AZMike

Surprised no one has commented on this - it looks the LDS church has offered a (somewhat lukewarm) approval of the new resolution today:

Church Issues Statement on Boy Scouts of America

SALT LAKE CITY â€â€

For 100 years, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has enjoyed a strong, rewarding relationship with Boy Scouts of America (BSA).

Recently, BSA has been reviewing a possible policy change in its standards for membership and leadership. Now that BSA has finished its review process and has proposed a resolution for consideration, the Church has issued the following statement:

“Over the past several weeks BSA has undertaken the difficult task of reviewing its membership standards policy. In their own words, this undertaking has been 'the most comprehensive listening exercise in its history.'

"While the Church has not launched any campaign either to effect or prevent a policy change we have followed the discussion and are satisfied that BSA has made a thoughtful, good-faith effort to address issues that, as they have said, remain 'among the most complex and challenging issues facing the BSA and society today.'

"The current BSA proposal constructively addresses a number of important issues that have been part of the on-going dialogue including consistent standards for all BSA partners, recognition that Scouting exists to serve and benefit youth rather than Scout leaders, a single standard of moral purity for youth in the program, and a renewed emphasis for Scouts to honor their duty to God.

"We are grateful to BSA for their careful consideration of these issues. We appreciate the positive things contained in this current proposal that will help build and strengthen the moral character and leadership skills of youth as we work together in the future.â€Â

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-boy-scouts-of-america

I can agree with your sentiment, skeptic. I don't see anyone on the right trying to use the BSA as a political battleground. This issue is being forced onto the BSA. I for one don't want to see any sort of lifestyle witch hunt. Keep it to yourself and we will all be fine. This is just a very fine line, when special interest groups are pushing the issue so hard.

 

A "don't ask, don't tell" policy is not good enough for the gay rights community. Any I cannot tollerate the normalization of alternatice lifestyles being promoted in my scout troop. So this just sounds like we might just be at an impass.

 

Look at how many have left the Girl Scout program. Accept for cookie sales, they have very little visability. (not trying to offend and GSUSA folks). My sister has been a GS volunteer for over 20 years and have tons of respect for her.

I'm not surprised that there were not "open" documents discussing homosexuality in BSA in the 1960s and 1970s, as it was generally not discussed in polite society at the time. We're all prone to a little historical revisionism, but why would an organization that wished to promote itself as a wholesome organization discuss homosexuality in publications that could be read by kids? It was considered by most people in America to be, to use a scientific term, "icky." This was an era that, rightly or wrongly, associated homosexuality with a swishy effeminacy and moral degeneracy, as demonstrated by the depiction of homosexuals in movies, TV, and plays. I would imagine that a quick Google search on public attitudes or depictions of homosexuality in popular culture in the 1960s and 1970s would give you literally hundreds of examples. Homosexuals were depicted as swishy objects of ridicule (see: Pretty much every 1970s sitcom) and self-loathing (see: The Boys in the Band) at best, and often as far worse (see: Deliverance). (This is not to say that people with a same-sex attraction should be treated this way, but that was what the times were like.) In the sciences, homosexuality was considered a treatable behavioral disorder until the APA changed their position on what the "science" was. In most states, homosexual acts (even between consenting adults) were felonies, a homosexual orientation would bar you from most teaching positions, and the military would ban you from enlistment and considered homosexuality grounds for a dishonorable discharge or even imprisonment.

Frankly, the BSA probably did not feel any more need to have an "open" policy against homosexuality than it did against bestiality, rape, polygamy, shoe fetishism, or incest, which would have been considered equivalent behavior by most Americans at time time in history, and also subjects that should not be discussed in family-oriented documents I'm not trying to be cruel here, but younger people posting on this thread, or those of us with fading memories, appear to be looking for an "open" policy that would have no reason to exist, given the tenor of the times. It is almost the equivalent of looking for an "open" policy against misuse of the Internet in the 1970s.

Why would you, or anyone else, think that the BSA would NOT reflect American attitudes at that era in its view of homosexuality?

I can agree with your sentiment, skeptic. I don't see anyone on the right trying to use the BSA as a political battleground. This issue is being forced onto the BSA. I for one don't want to see any sort of lifestyle witch hunt. Keep it to yourself and we will all be fine. This is just a very fine line, when special interest groups are pushing the issue so hard.

 

A "don't ask, don't tell" policy is not good enough for the gay rights community. Any I cannot tollerate the normalization of alternatice lifestyles being promoted in my scout troop. So this just sounds like we might just be at an impass.

 

Look at how many have left the Girl Scout program. Accept for cookie sales, they have very little visability. (not trying to offend and GSUSA folks). My sister has been a GS volunteer for over 20 years and have tons of respect for her.

