AZMike

AZmike, here's one cherry the religious right seems to have missed in this argument. One of the main points in the Torah is human dignity. A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him. I'm no religious scholar, but I know this type of humiliation is Wrong. Furthermore, human dignity can supersede commandments in the Torah. In this case my rabbis have allowed it.

 

You say these kids can go do 4H, or BPSA, or just do something else. You say they're a danger to the other kids and it would be safer if they went elsewhere. I can imagine lining up 10 kids and walking up to one and saying these things to him. That's humiliating.

 

It seems my religious beliefs don't seem to be good enough for you, that I'm "cherry picking" the "real" beliefs. People that complain about others beliefs not being good enough are the gatekeepers to the dark side of religion. I'm just asking you to respect my beliefs.

I take a different approach than packsaddle, out of respect for your dignity...

 

You can understand, MattR, that I can disagree with you on your religious beliefs and respect your right to have them, without being a "Gatekeeper to the Dark Side of Religion," yes? When you describe me like that, I sound like Saruman or something.

 

My religious beliefs hold that people who practice an act that degrades their personal dignity, and threatens the dignity and safety of others, should not be allowed to be involved in the formation of youth or volunteer activities, By your own argument, you must also respect my right to have those religious beliefs, right? They must be accorded the same respect I offer to your beliefs, even if I respectfully disagree with them. Have I said anything to insult your beliefs? I certainly haven't said anything to insult Judaism, for which I hold the highest respect. (If you took offense at my statement about theological liberalism cherry-picking out of a sacred text, I apologize and should have written it more clearly to indicate that I was referring to theological liberalism (both Christian and Jewish) as a movement, with whom I have obvious disagreements, and not to you as a person or your beliefs.)

 

I also have a strong religious belief in the dignity that is inherent and due to all men and women (and kids) as children of God. We are in agreement, However, you then make the leap to a statement that is unsupported by either science or religion: "A kid that's gay, that didn't choose to be gay, that can't be "cured" of being gay, that won't inherently harm anyone because he's gay, has no dignity in the boy scouts because he is shunned for something he has no control of. He is seen as inferior, immoral, and is an outcast. All of this because of something God gave him." I frankly don't see support for that in any sacred text, Jewish or Christian, not do I see any scientific basis for it. I understand that your religious leaders disagree on these matters as well, so we will have to continue to disagree. And part of respecting your beliefs is to offer your views the respect they deserve by taking them seriously enough to disagree with them, to enter into an argument as to whether the values you espouse are being correctly applied in this case (you will agree, I hope that even if I don't share your denominational beliefs, I am allowed to suggest that I can challenge your interpretation of your faith's beliefs, and even those of your spiritual leaders - people do it with my faith all the time), and offering your views the ultimate respect of considering them as capable of affecting the world, and pointing out what I consider to be the flaws in your theological arguments. Respect does not equal assent. It does include challenging views that I consider incorrect.

 

I would further note that we discourage many behaviors in youths, some of them probably bearing a genetic component. In your view, God may "given" a child diabetes. We don't encourage the poor eating habits that make this condition worse. God may have "given" a child a genetic predisposition to an addictive personality. We don't encourage substance abuse in such children. God may have "given" a child any number of tendencies towards self-destructive behaviors - masochistic masturbation practices, such as autoerotic asphyxiation or insertion of foreign objects in the orifices; "cutting" disorders; anorexia; self-destructive behavior; a whole gamut of paraphilias that aren't appropriate to discuss in this forum. We discourage such behaviors, if we were to hear a child talk about them. In the Scouts, we are not in the business of sex education, and that's appropriate; but if someone were to bring up the claim (in a Board of Review, around the campfire, or on the ride up to a campsite) that they practice such behaviors, we would not allow the discussion, nor we would we allow them to describe themselves as a "Cutter," as an "Anorexic" or a "Proud Follower of Saint Annie's," or as a "Stoner" or a "Juicer." We would certainly refer the matter to their parents rather than discussing it further with the boy. But we would not allow them to discuss the matter or continue to identify themselves by such behavior. Why should we allow self-identification by another sexual behavior or behavioral problem?

 

If your religious beliefs will have an impact on the free exercise of my religious beliefs (as in this case), of course we will have to express our disagreement. That will include me pointing out my disagreements the movement of theological Liberalism, which sees the goal of humanity as the continuing liberation of individuals from all binding spiritual authority (IMO). I would fall under the theological Orthodox camp (Judaic and Christian) which acknowledges the ultimate role of divine authority in the affairs of men, and the need to conform the human will to the divine law. This seems to be the fundamental disagreement between the two camps.

 

Making an appeal to "dignity" is not very useful in this argument, as it appears high-minded but only accords dignity to one small class of the people involved (boys who identify as "gay") without according the same respect for the dignity and safety of the boys who may be adversely affected by the consequences of what you see as a religious imperative.

 

Should one be cruel in telling a boy that the choices they have made in behavior (either sexual behavior, or an insistence on defining oneself by one's sexual behavior) disqualifies them from membership? No, of course not, why would you want to do such a thing? Why would you want to create an environment where boys adopt a man-made term that defines them by their sexual behavior?

Matt' date=' I understand that the theologically liberal can always cherry-pick arguments that support their own side,...[/quote']

 

Of course, the theologically conservative never cherry-pick arguments? It's just liberals? Really?

Yes. Just the liberals.

Mrs Loyau-Kennett was a passenger on a number 53 bus which was travelling past the scene, and jumped off to check the soldier’s pulse.

“Being a cub leader I have my first aid so when I saw this guy on the floor I thought it was an accident then I saw the guy was dead and I could not feel any pulse.

“And then when I went up there was this black guy with a revolver and a kitchen knife, he had what looked like butcher’s tools and he had a little axe, to cut the bones, and two large knives and he said 'move off the body’.

“So I thought 'OK, I don’t know what is going on here’ and he was covered with blood. I thought I had better start talking to him before he starts attacking somebody else."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10074881/Mum-talked-down-Woolwich-terrorists-who-told-her-We-want-to-start-a-war-in-London-tonight.html

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2329236/Woolwich-attack--Moment-heroic-woman-tries-remonstrate-knife-wielding-soldier-killer-police-arrived-scene.html?ICO=most_read_module

Matt, I understand that the theologically liberal can always cherry-pick arguments that support their own side, but there is a saying in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni and Torat Kohanim) which is also brought down in Rashi (Leviticus 20:26) that says: A person should not say, “I don't like porkâ€Â, “It is uncomfortable for me to wear a mixture [of wool and linen],†or "I don't desire forbidden sexual relationships"; rather one should say, “I indeed wish to, but what can I do-my Father in heaven has imposed these decrees upon me?†This is consistent with the Judaeo-Christian belief that one may feel desires yet not act upon them. The Midrash is also one of the few ancient religious documents that mentions the possibility of gay marriage, but only to condemn the concept as that of a sinful world: ""Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Joseph, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"

 

"From what you've written, is it fair to say you feel that a scout that is attracted to guys is likely to not be able to control his urges, and that's why you don't want to make it easier for a gay scout to be in scouting? If that's the case, I think I understand where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree with it, but maybe we at least understand each other." Impulse control is low in adolescents, as well as many adults. The CDC research indicates that adolescent males who self-identify as homosexual or bisexual have lower levels of impulse control as a group than heterosexual adolescents.

