it is the policies of the BSA that are overriding and in force. Anything else puts Scouting into the position of giving weight to "community standards" and local groups being able to establish their own policies for membership and leadership. While I think this is in fact where it belongs, Executive has declined to embrace the community standards solution, and so no matter the membership policies or requirements of the sponsoring organization itself, no unit is permitted to allow the forbidden populations into their ranks - not with a Texas bl

eisely, the point has to do with the whole "community standards" push - for leadership and membership - that was rejected by Texas. I think it would have been a graceful and just resolution to some sticky issues... still do, actually! (Gad, I am SO transparent!)