The judgment in the Curran case includes notes that the defendant (the BSA) introduced evidence that a policy against admitting homosexuals as leaders existed in an official memorandum written in 1978 by the national leadership of the Boy Scouts of America setting forth -- in question and answer form -- the official position of the Boy Scouts relating to homosexuality and scouting. The document states in relevant part: "Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a volunteer Scout leader? A. No. The Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization and leadership therein is a privilege and not a right. We do not believe that homosexuality and leadership in Scouting are appropriate. We will continue to select only those who in our judgment meet our standards and qualifications for leadership. [¶] Q. May an individual who openly declares himself to be a homosexual be a registered unit member? A. No. As the Boy Scouts of America is a private, membership organization, participation in the program is a privilege and not a right. We do not feel that membership of such individuals is in the best interests of Scouting."

There was an earlier 1983 document cited in the court decision: "The "written policy" to which the trial court referred was apparently a 1983 statement by the Legal Counsel of the Boy Scouts of America that declared: "Avowed or known homosexuals are not permitted to register in the Boy Scouts of America. Membership in the organization is a privilege, not a right, and the Boy Scouts of America has determined that homosexuality and Scouting are not compatible. No units will be chartered to known homosexual groups or individuals."

Note 9 states: "A number of witnesses called by plaintiff testified that they had spent years in plaintiff's Boy Scout troop as members or as scoutmasters and never had been informed that homosexual conduct was not "morally straight" or "clean," and that they were unaware this was part of the Boy Scouts' message. Plaintiff also elicited evidence acknowledging that although scouting literature is replete with moral and ethical pronouncements, none of the written material that is distributed to the Boy Scouts themselves (as contrasted with the training handbook provided to scout leaders) speaks specifically to the issue of homosexuality or homosexual conduct. Finally, plaintiff presented written materials, published by the Boy Scouts, indicating that scoutmasters are not expected to instruct scouts in a formal manner on sexual matters or family life -- although the same text noted that scoutmasters should answer questions or provide advice on these topics if requested."

Note 8 stated that "At trial, the national Director of Public Relations for the Boy Scouts of America testified that it has been understood clearly since the incorporation of the Boy Scouts early in this century that homosexual conduct is immoral and inconsistent with the scout oath. He and other witnesses testified that the terms "morally straight" and "clean" have been in use in the Scout Oath and Law from the early 1900's when it would have been clearly understood that homosexual conduct was considered immoral (and illegal), and that the words continue to be interpreted by the Boy Scouts of America as rendering homosexual conduct unacceptable today. In addition, several witnesses testified that adult leaders routinely are trained to inform boys that homosexuality is not "morally straight.""

In its Curran decision, the California Supreme Court noted the originating court's decision that "The court found in this regard that the values the Boy Scouts seeks to instill are grounded in the Boy Scout Oath and Law, that sexual morality is addressed in the Boy Scout Oath and Law under the rubric of "morally straight" and "clean,"(6) and, finally, that although "[n]ot a great deal is explicitly spelled out in the Scout literature . . . regarding sexuality in general or homosexuality in particular," the evidence introduced at trial demonstrated "that the Boy Scouts of America as an organization has taken a consistent position that homosexuality is immoral and incompatible with the Boy Scout Oath and Law" and that "this is the view that is communicated whenever the issue comes up." In reaching this latter determination, the court relied on various policy statements that had been issued on the subject by the national organization,(7) and on the testimony of numerous national and local Boy Scout leaders who testified to the orgbid."

It's more than a little historically inaccurate, and out of historical context, to say that no policy against homosexuality existed in the BSA prior to the 1990s, or that this was somehow created by a conspiratorial "Religious Right," given the feeling of the majority of Americans at that point in time. A review of the psychological and sociology texts and academic research of the time would leave little doubt that homosexual membership in a youth organization would not have been considered acceptable by the majority of adult leaders in the BSA, or the population of the U.S. as a whole. I was in scouting before the 1978 memorandum and I don't think anyone old enough to know what homosexuality, boy or adult, was would have thought that homosexual leadership was appropriate. Those were different times.

One can make the argument that policy should change to fit recent changes in the culture, but it would be disingenuous to claim that such policies or perspectives never existed .

In light of Moosetracker's comments, the wording of the executive summary is interesting. According to the Executive Summary (with my comments in brackets),

"The Parents Study Group was charged with listening to the voice of parents and leaders, including parents who currently do not have youth in the program. Research on parents was conducted by North Star Opinion Research on parents of boys younger than 18â€â€both members and nonmembers [so this is looking at a sample group of parents, many (how many?) do not have sons in Scouting - and may have no interest in participating in Scouting. One could argue that this group MIGHT be interested in entering their sons in Scouting if the policy changed, but there's really no indication either way on that. That might have been a useful survey question to ask: "If your child is NOT involved in Scouting, would you be interested in doing so if the BSA's policy on gay membership changed?". If they are not in Scouting, and have no interest in involving a child in Scouting...how is their opinion relevant?]