 

While many gay adolescents are able to control themselves, the risk of sexual abuse is high enough that we restrict those who have a sexual interest in the potential victim population from sharing tents, showers, and other intimate situations with those with whom they declare they are attracted. In the same way, we do not allow adult males or adolescent males access to such intimate environments with adolescent girls, even in Venturing - I presume you would not be okay with your teenage daughter sharing a tent or a shower with an adolescent boy, however well we know him or however much trust we place in his ability to "control himself." This is simple prudence. This is a not unreasonable response, as it is not a requirement of our society that a boy be in scouting, as we require him to be in school - there are numerous other youth activities that can serve their developmental needs.

 

One could argue, as many LGBT advocates have, that it is safer to have declared homosexuals rather than closeted homosexuals, as one could somehow "watch them" or something. The obvious answer should be that one should have neither, for safety - if one were hiring males to be security guards for, say, a domestic violence shelter, one would exclude those who are found, through observed actions or a criminal check, to have battered women in the past. One would also exclude those who say they have an interest in hitting women, but will never act on it on the job. Again, one must weigh safety against fairness, but simple prudence says that the risk to the victim of abuse must outweigh the perception of "fairness" to those who may wish to be involved in a voluntary youth activity.

 

would further argue that if accepting a self-identification as homosexual or bisexual is as unhealthy as the evidence shows, we should not condone the identification. If a boy feels some kind of SSA but recognizes it as unhealthy, does not engage in such behavior (flirting, the sexually oriented "games" or dares described in the other thread, discussion of his attractions or outside sexual behavior, etc.) within or outside the troop, and does not attempt to normalize it to himself or other adolescents in the troop by declaring himself as "gay," he can certainly be involved in Scouting under our current policy. I don't think unhealthy behavior should be normalized. Your mileage may vary.

 

And as your comment about your wife hitting the guy indicates, the reaction to unwanted sexual advances in our culture can often be violent. You are okay with your wife reacting that way as a reflexive action, would you be okay with a boy reacting to a sexual come-on or touching by another boy in the same fashion? How will we deal with those issues, and the natural reaction of boys to such behavior, if the policy changes? We discourage fighting among boys, how would you feel about a boy reacting in the same way your wife would in the heat of the moment?

 

Your discussion of the situation of another man who is obsessed with your wife reflects the same view as I have, so we may not be as far apart as you think. We can't observe another's internal life, so the only way you would be certain that he wanted to have relations with your wife is through communication, either verbal (declarations of love or sexual interest, emails, texts, notes) or non-verbal (inappropriate touching, gestures, longing glances, etc.) - so, "declaring" himself to you, your spouse, or your associates of his interest in your spouse - in essence, being an "avowed" potential adulterer. Otherwise, how would you know he is attracted to her? As you say, such a declaration would NOT be okay (and most husbands will agree with you.) If he feels something, but keeps his mouth shut and never acts on his attraction (and, we hope, fights against the urge he feels), he could continue to interact with you both.

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

 

AZMike, we're probably not going to get anywhere with this discussion, but it's interesting and I'm having fun arguing with you.

 

I'd never heard of Natural Law before, so I looked it up. In a nutshell, it seems vague at best. I have to agree with ThomasJefferson, the only natural law when it comes to human behavior is best described by Machiavelli. Morality is what keeps us above that muck.

 

Sexual slavery and debt was real, it was not just POWs that were slaves. Look at wikipedia under the bible and slavery to find a real great quote about selling your daughter as a slave. Comparing criminal incarceration with sexual slavery is not a reasonable comparison. The comment about keeping kosher was really just to point out that many religious leaders, over thousands of years, have been interpreting the rules and stories in the bible.

 

To answer some of your questions: The behavior is wrong if it's a choice. Just like being stupid is wrong if it's a choice. But what about a scout with Downs? It's not a choice for such a kid. Let me ask you this, do you think gays choose to have same sex attraction? Do you think a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay? If so, then that's where our differences are and there's nothing left to say.

 

I can understand that some parents will be uncomfortable with gay kids in other troops. Unfortunately the same thing was said of blacks until 1975 when summer camps were finally desegregated in the South. Do you think a gay kid is likely to abuse another kid more than, say, kids with Aspergers, or PTSD (both of which I have in my troop)? Sure, different kids need to be watched differently, but there seems to be no evidence that gay kids are going to be any more dangerous to other kids than kids with other challenges that we already have in our troops. Is it that you don't want gay pride meetings in your troop? Trust me, nobody else wants that either.

 

"Every kid may come from God, but so do all bullies, racists, alcoholics, and drug addicts. We are allowed to discourage that kind of behavior as well." In all of these instances the kid chooses to do these things. It keeps getting back to choice. Character and morality come from the choices one makes. For a kid that can't make that choice, and isn't harming anyone else, I don't see a problem.

Matt, Natural Law arguments can hardly be called vague. They are based on the Thomistic-Aristotelian model. As such, what you and "Thomas Jefferson" are describing as natural law, under Natural Law philosophy is simply the first stage, the "discriminating norm." Describing it simply as "that which keeps us above the muck" is trying to define a cause by its effect. You'll run into some problems with that.

 

The "discriminating norm" is human nature itself, objectively considered - essentially, the book in which is written the text of the law, and is the instrument by which we classify human actionsas good and bad. Strictly speaking, human nature is the proximate discriminating norm or standard. The remote and ultimate norm, of which it is the partial reflection and application, is the Divine nature itself, the ultimate base of the created order. The binding or obligatory norm is the Divine authority, imposing upon the rational creature the obligation of living in conformity with his nature, and thus with the universal order established by the Creator. While Kantian claimed that we must not acknowledge any other lawgiver than conscience, the truth is that reason as conscience is only immediate moral authority which we are called upon to obey, and conscience itself owes its authority to the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the Divine will and imperium. The manifesting norm (norma denuntians), which determines the moral quality of actions tried by the discriminating norm, is reason. Through this faculty we perceive what is the moral constitution of our nature, what kind of action it calls for, and whether a particular action possesses this requisite character. If you want to read more on this subject, I'd be happy to give you some recommendations.

 

Probably best not to use ta Wikipedia article as a source on Biblical scholarship. As with any controversial subject, they are edited and re-edited by those with an ideological ax to grind. Here's a tip: when reading any Wiki article, click on that little tab on the upper right labeled "Talk" to view the arguments over re-edits. As many of those note in this article, the Bible does not, in fact, condone slavery. It attempted to regulate a pre-existing practice, as the continuing theme of the Old Testament is the continued failures of even God's chosen people, the Israelites, and the attempts to gradually raise them to a higher moral state, even as they (as all humans) backslid due to "the hardness of their hearts."