• The research finds a significant shift in attitudes regarding the BSA policy on homosexuality. • Three years ago, parents supported the current BSA policy by a wide marginâ€â€58 percent to 29 percent. Today, parents oppose the policy by a 45 percent to 42 percent margin. [so, a poll group of affiliated and non-affiliated parents oppose the policy by a 3% margin. Neither group tracks over 50%, still. It would also be useful to see a breakdown of what percentage of that group were affiliated with scouts currently or in the past, and what percentage were people who just happened to pick up the phone and don't have skin in the game.]

• "Three years ago, 57 percent of parents of current Scouts supported the policy. Today, only 48 percent of parents of current Scouts support the policy." [Given the significant statistical change on this affiliated group, it would have been nice to include the percentage of those who OPPOSE the current policy, given that many parents may be unsure or undecided. Is that 48% still the majority? Stating that "only 48% support the policy" leads to the unstated assumption that 52% may oppose the policy, when in fact, it may be only 46% or 44%, or even less. There could be some weasel-wording going on here. It would also be nice if the BSA issued a breakdown of the exact stats, pro- and anti-, by survey group - has anyone seen this?]

[i'm also curious how this poll was conducted by North Star - it SOUNDS like it was likely done by phone poll - and in questions regarding social issues, the research shows that those responding to phone polls with a human (as opposed to a computerized system) tend to worry about offending the poll-taker or that may be seen as retrograde, and may not give answers that are in accordance with their true opinions. That the stats are as high as they are in this case shows that the traditional option has a level of support that is, frankly, surprising.

This is a lot more relevant to our needs:

"The BSA’s Voice of the Scout Membership Standards Survey was sent to more than 1 million adult members, with over 200,000 respondents. [i know the French aphorism that he who is not present for a vote is wrong, but bear in mind, we are dealing with a response from only a fifth of the polled adult membership. That may a large enough portion to make an assessment, but there is some research out there that shows that those who tilt conservative are far less likely to respond to polls in general, whether phone, mail, in person, or Internet - blame it on our conservative paranoia about The Man, if you wish - but those people may still be more likely to vote with their feet. I agree that all you can do is all you can do when it comes to the size of your survey sample, but keep it in mind.]

"The survey found:

• Respondents support the current policy by a 61 percent to 34 percent margin.

Support for the current policy is higher at different program and volunteer levels in the organization:

o 50 percent of Cub Scout parents support it; 45 percent of Cub Scout parents oppose.

o 61 percent of Boy Scout parents support it.

o 62 percent of unit leaders support it.

o 64 percent of council and district volunteers support it.

o 72 percent of chartered organizations support it."

[As Huzzar pointed out, that's the relevant data, right there. That's money. The people who volunteer the work in the organization support the old policy by a statistically significant majority at every level. We are only given the percentage of those who OPPOSE the traditional policy in the case of Cub Scout parents. Why? Again, if 61% of BSA parents (ALL parents, regardless of age) support the traditional policy in an anonymous survey, it would be useful to know if those who oppose were all of 39%, or was it even smaller with the number of undecided/unsures - 36%? 32%? 28%? I'd like to know this. On the Local Council poll, a full 11% were undecided or didn't have an opinion. If that tracks with the BSA leaders' poll, for instance, does that mean only 19% supported the Local Option?]

I'm still undecided about the new option (did ANY of us on this forum predict it?), but suspect it will probably pass, and though neither side will be completely happy, if it passes it will err on the side of youths. The largest religious CO groups have a doctrinal belief that homosexual behavior is wrong, and that it should not be normalized through the recognition or affirmation of same-sex "marriages" but that those with a same-sex attraction should be treated with compassion. This policy will (if I understand it correctly) allow those youths who are unsure or who self-identify as gay to participate in Scouting as long as sexual behavior is not discussed. Approaches to other scouts, discussing sexual matters, etc., could and should get you bounced from Scouting, and that should be understood before any youth enters Scouting. Relationships that normalize same-sex relationships and/or marriages won't be allowed in the leadership. I understand many will not be happy with either option, and it is probably 50-50 whether the new option will pass in May.

There are many who feel that our every statement and passing thought about our personal lives is important and should be cherished and encouraged and protected by society (such as the young woman behind me in line at Starbucks yesterday who regaled all of us with every tawdry intimate detail of last night's hook-up), and believe that it is important that a boy's beliefs about his sexual identity should never be discouraged or banned, but the rest of us feel that it is high time that people shut up about personal matters. If you think you are gay and a boy scout, fine. Shut up and talk about something else. Talk about it with your parent or your pastor, not around the campfire. If you still think you are gay at age 18, you can be a lot of things in society and a youth leader in other organizations, but probably not a scout leader.

In terms of the practical effect of such a change? About 3% of the population identifies as LGBT (slightly higher among youth). Of that percentage, probably a much smaller percentage would care to be involved in Scouting at all, based on the general public's percentage of involvement. Of that percentage, probably a much smaller percentage would choose to be involved in Scouting, given the old or potential new policy, and heterosexual parents of gay youths may have similar opinions. Similar figures probably apply among gay parents (A large proportion of whom are technically bisexual, in that they had sex at least once to have a child if they didn't adopt, didn't use artificial insemination, or aren't involved with a bisexual parent - it's interesting to speculate what the results would be on the poll if respondents were asked if they would be okay with a "gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered adult leader." The results could have become even more disproportionate. I suspect "bisexual" leaders sound a little creepier and perverse to many parents than "homosexuals."). I don't have any idea what percentage of potential scout leaders are LGBT but have no children, but either way, no. We're ultimately not talking about a very large group, and if the new option passes, I doubt we will be flooded with openly gay boy scouts.

When you are conducting a survey to help you figure out what to do, you are not "moral." You are not doing what you believe in. You are not leading. You are not standing up for anything. When you need a survey to figure out what your policy is, you are just chasing dollar bills and members.

 

I am an atheist, and I would like to see the policy rescinded, but I would only be satisfied in BSA rescinded all of the membership policy no matter the fallout or destruction it caused, because they realize what they were doing is wrong, and then apologized to everyone wronged in the past and made reparations to all youth denied eagle, all adults previously expelled.

 

The way it is now, they are just pathetic old cowards more worried about money, camps, and their little wood badge club than they are moral men taking a stand on values.

 

This resolution proves BSA is NOT a values based organization.

 

I would have had more respect for my opponents had they simply continued the policy, ignored their critics, and taken the organization deeper into Christianity. At least then they would be looking me in the eye.

 

This resolution, for the first time, makes me think that BSA is not worthy of my energy. Funny, it wasn't until today that instead of seeing them as misguided and old-fashioned, I see them as greedy, selfish, evil, and twisted.

 

Today I am ashamed of my eagle award and ashamed that tomorrow I will wear the uniform.

 

This may be it for me.

 

This (rather long thread) started with a poll on the Local Option. That is now irrevocably dead in the water / circling the drain / taking the dirt nap / Fill in metaphor of your choice, as the BSA has stated this is the only resolution that will be offered, and that they will not revisit the issue again. Should we start another thread and poll to see how everyone feels about the new option? I suspect it will be unpopular with both sides, as most compromises tend to be, but will probably pass and people will get used to it.

And can I ask - does anyone know why the LDS was not included on the survey results? Did they voluntarily decide to sit out, and are they (as some are saying) waiting to vote with their feet if the - what do we call it? - Mugwump Resolution passes? I have no idea what is going on there.

18. Has or will the Boy Scouts review(ed) the “duty to God†standard?

No. The Scout Oath begins with duty to God, and the Scout Law ends with a Scout’s obligation to be reverent. Those will always remain core values of the Boy Scouts of America. The values set forth in the Scout Oath and Law are fundamental to the BSA and central to teaching young people to make better choices over their lifetimes.

So, at least that won't change.

Ok' date=' I'll go for the low-hanging fruit: the very policy we have been debating has been pro-Christian. The exclusion of avowed homosexuals from the program certainly was created (and specifically affirmed just last summer) to align with the teachings of many larger Christian denominations.[/quote']

 

I asked for a BSA policy that was SOLELY Christian. You telling me Muslims and Jews and Hindus and Buddists all embrace homosexuality and Christians are the only Visigoths? Please.

Yeahhhh, I wondered about that too. Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, Evangelical Christianity, Mormonism, many mainline Protestant sects, Hinduism, the Baha'i faith, Sikhism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Taoism either prohibit or strongly discourage homosexual acts, sexual relations outside of marriage, most of the sexual acts which homosexuals perform, and/or lack of chastity, and also have a definition of marriage that excludes anything but male/female, even as most of those faiths encourage compassion for the sinner and repentance by the one who is involved in the sex acts themselves. I know historical literacy is dying out, but one would be hard-pressed to argue that the traditional moral view of homosexual relations is one that is solely "pro-Christian."

Interesting rumor I heard last week - the idea is being floated to keep BSA traditional, and allow Venturing Crews to allow gays as leaders and crew members. Use it as a test project to see what happens with the older crew members. The news media (which have the same deep understanding of Scouting complexities as they do of religious ones) hears that Scouting is allowing gays in, takes the pressure off National on the issue. GLAAD, other gay pressure groups get to declare victory and go home. Traditional morality still remains part of the Boy Scouts Core Mission. Religious COs can keep their BSA troops. Sounds like a Machiavellian version of the "Czechoslovakian Solution" that was discussed on this thread in the past. Probably just rumor, but anyone else heard this? Any comments?