 

You further claim that "behavior is wrong if it is a choice." You're confusing an attraction with behavior. Do you honestly believe that an attraction to behavior - even if it wholly or partially innate - is uncontrollable? So if another man has an attraction to your wife, his attraction towards adultery (and hitting on your old lady) can be condoned, because, hey, that's just how he is. Sexual attraction may impel, but it does not compel. Addictive personalities may also be partially genetic - do we encourage it? Do you not believe that an addict, or an alcoholic, can also encourage another to the same behavior, even if both parties know the behavior will not benefit them? (continued)

I'm a racist for criticizing Obama & Bush was just as bad??? What !!! That makes no sense at all.. I'm not a racist at all, because I will whole heartedly admit that Bush was 1000 times worse..

 

Government abuse of power is not Bush lying to the American people about Weapons of mas destruction, so that he could get the war HE wanted, but there wasn't any reason to have it unless you made up false claims?? Government abuse of power is not writing laws that allow the government to tap and spy on anyone the deem a reason to?? Government abuse of power is holding people without a trial, and torturing them??

 

Now let's talk about states under Republican rule, the ones that are forcing Planned parenthood to close, the ones that have either outlawed Sharia law, or certain religions. Michigan who the courts said they had to put their Emergency takeover of towns and cities before they could enact it, So when it was voted down, they re-enacted the rule and continued to proceed with it. The ones that try to deny college students in their state the right to vote.. The ones that force doctors to preform unnecessary tests on females, the ones that put into law that Doctors must tell their patients that abortions lead to cancer which is pure nonsense, but Doctors must now under law lie to their patients..

 

The sanctity of the Constitution for Republicans is only misinterpreting the meaning of the 2nd amendment, other then that, they will stomp all over every other right in the Constitution, and all over the rights of the people in under their rule.

moosetracker: "Government abuse of power is not Bush lying to the American people about Weapons of mas destruction, so that he could get the war HE wanted, but there wasn't any reason to have it unless you made up false claims??"

 

Yeeaaaahhh, there was a lot of that "lying" going on before Bush , apparently...

 

“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.† Bill Clinton in 1998.

 

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.† From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

 

“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.† Madeline Albright, 1998

 

“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.† Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

 

"“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.† Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998.

 

The best evidence we have now (based on Saddam's interrogator's testimony, which is very credible) was that Saddam mounted an intelligence operation to convince the west that he did have WMDs, while maintaining an ability to recreate the infrastructure to create them. He did this because he did not think the west was likely to conduct military strikes against Iraq (post Kuwait, which he considered a victory), but thought that Israel was very likely to, unless they thought Iraq had a WMD capability. He knew the Israelis relied upon and gave strong credence to American intel (well, the technological intel, at least), and believed if he could convince the U.S. he had WMDs, Israel would back off and the U.S. would not attack. Quite a miscalculation on his part, eh? He didn't count on the public mood post 9-11, when Saddam's historic support for terrorist organizations (such as the ANO) would come back to bite him from U.S. fears that he would be willing to give a WMD capability to terrorists.

 

There were a lot of people on both sides banging the drums of war before and after Dubya. But don't let me stop you from trying to re-write history.

AZMike, I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some. First, there is not a consistent set of moral rules. Different religions believe different things about a few things, homosexuality in particular. I agree that "doing what he or she feels is subjectively right" is a bad idea. But my religious beliefs are different from yours. You might say that I'm not true to the bible, but I'm fairly certain you aren't either. Do you keep kosher? 2500 years ago slavery was fine. It was actually considered a good way to help slaves pay off debts. Nobody believes in that anymore, although it is in the bible. Over 2500 years society has evolved. So it's not that people are doing whatever is convenient, it's that slowly, over decades at the shortest, our definition of moral is changing.

 

Regarding your point that gay kids present a problem, you may be right. Most kids have problems because they haven't accepted who they are. Accepting that you're gay when your friends are everything has got to be hard on anyone. But is a gay kid any different than a kid that has Aspergers? I've had a few in my troop and one of them would fly off the handle and attack other kids because he couldn't read their signals. Another kid was fine, once you figured out how to talk to him. I know you don't want us to ban all kids with Aspergers. But you're right, it is a risk having a different kid around. I take a risk every time I go on a campout with the children of other parents. Climbing on rocks, throwing snowballs, starting the whole forest on fire, flying canoes from wind, tornadoes, I've been through plenty. Being prepared is important in mitigating that risk. I appreciate that you wouldn't want a gay kid in your troop. I'm willing to take that risk. I might completely screw up. But if I know that a kid is gay it's going to be a lot easier for me to deal with the risk. I'm willing to take that risk not because I think we should have gay appreciation meetings or any such crap, but because every kid comes from God, and that's why the phrase "love the stranger" is also in the bible.

MattR, I will respectfully have to disagree with some of your disagreements.

 

Yes, there is a consistent set of moral rules. See the appendix of C.S. Lewis's book "The Abolition of Man" for examples of the common laws of morality in most every culture and religion, which is part of Natural Law. The details may differ, but the base rules are there. Those rules have always held homosexual behavior to be wrong.

 

Until quite recently, all major religions agreed that homosexual acts were wrong. Under pressure from secular society, some denominations have changed their beliefs to accommodate an acceptance of homosexual acts (as opposed t0 accepting the sinner and encouraging him or her not to sin). That does not change the basis of morality, anymore than a denomination suddenly discovering, under the influence of a new generation of theologically liberal leadership that any other activity they have taught against for millennia - abortion, or adultery, to use another - may be okay if it is done out of "love" or simply "rights."

 

At least you accept, from what you wrote, that homosexual behavior is not in accordance with the Bible. No, I don't keep kosher, but then I am not Jewish and am not held under the works of the Mosaic Law. The Bible (the collection of texts that include the Old and New Testaments) quite clearly states that Christians are not bound to keep Jewish dietary laws. Christ and His disciples Peter and Paul both continued to preach against sexual immorality, passing on what they received from Christ as part of the deposit of faith, and the early Church fathers continued to hold the same beliefs on the immorality of homosexual behavior.

 

Likewise, the Israelites of the Old Testament were allowed to keep slaves, but only as prisoners of war - the Israelites, as nomadic desert people, didn't have prisons, so they were allowed to keep POWs to work for them, under standards that were remarkably compassionate given the standards of the era. You mention that nobody believes it is acceptable to keep people against their will to make them pay off debts anymore, but that is exactly what prison industries do now - prisoners (slaves by any other name) are made to work off their debt to society and their victims. I live not far from the POW camps in Arizona where captured Nazis were made to work in the agricultural fields around Phoenix during WWII. How is what your government did, and does, different from what the Israelites did?

 

Unjust slavery - slaves who were taken against their will for no crime and no reason other than the profit of the slavetakers - was forbidden by the OT and was forbidden for Jews and later, Christians. The early Christians were not in a position to overthrow the institution of chattel slavery (many were themselves slaves) but the teachings of compassion and the shared humanity of slaves eventually led to the end of the institution with the christianization of Europe. The teachings and actions of the early Church fathers - St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Nicholas, St. Patrick, among many others - ended the immoral practice. The Church continued to lead the battle against African and New World slave trafficking, and Christians and Jews were the primary leaders of the Abolition movement (even as many of the most prominent atheists and free thinkers of the Enlightenment supported the African slave trade).

 

Slavery was wrong then, Homosexuality was wrong then, both are wrong now. No, morality doesn't change.