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

 

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

 

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

Certainly, DigitalScout. Because we as Americans look to a sport that produced Michael Vick, Adam "Pacman" Jones, Terry Anderson, Chris Henry, and Ben Roethlisberger, Greg Williams, and Sean Payton for models of moral action.

Or do you mean that because football players are seen as more "masculine" than non-steroidal. lower-paid Americans, that it will make homosexuality more mainstream? Numerous football players have been arrested for statutory rape, does that mean NFL players will make sex with minors more acceptable?

You do realize this is all based on the word of just one attention-seeking ex-player, right?

To Rick's point, if we consider Dan's Plan as the Czechoslovakia Option - a velvet divorce, with each side going their merry way - the Local Option appears to be the Yugoslavia Option, with the level of infighting, disputes, hurt feelings, ruptured friendships, and boys pulled out of troops skyrocketing under the Local Option. Like Yugoslavia, disorder and chaos will rise as the central authority of the old regime - however disliked it might be - gives way to individual disputes. Instead of the Czech and Slovak Republics, we may be left with Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, and Herzegovina as our new models. We will see old troops torn apart because COs, parents, committee members, scouters, community members, and outside activists will disagree on how "their" troop will be run. Basementdweller has written on how his troop may collapse solely because of an individual with whom he disagrees. (I will point out with charity that it takes two to have a disagreement.) Multiply that by the number of troops in the country that contain strong-willed people with their own standards of morality, and which they believe to be uncompromisable.

If the local option passes, expect the Balkanization of the BSA to begin quickly.

The Czechoslovakian Option certainly isn't optimal, but it's still better than the Local Option.

Merlyn will no doubt be happy to know that he agrees with Fox News - they believe atheism is a religion, so apparently you can be atheist and still be a member of a religion: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/17/sorry-but-atheism-is-religion/

Many atheists will disagree quite angrily with Merlyn's faith that an atheist can be in a religion without compromising his beliefs, but then some atheists certainly want to turn atheism into a soi-distant religion - there is a Church of Atheism in London with regular Sunday services that are quite popular, many universities have atheist chaplains, and atheists are lobbying for atheist chaplains for the military. Christians have Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, atheists have Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett, and even have their apostate Judases like Antony Flew and Thomas Nagel.

Heck, Merlyn - 21% of self-identified atheists believe in God, 12% believe in Heaven, 10% believe in Hell, 10% pray at least weekly, Interestingly, 13% of atheists believe abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, and 14% of all atheists believe homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society. (http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf) You send us those kind of atheists, and we can talk.

Re Rick's question about Christians believing that denying the divinity of Christ is evil, no...one has to come to that belief through faith. One can and should cooperate with non Christians and yes, gays. They are not enemies, just our brothers and sisters in Christ. One can accept our common humanity and love the sinner without justifying the sin.

Yeah, that's kind of a series of category errors on your part, Merlyn. "Jewish" as an ethnic group is not the same as Jewish as a religion, so they are a unique case. A person who ethnically self-identiies as a Jew who has foolishly made the decision to abandon the faith of his fathers is an atheist, and would not be eligible for BSA membership as he would still be Jewish as an ethnic group but not be Jewish as a religious choice. Unitarian-Universalists are allowed to declare themselves as members of any religion, or none at all, so to the extent that a Unitarian-Universalist declares himself an atheist, he is an atheist and loses the claim that he is a member of a religion. He is just someone who practices a personal philosophy which makes the specious claim of a religion. Some Buddhists do believe in God or spiritual beings which are gods, those who don't still believe in a higher spiritual law that enforces an objective moral code of right and wrong which governs your spiritual faith in the afterlife, and which fulfills the essential role of a God, so they aren't atheists. Raelians are atheists who happen to believe in a mix of sexual mumbo-jumbo and ookie-bookie extraterrestrials. An alien ain't God, so what they are calling a religion is not what any sane person would call a religion. Deeming your peculiar beliefs as a "religion" does not obligate others to do so. I may feel I have a life-mission to liberate money from banks, may feel that a grand spiritual principle requires me to rob banks, and so declare that you must accept me into the Scouts as a member of the First Unreformed Church of the Willie Suttonists. Again, Merlyn, sorry. One's desire to create a new religion that does not believe in God (or gods) does not require me to recognize that contradiction as a reality.

Rick, the bugs won't let me post a comment to your question so I'll respond here. Non-sectarian means the BSA lets in members of any religion. It doesn't mean we adopt all the beliefs of any and all of those religions. We should accept Christian Scientists if they want to join, but we are not obligated to use their theories of faith healing if a Scout breaks his arm. Jehovah's Witnesses refuse to join the BSA, but if they wanted to we would welcome them but would not adopt their practice of refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance. Pretty much every religion allows both males and females to be members, but we do not include girls in the ranks of Boy Scouts. Several Protestant faiths, (including Unitarians, several branches of the Episcopalians, the Disciples of Christ, several of the Lutherans groups that are schisming the denomination over the issue, the UCC, et al) have altered their doctrine to suit the times, and declared that homosexual behavior may not be sinful after all, and that two dudes can get married if they want, a view that probably would have triggered a heart attack if you had suggested it to James Freeman. Fine, obviously you can believe whatever you want, but we are not required to adopt your views to be non-sectarian. If we adopted every religion's new beliefs we would not be non-sectarian, we would be pan-sectarian, which would be impossible due to the divergence of beliefs.

I am neither White, nor Anglo-Saxon, nor Protestant, Basementdweller.

Scouts have to deal with groups with homosexual members all the time, moosetracker. They can continue to do so with the two group policy that Dan suggested, and I would suggest that each group can pursue its own policies with a strict policy of courtesy and tolerance to those of the other organization, just as Scouts should do in their normal dealings with people outside the Boy Scouts. If, as you claim, Scouting membership will explode under the New Model policy you desire, then membership and staffing will no longer be a problem.

Rick, so you have made the decision to pull your kids out of Scouting if you don't get the Local Option?

Moosetracker and Basementdweller, do you feel the same way?

Dan, I've heard that option (the "Czechoslovakian Option" or "The Velvet Divorce") floated as a possible solution. Usually from those on the other side, who would offer those who want a Boy Scouting + Gays (BS+G) offered the option of their own parallel organization. (Whether it becomes larger or smaller remains to be seen.) Both organizations would remain official programs of the BSA.

Let's say that National looks at the results of all the polls to which we've responded. They tally up the respondents who say that they want a BS+G org and will leave if they don't get it. They tally up all the respondents who want to continue the current policy (BS-G) and say they will leave if the policy is pushed on them. They tally up all those Mugwumps in the middle who advocate for the Local Option, and see how many will vote with their feet. For argument's sake, let's say the polling sample shows they will lose a lot more scouts and scouters with either a Local or a BS+G option. (Or, maybe the other way around.) Would you be okay with creating a smaller organization for those secular orgs or the liberal Protestant or other denominations who want to include gays, keep both groups under the BSA umbrella and give both groups access to all the facilities and camps, let them earn the same MBs and try for Eagle Scouts, but let the older group keep the Boy Scouts title. The BS+G org becomes the Boy Adventurers or the Boys United or the Rover Boys or the Boy Corps. Individuals and corporations could donate to whichever group they prefer with the check of a box. Parents and Scouts could choose which group they want to join. It's like charter schools - we let the marketplace of ideas contend. If the New Model Scouting (Local Option and/or BS+G) is the one boys clamor to join and parents want their kids to be a part of, it will survive and prosper and the traditional model will die out. Or, possibly the opposite.

For Merlyn, the New Model Scouting can have COs that will admit girls, that will admit atheists, that will admit polygamists, no discrimination at all. Let a thousand flowers bloom, let a thousand schools of thought contend.

The Czechoslovakian Option would probably work better than the Local Option, in my opinion. The traditional Boy Scouts retain their name, customs and traditional moral focus. The New Model Scouting organization gets what it wants, can admit anyone they want, and as they remain two separate organizations, the traditional Boy Scouts retain legal protections by not altering their core moral mission under Dale.

Now, many advocates of the New Model of Scouting may argue that they shouldn't have to give up the brand of Boy Scouts. Fair enough, I would be okay with giving the original title to whichever group is larger.

Or we could do like Czechoslovakia when it split, and divide the name up. The New Model could become the "Boys of America" ("a branch of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc.") and the traditionalists become the "Scouts of America." ("a branch of the Boy Scouts of America, Inc.) Both are free to identify themselves as part of the BSA.

I like this option more than the Local Option, actually. It's probably the best option we can come up with at this time, as some in National have screwed up so monumentally. It doesn't force people (on either side) into moral compromise, clearly differentiates the core missions of the two groups, and lets the free market decide which of the two models of organizations they prefer.

These kinds of events are actually a lot more common than the staged scenario described above: a good man with a CCW intervenes and saves a woman's life. No one gets shot, but the presence of a lawfully owned concealed firearm dissuades a person with evil intentions:

http://fox6now.com/2013/03/12/marine-with-concealed-carry-permit-stops-man-from-beating-woman/

"Be prepared."

Or as Theodore Roosevelt said, "You never have trouble if you are prepared for it."

It works best to do everything in some other photo editing program...and get the dimensions just right...before you submit it. Then repeat the exercise if it still looks wrong.