 

We should love the stranger, as you say, and we should love the sinner, but there is nothing to say we should love the sin. If, as you seem to agree, the behavior itself is wrong, should we accept it and accept that scouts should define themselves by it, or can we say that it is wrong, and advise scouts NOT to do it - to be morally straight?

 

It's all very well that you are willing to accept boys in your troop who define themselves by their preferred sex acts. I don't think that has a place in scouting. As scouts are involved in things like summer camps, many parents will not be comfortable with their kids going to camps with other troops who may accept kids who are bisexual or homosexual. You can understand that, right? And you can understand that there are many other youth leadership training options for youths who do want to define themselves by an interest in sex with other boys. The BSA is a grand institution, but it's not so important that every boy be a member that we should need to change its traditional standards to accommodate a radical change. Every kid may come from God, but so do all bullies, racists, alcoholics, and drug addicts. We are allowed to discourage that kind of behavior as well.

There is a difference between "moral" and "sectarian." If we don't have a base-level agreement on what "morality" means' date=' then "non-sectarian" devolves into an individual doing what he or she feels is subjectively right - which even the most awful people do. The basis for morality is Natural Law.[/quote']

 

"Natural Law" is just a synonym for "subjectively right". HTH.

 

No, Merlyn.

 

"Objective Atheist Morality" is a synonym for "subjectively right."

I say again, there are no valid reasons, other than religious, for the exclusion of gays at any level of Scouting. If the BSA is truly nonsectarian, then there is no reason to ban them. For the benefit of those concerned about gay leaders taking boys into the woods, Wayne Brock stated that we have the best youth protection program of any youth organization. So, either the BSA is a religious organization with a particular religious bias, or it isn't.

There is a difference between "moral" and "sectarian." If we don't have a base-level agreement on what "morality" means, then "non-sectarian" devolves into an individual doing what he or she feels is subjectively right - which even the most awful people do. The basis for morality is Natural Law.

 

Without arguing about sectarian, denominational views on the rightness or wrongness of homosexual acts, one can look at the Natural Law argument against homosexuality, and come to the conclusion that homosexual behavior, or insisting on an identification as one who promotes immoral behavior as a norm, is not acceptable. Natural Law is at the base of all traditional religious belief, as it can be derived from reason and reason is a God-given instrument, but it is not necessary to be sectarian, or even religious at all, to say that homosexual behavior is disordered and should not be promoted.

 

Even if we ignore all traditional religious or moral belief systems, the evidence shows that homosexual behavior is emotionally, physically, and psychologically hazardous, particularly in juveniles. The long-term physical effects of sodomy are injurious to the male body, as proctologists and urologists will tell you. The willful desire to engage in a sterile lifestyle deprives young men of one of the greatest joys they can achieve, becoming a father. The evidence that the person most likely to sexually molest a boy is another boy leads us to the conclusion that there are enormous risk factors in including a subculture of boys that want to have sex with other boys, within a group of boys in an environment such as scouting. Regardless of YS procedures, there are also enormous liability risks to any adult scout leader and CO involved in a troop where a child is molested by another boy, whether BSA will defend the leaders or CO or not.

 

The evidence from the Center for Disease Control and the other sources that have been cited on this forum in the previous months of this debate clearly reflect that a premature identification as "gay" should be discouraged.

The evidence that most of these risk factors have little or nothing to do with societal disapproval (research shows the highest reason for suicide attempts among gay youth is not societal or family disapproval, but the break-up of a sexual relationship), so changing the societal environment will have little effect on these anti-social and risk-seeking behaviors.

 

If the physical, mental, and psychological risks that are associated with homosexual behavior and self-identification in youths were associated with any other behavior or self-identification, there would be a nation-wide campaign to discourage such behavior and self-identification. We discourage smoking, alcoholism, anorexia, obesity, and bullying for far less.

 

Moral behavior tracks pretty closely with health - psychological, emotional, physical, and spiritual. If we are to be a part of an organization that promotes health and moral growth, we should discourage homosexual identification and, certainly, behavior. This is, in my opinion, a bad resolution. The current policy of discouraging sexualization of youth and vigorous youth safety policies is better than the new proposal.

I spoke with a friend Thursday who is active with a troop in California. He has been told by his CO's rep that if the resolution passes, the congregation will no longer be able to be a CO. He is worried that many other troops in his council will be left adrift if the resolution results in religious CO's rejecting the relationship with the BSA, and that will also lead to the scouts who are members of the CO church leaving the troop in solidarity with their church and their religious faith (which understandably have a stronger hold on their loyalties than the BSA), and he is further concerned that the fact that the BSA still will not allow LGBT adult membership means that the schools, civic organizations, and military units who have to follow corporate or government policies on LGBT "inclusion" will not be willing or able to step up to offer to be COs for the unchartered troops.

 

We may devolve into a movement of Lone Scouts.

 

 

 

The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod (LCMS) just published a pastoral letter opposing the proposed new policy: http://wmltblog.org/2013/05/boy-scouts-of-america-why-the-proposed-policy-change-matters/

 

[h=1]Boy Scouts of America: Why the Proposed Policy Change Matters[/h]

 

Western culture is at a crucial moment in history. After 103 years of existence, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) may vote to change drastically its membership policy. For those who may be unaware, the BSA, in recent months, has discussed allowing both gay Scouts and Scout leaders into its organization. Recently, however, the BSA has changed its course. Now the vote will determine only whether to include openly homosexual Scouts as members.

 

LCMS leaders have been carefully monitoring the proposed BSA policy changes. When news of the proposed change was made public, I sent a letter to BSA, imploring its leadership not to make the proposed policy change. And even though the initial proposal to focus on Scout leaders has been shelved, I believe the current proposal still has unknown implications for the future of BSA as well as LCMS support and involvement. The proposed change will highlight sexuality, which has not been and should not be a matter of focus for Scouts. I suspect it will make it more challenging to care for young people struggling with same-sex attraction and perhaps open our churches to legal action.

 

This vote matters to the LCMS. The proposed change in BSA policy on values and membership to include openly homosexual Scouts adversely affects, even supersedes, the authority of the local pastor and congregation by allowing and promoting a moral position that we as LCMS Lutherans believe is against the will of God and in opposition to Holy Scripture.

 

This vote matters because, if enacted, the proposed change to BSA policy on values and membership will cause a crisis of conscience for our church leaders, pastors, parents and congregations. Even if the decision of values and membership remains at the local level, Scouts from troops sponsored by congregations of the LCMS will be affected because, as part of the scouting program, they also participate at regional and national scouting activities.

 

This vote matters because, for more than a century, scouting has sought to uphold moral values at a level greater than that of general society. The capitulation now to societal pressures would mar the long and honorable history of the Boy Scouts to honor the natural law of God, which at least for now, is still reflected in the current scouting membership policy.

 

For these reasons, I and some 25 other Protestant church leaders have signed onto a statement, copied below, that implores BSA not to change its policy, noting that, “In our current culture, it’s more important than ever for our churches to protect and provide moral nurture for young people and for the Scouts.†The statement will be released in conjunction with its delivery to the BSA office and before the organization’s vote, which will take place May 24.