So are you saying rapist of women or children who are nice and whisper sweet things, and ask "Do you like it?" are not being violent... Sorry, you are dead, dead wrong! A women or child does not need to be killed or cut up to the point of deformity for rape to be a violent act against them.. Nor, for the rapist to gain a sense of power and control over them.

 

Also prepubescent boys and girls are not men & women.. Sorry again you are wrong..

 

Do you also believe that if a women is truely raped she can shut her reproductive system down? And if a women is being raped since she can't do anything about it she should just lie back and enjoy it? But, wait a minute those two words of wisdom contradict each other, if they lie back and enjoy it, then by the other persons words of wisdom, they are no longer being raped, for they are then a willing participant.. I mean unless the women kicks and screams and fights then per wise guy #1 it really isn't rape at all...

There are not many prepubescent boys in the boy scouts, and no girls at all. Why are you talking about them? Prepubescent, pubescent and post-pubescent boys are all males, which is the term I used. Homosexuals are defined by their interest in male persons, as most dictionaries state.

"Science" and "scientists" are a comforting pillar to cling behind, but if you think that an opinion on anything in "science" is settled, then guess what? You may be doing something, but it sure ain't "science."

It is even more difficult to make a claim to authority using "science" when we are discussing soft sciences, like the social sciences, and moreover, when the subject of study is sexual behavior...a field where most of us tend to lie to ourselves and our significant others, much less a 24 year old grad student with a clipboard who is asking us very, very, very personal questions. If you don't think this is true, moosetracker, then quick! - describe on this thread your most embarassing sexual experience!

Still here?

Do you think it possible that much of the evidence social "scientists" are basing their conclusions on is sketchy at best?

I honestly doubt that psychology can have "settled science" in the same way that only the hard sciences can. Perhaps only mathematics can, actually. I don't think the basic axioms of math have changed much over the last thousand years or so, but you can find a graveyard of discarded concepts in physics, in physiology, in astronomy, in cosmology, in biology, in chemistry, and most other "hard" sciences. Google "phlogiston," "spontaneous generation," "the aether," "heliocentrism," "the steady state universe," or "Lamarckism." Each was in their time considered to be state of the art, "settled" science that the experts in their field all cited as fact.

If we look specfically at psychology, the field for which you are claiming an authority, the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis was considered settled science until quite recently. Now it's considered an antique, and most clinicians consider its claims to be pseudoscience at best. Was "science" wrong then, when it claimed that children claiming to be molested by their parents were actually hysterics and that every girl secretly wanted to have sex with her father? If "science" was wrong then, could it be wrong now?

As recently as the 1960s and 1970s, pedophilia and more specifically, pederasty was thought by most psychologists and psychiatrists to be curable and manageable through drugs like Depo-Provera - advice that the Catholic bishops of that era took to heart with tragic results. If we should not have trusted "science" then, why should we trust it when it makes claims about homosexuality now? Because we're smarter now? Many psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, judges, and philosophers claimed that laws against sexual contact with children were the "artifact of a restrictive morality" in the 1970s (the same era as one of the three studies GLAAD cites). "Science" at that time claimed that imprisoned child molesters should be "deinstitutionalized," that intrafamilial child abuse was both extremely rare and less damaging to the child than sexual assault by a stranger, and that children were often complicit in their own rape, and that reporting sexual abuse could be more damaging to the child than silence. And that's from the textbooks, popular culture was much worse!

So why could "science" be wrong then but not now, moosetracker?

Until the APA changed its position on homosexuality, it was the official position of the APA that homosexuality was a behavioral disorder and that it was treatable. Under pressure from homosexual psychologists, they reversed their position. So, was science "wrong" then when it was settled, but is "right" now when the results are more pleasing to an increasingly secular society?

Should we trust "science" more because it is an accordance with our current views of morality? There was not a single scientific or medical textbook on embryology or obstetrics that did not state that human life began at conception until just after Roe v. Wade - a change that did not seem to be based on any new scientific discovery, just a new moral climate. Were embryology and obstetrics "wrong" then and not true "science?"

You could certainly argue that science "evolves," and old concepts are discarded as new ones emerge.

But how do we know when we should hit the scientific Pause button and decide that now, certainly, once and for all...we have "settled" science? Will the claims of social scientists on the inherent safety of homosexuals as leaders in Scouting be held forever, or could they change as science's claims on the mutability of child molesters has changed?

moosetracker further writes: "clarification to my comment about no scientists will state all pedophiles of boys are homosexual - I meant respected scientists.. I am sure you could wrestle up names of some quacks that no one but the homophobic would take seriously."

Gay rights activists like to use "science" as a pulpit, and furthermore to declare that the "science" in this case is already "settled," a done deal, we're right and you're wrong and no taps back.