 

I share this with you today because it is difficult to know which of our LCMS BSA members will be part of the 1,400 members who will vote on the policy change later this month. I am hopeful that all of you will share this information with those in your congregation who are involved with BSA and even those in your community who will cast votes later this month.

 

As the church awaits the BSA vote, we still have much to do. We repent, and we pray. We confess Christ and elevate marriage among us. We do what the church does best: We bear witness to Christ, show mercy to those in our midst  including those challenged by same-sex attraction  and care for all in our life together.

 

Pastor Matthew C. Harrison

 

President, The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

 

Statement

 

We strongly support the Boy Scouts of America current prohibition on open homosexuality and retaining it without revision. Nearly 70 percent of BSA troops are hosted by churches and religious institutions. Upholding traditional morality is vital for sustaining this partnership, for protecting Scout members, and for ensuring BSA has a strong future. A proposal from the BSA board to prohibit “discrimination†based on “sexual orientation or preference†for BSA members potentially would open the Scouts to a wide range of open sexual expressions. In our current culture, it’s more important than ever for our churches to protect and provide moral nurture for young people and for the Scouts. We implore members of the upcoming BSA Council to affirm the BSA’s present policy, which the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed, and which has served BSA well.

 

 

Bishop David C. Anderson, Sr.

 

President, American Anglican Council

 

 

Sara L. Anderson

 

Executive Vice President

 

Bristol House, Ltd. (United Methodist)

 

 

The Rev. Canon Phil Ashey

 

Chief Operating & Development Officer

 

American Anglican Council

 

 

Dr. Robert D. Benne (Lutheran)

 

Jordan Trexler Professor Emeritus

 

and Research Associate

 

Religion and Philosophy, Roanoke College

 

 

Dr. Robert H. Blackburn

 

Past Chairman, National Association of Covenanting Congregations

 

 

The Rev. John Bradosky, Bishop

 

The North American Lutheran Church

 

 

Pastor Mark C. Chavez

 

General Secretary, North American Lutheran Church

 

 

The Rev. Sue Cyre

 

Executive Director of Presbyterians for Faith, Family and Ministry (PFFM)

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Matthew Harrison

 

President, The Lutheran Churchâ€â€Missouri Synod

 

 

Doug Harvey, Executive Director

 

Disciple Heritage Fellowship

 

 

The Rev. Charles Huckaby

 

Dean, Western Classis of the Calvin Synod Conference United Church of Christ Term 2010– 2013

 

 

Dr. Jeffrey Jeremiah

 

Stated Clerk

 

Evangelical Presbyterian Church

 

 

John Lomperis

 

Director, United Methodist Action

 

 

Alex McFarland

 

Director for Christian Worldview and Apologetics

 

 

Senator Patricia Miller

 

Executive Director, Confessing Movement (United Methodist)

 

 

Bob Morrison

 

Secretary, REVIVE! (Iowa United Methodist renewal)

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Mary Holder Naegeli

 

Minister-at-Large, San Francisco Presbytery; Moderator of the Presbyterian Coalition

 

 

Rev. Kevin C. Rudolph

 

National Covenant Association of Churches

 

Windwood Presbyterian Church

 

Houston, TX

 

 

The Rev. Dr. Frederick J. Schumacher

 

Executive Director, American Lutheran Publicity Bureau

 

 

The Rev. W. Stevens Shipman

 

Director, Lutheran Coalition for Renewal

 

 

The Rev. Paul Stallsworth

 

President, Taskforce of United Methodists on Abortion and Sexuality

 

 

David M. Stanley

 

Director, Institute on Religion and Democracy

 

Chairman, United Methodist Action Steering Committee

 

Co-Chair, REVIVE! (Iowa United Methodist renewal)

 

 

Bishop Ray Sutton

 

Ecumenical Officer, Anglican Church in North America

 

 

Mark Tooley

 

President, Institute on Religion & Democracy

 

 

The Rev. Dr. David Wendel, Assistant to the Bishop for Ministry and Ecumenism

 

The North American Lutheran Church

 

 

Dr. George O. Wood

 

General Superintendent

 

General Council of the Assemblies of God

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if 63% of Americans thought we should, as an organization, jump of a cliff, would we be obligated to do that to?

 

'Cause we may be about to....

 

63% of all Americans also oppose new taxes (http://weaselzippers.us/2013/04/11/shock-poll-63-of-americans-say-no-new-taxes/), 63% of Americans own an answering machine (http://www.algebra.com/algebra/homework/Probability-and-statistics/Probability-and-statistics.faq.question.130786.html), 63% of Americans support Israel over any other middle-eastern nation (http://www.gallup.com/poll/126155/support-israel-near-record-high.aspx), 63% of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/30/63-percent-of-american-public-opposes-war-afghanistan_n_802765.html), 63% support capital punishment (http://www.gallup.com/poll/159770/death-penalty-support-stable.aspx), 63% of Americans think the Bible is literally true (http://www.wnd.com/2005/04/30001/), and 63% of Americans think obese passengers should have to purchase a second seat on an air flight (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2013/apr/23/fat-chance-63-percent-americans-say-obese-airline-/), and 63% of Americans aren't sure what "fracking" means.(http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2012/06/63-americans-arent-sure-what-fracking/53756/).

 

Accordingly, the BSA should adopt a no-new-taxes policy, purchase cassette-based answering machines and dump voice mail at headquarters, fly the Israeli flag next to the U.S. flag at National, demand that all (any?) remaining troops come home from southwest Asia, offer to supply a Scout color guard for any public executions, adopt the Holy Bible as the Supreme Law of the Land, protest outside the home of big-boned people with too many frequent-flier miles, and sell the petroleum rights to the land under our council headquarters.

 

As it happens, 63% of Americans also reject the theory of evolution (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090212005934AA61hDa), so we should probably encourage Scouts to rip off all those Darwin fish trunk ornaments and set fire to the offending vehicles in a jihad of Intelligent Design triumphalism. We have a duty to our country as an organization to reflect their beliefs..

@mozartbrau - The BSA anti-gay policy is well known among scouters. The general public for the most part isn't aware of the policy. I've had parents approach me after a couple of years in scouting and were surprised that such a policy exists. I'm surprised too. It is 2013 afterall.

 

Yeah, but this is the same general public that does not read anything anyway. Most people are sheep and cannot be bothered to do their homework. They would read the TV Guide with more vigor than the major membership policies of an organization that will take care of their son hundreds of miles from home. Go figure. [i am rolling my eyes hard on that one]

I think most any city that had a police squad with a Vice Squad did, Rick. If you solicited an undercover vice cop in a gay bar, in an adult bookstore (as my high school principal did - he got several years), in a park that was a "cruising" area, in a public restroom, you were going to jail and maybe prison. Those weren't those weird "it is illegal to wear a squirrel on your head in August in Maine" jokey kind of local ordinances you read about. There were a lot of celebrities whose arrests for homosexual solicitation damaged their careers.

I don't believe the policy was well know till the Dale decision....

 

as a youth in the 70's I don't believe the policy was well known at all. We had a gay ASM back then, single lived with his mother, No big deal, parents kinda raised their eyebrows when he was around never knew why to much later.... BTW, that was pre-youth protection.

Seriously, KDD - so if it wasn't a felony in ALL states in the U.S., that is supposed to "shoot a giant hole in my argument?" Seriously? Do you think that the BSA would only recognize federal law, but not the laws of the state the council was in?

 

My apologies, then. I misstated. Sodomy was illegal in EVERY state in the Union until 1962. So there would be no need for a policy in the BSA before that date. It was that way since the beginning of the Republic, when good old liberal, separation-of-church-and-state Thomas Jefferson wrote a bill that would require castration upon conviction for sodomy. The Virginia legislature thought Tom was way too liberal, and voted to continue the death sentence for sodomy.

 

Illinois was the first state to decriminalize the act of sodomy (in 1962) , but it was still a criminal offense to solicit another to commit sodomy. Other states gradually repealed the consensual sodomy laws until the 2003 SCOTUS decision (reversing its earlier 1986 decision which said states COULD have anti-sodomy laws).

 

I'm not sure which state Basement Dweller was in during the 1970s, but in the majority of states, homosexual acts were still illegal for most of the 1970s. In Michigan, for instance, a sodomy conviction could get you 15 years, and a second offense could get you a life sentence. In Idaho, a single conviction for committing a homosexual act could get you life at hard labor. As homosexual marriage was just the punch line of a dirty joke back then, you could also be prosecuted under fornication laws, and if one of the partners was a married man or woman, you could also be prosecuted under the adultery laws.

 

Legislative repeal rolled back some of the states' laws in the 1970s until the 2003 decision, but if you were a homosexual scout leader in, say, Wisconsin until 1983, or Texas until 2003, or Tennessee until 1996, or Massachusetts until 1974, or Florida until 2003, or Kansas until 2003...there was no need for a formal policy against homosexuals in the BSA. Gay people should not have been imprisoned for consensual sex acts (at least with adults), but the idea that there were no restrictions against gays in the BSA is ludicrous. There never was a Golden Age for Homosexuality in the BSA in the 1970s, KDD.

I don't believe the policy was well know till the Dale decision....

 

as a youth in the 70's I don't believe the policy was well known at all. We had a gay ASM back then, single lived with his mother, No big deal, parents kinda raised their eyebrows when he was around never knew why to much later.... BTW, that was pre-youth protection.

Sodomy was illegal in most states in the Union back in the 1970s, BD, and a homosexual act, even with a consenting adult partner, was punishable by imprisonment. Vice squads regularly trolled gay pickup sites (bars, bookstores, parks, public restrooms) and arrested anyone who made a pass at an undercover officer. A morals violation or allegation could seriously harm your reputation, which is why (until recently) one could sue for defamation if someone claimed you were gay. This was the state of affairs in this country until the 2003 SCOTUS decision that voided state laws against sodomy. The popular consensus back then was unlikely to recognize that you could be "gay" or have a "gay identity" yet not be committing sodomy (as defined by the law) with another man.

 

Although there was at least one written BSA policy statement in the 1970s that was admitted as evidence in court and has been referenced repeatedly, why would the BSA need to have a policy against admitting people who were regularly committing felonies, in the eyes of the law at that period in time? The policies against admitting people involved in criminal acts would have been sufficient.

 

This is something I've never heard any LGBT advocate in the BSA explain adequately.

 

There seems to be this historical myth that there was a Golden Age of Homosexual Acceptance in the BSA until the bad ol' 1990s, when the Religious Right, yadda yadda, George Bush, yadda yadda., etc. No. Just no. It may have been winked at in some councils, but it was seen by the vast majority of Americans in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s as a) immoral b) weird c) disgusting, and d) certainly illegal, and the BSA, which has always been a very traditional group, held the same views at the rest of American society, both individually and as a culture. Homosexual acts were a felony, and would have barred you from membership if known or admitted. Period.

 

You can argue that popular culture has changed from those view, but to hold that it is some whole new thing is historically naive.

Well then it seems it must have been sent out by a local guy, or some group targeting specific Councils.. Everyone I have asked got the emails, of course I only asked those in district or council I did not ask the unit level scouters. So someone could have pulled our email off the council website, or, they have access to the council list through other means.. Don't know why they would hit a northern Council with it, it only will anger us in the opposite direction then where they want to push us.

 

 

Krumpus you haven't been watching the news have you?.. There are scouters in uniform standing in open public squares spreading these hate messages with signs and public speechs. With kids all around them, be it youth scouts or just youths with their parents passing by a public place

 

 

"No member may use Scouting to promote or advance any social or political position or agenda"

 

KingDingDong and skeptic,, would you also interpret the proposal to mean you shouldn't wear accessories reflecting a political agenda on the Scout uniform (political campaign buttons, rainbow knots, rainbow kerchief slides, patches supporting - or advocating against - LGBT inclusion, etc.)? Does the new resolution support removal from scouting for those that violate this rule?

Kahuna, either we will keep things as they are, or allow homosexual scouts. People will be unhappy either way. Even if we allow in homosexual scouts, some people will be still be unsatisfied because we won't allow homosexual or bisexual or transvestite adult leaders. Other people will be unhappy because we don't allow in atheists. Others will be unhappy because we don't allow girls in as scouts. Others will be unhappy because we don't allow scouts to use medical marijuana in summer camp. Others will be unhappy because we won't let someone with a past felony conviction become a scout leader. There are always new causes, and new groups advocating those causes, on the horizon. The BSA occupies the precarious position of being seen as a National Institution, along with Mom and Apple Pie, so any group seeking validation will always advocate for inclusion or change of policy to accommodate them. Sometimes that will be appropriate, other times not, and we will all unfortunately have to disagree on some of those.

 

I don't belong to any group with whose policies I am in complete agreement. Because every group is made up of other humans who also think (as I do) that they know best how to run things, there will always be disagreements. If new policies make the group unsafe for youths, legally hazardous to me, or if they are immoral, I will leave. I'm still on the fence on the proposed new policy, tending towards retaining the old policy, which is workable and strikes the best balance for youth inclusion (DADT, without sexualizing or discussing scout's identities) without becoming mired in a legal morass. I get that others disagree with me, but the majority seem to favor my position at this time. We will never have a compromise or solution that makes everyone happy in our politically polarized society. Never. Things may change over the years with a new generation coming in, but most people also tend to become more conservative as they age, so public opinion may not change as much as some think, and recent history has shown us that the public opinion on some liberal positions (and some conservative opinions, to be honest) that once seemed certain to become the dominant mode of thought in society have, in fact, reversed themselves, so nothing is certain. Today's Scouts will also be tomorrows Scouters, so the same process will apply to them. Certainly, my views were more liberal when they I was younger, but people change and evolve.

 

Certain politically liberal regions of the country may have a loss in membership if the new policy doesn't pass, and certain politically conservative regions may take a larger hit if the new policy does pass, but in most cases, personal inertia will be the guiding force and as long as people are generally happy with their son's involvement in Scouting and with the personal relationships they've formed in Scouting, I think the majority are likely to remain.

 

They may grumble, post angry forum messages, and wear rainbow kerchief slides or those little rainbow knots to broadcast their disappointment to whomever will notice, (or a "Does not Equal" symbol patch, or whatever) but I think most people will be okay with the status quo, or the new proposal. If the new proposal is the foot in the door that causes radical changes within the organization that some fear (mandatory gay sensitivity training in adult leader training or NYLT, gay scout participation in Gay Pride parades as in Canada, etc.), then yes, expect a lot of people to start leaving.

 

IS THE NEW POLICY ENACTED? (YES / NO)

 

YES - THE NEW POLICY IS ENACTED:

 

- See if our C.O. drops us (YES / NO)

 

- If YES:

 

- Work with troop on attempting to find new C.O. Maybe quit. See what my son wants to do.

 

- If NO:

 

- Carry on as usual, unless there is a sudden influx of avowed homosexual scouts.

 

IS THERE A SUDDEN INFLUX OF AVOWED HOMOSEXUAL SCOUTS? (YES / NO)

 

- If NO:

 

- Carry on as usual. Suggest we initiate testing to confirm presence of covert infiltrators (assign point scale for how they cross their legs, how they hold a baseball bat, unusual or excessive knowledge of show tune lyrics, etc.) just in case.

 

- If YES:

 

- Discuss how we handle youth safety procedures in light of the new policy.

 

- Assess how much things change, and how rapidly (becoming co-ed, admitting atheists, admitting adult homosexuals) before making decisions on whether to withdraw.

 

- If problems are insurmountable, withdraw.

 

Old Policy Affirmed:

 

- Carry on as normal. No one has mentioned leaving our troop if the policy is not changed.

 

- Prepare for flag-planting ceremony at Veteran's Cemetery.

 

- Prepare for next camp-out.

 

- Waste countless hours reading and posting about the subject on Scouter.com until the technical bugs get so bad I stop posting.

 

The big difference between this and the issue of gay kids in scouting is that gay kids don't have another option, while girls do. Exclude a gay kid and that's the end of the road for him in Scouting. Exclude girls and there's still the GSUSA. At a certain age there's also Venturing for girls.

 

A boy with a SSA could still join any number of outdoors-based, co-ed scouting-type organizations:

 

1) The Spiral Scouts - coed pagan scout group that accepts all religions and atheists. Doesn't exclude lesbians, or gay, bisexual, or transgendered boys. Has offered to grant its highest rank to any Eagle Scout who is willing to leave the BSA over its membership policies. Their oath runs: "A SpiralScout shall: Respect all living things; be kind and courteous; be honorable; be mindful of his/her words; seek out knowledge in all forms; recognize the beauty in all of creation; offer assistance to others; value honesty and truth; honor personal commitments; and respect the Divine in all things." Probably have more interesting campfire ceremonies, I would guess.

 

2) Camp Fire - formerly Camp Fire Girls of America, went co-ed in 1975. Doesn't exclude lesbians, gay, bisexual, or transgender boys.

 

3) Navigators - Unitarian-led breakaway from BSA that doesn't exclude lesbians or gay, bisexual, or transgender boys. Focuses on outdoors and service projects, lets in atheists. Their version on the Scout Law runs: "As a Navigator I promise to do my best To create a world free of prejudice and ignorance. To treat people of every race, creed, Lifestyle and ability with dignity and respect. To strengthen my body and improve My mind to reach my full potential. To protect our planet and Preserve our freedom." Awww.

 

4) Baden-Powell Service Organization - BSA copy that doesn't exclude lesbians or gay, bisexual, or transgender boys. Merit badges, etc.

 

5) Girl Scouts of America - will admit the "T" in "LGBT" if a boy self-identifies as a girl.

 

6) The Junior Forest Wardens - this is unfortunately currently only in Canada, but I wish they were down here as they actually own a gaming license and funds its scouting activities partly through gaming. Imagine the merit badges (Keno! Blackjack! Video Poker!) Inclusive.

 

7) The Junior Woodchucks - policy on LGBT inclusion is currently unknown. Will accept other talking animal species than ducks, so who knows?

 

8) The Young Pioneers - Admits atheists (in fact, mandatory to be an atheist). The LGBT thing is iffy, Cuba seems to have changed its policy recently from forced gender re-identification camps to benign tolerance. One color of kerchief, red. Membership may be compulsory in some countries. May have a Lone Scout program for those scouts who do not live in an officially atheist country. Their version of the Scout Law: I, (last name, first name), joining the ranks of the All-Union Pioneer Organization, in the presence of my comrades solemnly promise: to passionately love and cherish my Motherland, to live as the great [insert name of atheist dictator here] bade us to, as the Communist Party teaches us to, as required by the laws of the Pioneers of the Soviet Union (or: Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Peoples Republic of China, Dingbatistan, etc.)"

Don't know how many of you have seen this...this is the Voting Member Information Packet for the upcoming conference. It goes into better detail than the "Executive Summary," and gives more detail on how the polling took place.

 

The writers of the survey seem a little discombobulated by the fact that the current policy enjoys "strong and widespread support" among scouters, and it is only when push-poll questions are included does support for the policies seem to change:

 

Respondents support the policy by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin, with intensity overwhelmingly favoring supportersâ€â€54 percent “totally support†the policy, while 25 percent “totally oppose†it. While support for the policy is strongest among whites, men, and middle-aged adults, it is consistent throughout virtually all segments of the Scouting family. Only people in the Northeast and the youngest adults oppose the policy.

 

 

 

Considering the scenarios has virtually no effect on people’s view of the current policy. After reading the scenarios, respondents continue to support the policy by a wide 60 percent to 35 percent margin, including intensity that strongly favors supporters.

 

 

The public at large disliked the Local Option that was so favored by many here by a 2-to-1 ratio. It doesn't sound like changing the policy to LGBT inclusion will lead to a huge influx in scouts whose parents disapprove of the current policy. Most people just don't care. Muggles!

 

2. the policy is not a motivating factor for people whose sons are not in scouting. Just 2 percent of parents say the ban on gays is the reason why their son isn’t in the organization. The core reasons for lack of involvement remain the same as we have seen in past researchâ€â€that their son is too busy or involved in other things (29 percent), not old enough (21 percent), or not interested (20 percent).

 

 

Non-scouting parents oppose the current policy and parents with kids in scouting support it:

 

Parents now oppose the policy by 45 percent to 42 percent, in stark contrast to 2010, when they supported it by 58 percent to 29 percent. Parents of current Scouts continue to support the policy, but only by 48 percent to 39 percent (down from 57 percent to 29 percent in 2010). The effect of the policy has also shifted toward the negative, with parents saying it makes them less likely to enroll their son by 23 percent to 22 percent (in 2010, it made them more likely to do so by 30 percent to 15 percent).

 

 

which leads to the question - if you are not involved in scouting and don't care to be...why should your opinion matter if you don't have skin in the game?

 

Although the survey says

 

The Youth Study Group (teens 16 to 18) was charged with listening to the voice of youthâ€â€both current members and nonmembers. Harris Interactive was contracted to survey both current youth members as well as general population teens. Key findings include:

 

• Among general population teens and Boy Scouts and Venturers alike, a majority oppose the current Boy Scouts of America membership policy.

 

• A majority of Boy Scouts and Venturers oppose allowing chartered organizations to follow their own beliefs if that means there will be different standards from one organization to the next.

 

• According to a majority of current Boy Scouts and Venturers, the current policy does not represent a core value of Scouting.

 

 

...I didn't know that the polling group of Scouts was so small (only 218 active Scouts) (and was restricted to those 16 to 18), or that the Baptist and LDS COs elected not to have their scouts included in the polling.

 

BSA youth membership was not directly surveyed as originally planned through the Voice of the Scout process used for adult leadership. When the survey process was originally announced, several chartered organizations, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Baptist church, and many parents asked that their youth members not be contacted as part of the survey. In light of the feedback received, it was determined the surveys could be conducted through Harris Interactive utilizing the Harris Interactive Online youth panelists (HPOL).

 

The membership standards survey was conducted online from March 18-22, 2013, among 1,021 U.S. residents ranging from 16 to 18 years of age who agreed to a consent statement regarding their participation in the research. Of the group surveyed, 803 youth were HPOL general population and 218 (21 percent) youth were from a contact list of registered members of the Boy Scout and Venturing programs. Confidence level in the survey results is 95 percent. Most BSA members who are 19 to 20 years of age had an opportunity to participate in the direct Voice of the Scout questionnaire as adults.

 

One of the more surprising stats (that was not included in the widely distributed executive summary) is this:

 

 

 

In total, about half (48 percent) of Boy Scouts and Venturers believe they can find a way to continue to participate in the organization if the decision on this policy disagrees with their own view. Twenty-two percent do not believe they can find a way to continue, and 30 percent are not sure.

 

 

 

Viewed in terms of their post-scenario opinion of the current policy, 32 percent of those who support the current policy believe they can find a way to continue participation in the organization if the policy is reversed, while another 32 percent do not believe they can find a way to continue in this case; 37 percent have not made up their mind. Meanwhile, 55 percent of those who oppose the current requirement believe they can find a way to continue if the policy remains in place, while 18 percent do not believe they can find a way to continue and 27 percent have not yet made up their mind.

 

 

 

Based on the proportions of support, opposition, and neutral opinions regarding the current policy, and their respective anticipated reactions if the policy decision disagrees with their own view, it is estimated that relatively similar effects on membership would be seen regardless of whether the policy remains or is changed. On either side of the issue, between 10 percent and 12 percent of current members believe they could not find a way to continue, while between 72 percent and 74 percent believe that they could. There are, however, a substantial percentage of undecided members whose effects remain to be seen.

 

When we look at the respondents as a whole, though:

 

 

 

Nearly three-fifths of respondents say the current policy is a core value of scouting found in the scout oath and Law. People say the policy represents a core value by a 58 percent to 42 percent margin, helping to explain the overwhelming, intense, and consistent support for the policy among respondents.

 

The money part of the full report is probably this:

 

 

 

One-third of respondents say they do not believe they can continue with the organization if the Bsa makes a decision on the policy that conflicts with their own view. Thirty-four percent of respondents say they do not believe they could continue with the organization if they disagree with the BSA’s decision on the policy, 33 percent say they believe they could continue, and 33 percent are unsure.

 

 

Views on this matter are far stronger among supporters of the policy than among opponents. Among supporters of the policy, 50 percent say they could not continue with the organization if the policy changed. But among opponents of the policy, just 11 percent say they could not continue if the policy remain in place.

 

Here's the full packet. There is a lot in here to discuss, both pro- and anti- the current, local, and proposed policies:

 

http://www.scouting.org/filestore/MembershipStandards/310-561_WB.pdf

 

Interesting topic. All my kids enjoyed Ender's Game and the sequels.

 

As was mentioned above, the military branches now have assigned reading lists for development of their troops, from enlisted up to General. Some are military history or books on leadership and logistics, some area and cultural studies, and some novels that teach and encourage the values the services want to develop in their members. So Marine recruits are to read "Battle Cry!" by Leon Uris, "Corps Values" by Zell Miller, "Making the Corps" by Thomas E. Ricks, and "The Red Badge of Courage" by Stephen Crane. E1 through E4 are required to read, well "Enders Game" (The reason it is included? "In this science fiction novel, child genius Ender Wiggin is chosen by international military forces to save the world from destruction by a deadly alien race. His skills make him a leader yet Ender suffers from isolation and rivalry from his peers, pressure from adults, and fear of the enemy. His psychological battles include loneliness and fear that he is becoming like his cruel brother. The novel’s major theme is the concept of a “game†and all of the other important ideas in the novel are interpreted through this concept. Some of the important ideas in the book include: the relationship between children and adults, compassion, ruthlessness, friends and enemies, and the question of humanity: what it means to be human."), as well as "Gates of Fire," a novel about the Battle of Thermopylae, and others. If you're curious about what our Marines are reading, you can find the Commandant's required reading list here: http://guides.grc.usmcu.edu/content.php?pid=408059&sid=3340410.

 

Which led me to think (sometimes a dangerous thing): would it be worthwhile to require a Boy Scout (or an Adult Leader) to read a book at each level of advancement? We probably don't want Scouting to be too much like school, and I don't think book reports are something we want to add to Scouting, but something like the requirement to watch a movie for the Citizenship in the Community MB, just tell them that they should read certain books at each level, or maybe to have read them all for Eagle. Ones that they will enjoy and should also help with learning different values in Scouting. Maybe one to represent each of the values in the Scout Law. If as Kahuna suggested, Ender's Game isn't appropriate, which ones would be worthwhile? (Other than the obvious suggestions of the Handbook and Fieldbook).

 

Just an idea, but what would you all suggest? Could be novels, could be books about Scout history, could be about leadership, could be about love and protection of the environment, could be about moral values.

 

Some ideas off the top of my head:

 

"Tunnel in the Sky" by Robert Heinlein - another SF novel which was written for the juvenile market by Heinlein in the 1960s but is suitable for both adults and kids. Set in a future where the combination of population pressures and the discovery of a stargate/wormhole have forced humanity to push its excess population to colonize habitable worlds. This has created a demand for survival/colonization experts that have mastered the old time skills of pioneering (kind of like, well, the Boy Scouts). The hero is a high school senior who is taking an AP college-level Individual Survival class. The final exam is that teens (some from high schools, some from college) are pushed through the stargate onto an uncolonized planet, and have to survive on their own for up to two weeks before a recall. You can bring any equipment you want with you. The hero, who is informed that there is a family crisis the night before the test, is pushed onto a jungle-type world and manages to survive the first two weeks, but he and the other students soon find that there is no recall, and they appear to be stuck on the planet for reasons unknown. They gradually form teams and eventually, government, with all the problems and the need to find solutions that entails.

 

Heinlein wrote the novel as an answer to "Lord of the Flies," which he found pessimistic and unrealistic in regards to man's ability to cooperate and develop societies. There is a lot a boy could learn from this novel about mental, emotional, and physical survival, selecting equipment, working in groups, small and large unit leadership. Plus, it's just a great, fast-moving story. There's nothing in there that would be inappropriate for youths to read.

 

Maybe "A Sand County Almanac" by Aldo Leopold or "Eric Sloane's Weather Book." For older scouts, maybe "The AMC Guide to Outdoor Leadership." "To Start a Fire and Other Stories" by Jack London.