One of the most efficiently optimized websites for the BSA/Gay issue is this one, sponsored by GLAAD: http://www.glaad.org/blog/dozens-experts-dispel-anti-gay-activists-myth-about-gay-bsa-leaders - helpfully titled "Dozens of Experts Dispel Anti-Gay Activists' Myth About Gay Boy Scout Leaders." It certainly seems popular, as it's one of the first that pops up in any Google search you can see its arguments cut-and-pasted on many websites.

It states that "It is important that parents and educators understand that sexual abuse is about power, not attraction.

Gay people are no more likely to abuse children, and pose no more of a threat to our young people, than the general population.

This has been accepted among experts for decades.

In 1978, researchers studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. 47% were classified as "fixated;" 40% were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; 13% were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. None were classified as gay.

In 1989 researchers in Canada measured the actual arousal of various groups of men when viewing certain photos. They found that gay men were no more attracted to young boys than straight men were to young girls.

In 1991 researchers surveying sex abuse victims in Denver found that only 2% of them had been victimized by someone who identified as gay or lesbian.

There has been hardly any research done in the decades since, because this is a settled issue among experts."

Well, the last sentence is demonstrably false, although the fact that the latest one of the three studies they cite is 22 years old, and the earliest one was conducted in 1978 has to be quickly explained away - much better and more current research has been done (see some of those I cited at the request of DigitalScout, who asked that none of them be sponsored by any religious or pro-family organizations) in the related (and more intellectually honest) field of child abuse studies. It's a fine line to walk, however as any scientists who make statements that the LGBT lobby (or the LGBTQ lobby, or the LGBTQIA lobby, or the even more ponderous LGBTTIQQ2SA - I'm not making that up - lobby) finds inappropriate can expect to be publicly chastised as "homophobic," become the targets of Facebook campaigns to pull their academic tenure, and recieve thousands of emailed death threats, if the experience of, say, Professor Mark Regnerus at UT Austin is any example (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ut-investigates-professors-study-on-children-with-/nRp5t/). The current political environment sounds exactly like the kind of calm, reasoned, dispassionate environment where quality research on human sexuality can be conducted.

The letter makes the same claim you did, Moosetracker, that "sexual abuse is about power, not attraction." To which the answer seems justifiably to be, "Who the hell cares?" Whether its over power or attraction, a boy will get sodomized. As pederasts are inarguably attracted to people over whom they want to exercise power, this argument by both GLAAD and moosetracker seems like quite the exercise in hairsplitting.

It's okay, though, as this is a "settled issue" among "experts." We know this because some of the "experts" who signed this statement of scientific principle include actress Christina Ricci, star of "The Addams Family;" the Reverend Doctor Cindi Love, Executive Director of something called "Soulforce;" Crystal Stehltenpohl, an Actual Graduate Student in the Department of Psychology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; the Reverend Moonhawk River Stone, M.S., LMHC, a psychotherapist in private practice; not simply the Reverend but the Most Reverend Mark Shirilau, Ph.D, who describes himself as the Archbishop and Primate (I'm guessing that is an attempt at a theological description and not a biological one) of something called The Ecumenical Catholic Church, a schism of which the Vatican is probably blissfully unaware; and at least one professor of psychology at an online university that the Florida Attorney General is investigating for fraud. I'm not sure if those people are included among the "dozens of experts" referred to in the title, but I'm making a wild guess that they are. All very valid judges of the scientific method, I'm sure.

moosetracker wrote: "Pedophiles are not interested in sex, they are not aroused by sex.. They are aroused by control and power over someone weaker then they are."

You are partly right, but it's too broad to say a sex offender is not aroused by sex. Control and power expressed through sex, perhaps. What you are describing is actually the opposite end of the continuum for sex offenders, non-preferential sex offenders, who tend to be more violent, have more varied and extensive criminal histories, and are often bisexual in their victim preference.The pederastic (or pedophilic, if we use your term) side is preferential. As all human behavior tends to exist on a continuum, it's not a binary choice and offenders can share characteristics from each group. Those on the preferential end of the continuum tend to have very specific victim preferences and will likely be exclusively homosexual or homosexual. The first is impulsive, the second is compulsive. The first will usually be weeded out by even the minimal background checks the BSA does, the second group (pederasts) are less likely to have a criminal history and more likely to be accepted as a scout leader, even if openly "gay" under the proposed New Model of Scouting.

You know all of this speculation is interesting but is strictly individual opinions and not much else. All of us will have to wait until the decision is made and has been in effect for a while before you can draw any factual conclusions. At the rate National moves it may be another year before they actually make their final decision.

 

Barry, come on now, you really think that this will really destroy the BSA, I rather doubt it, besides the deemphasizing of the outdoor program and skills started in the 70's had already started that process and the watered down program of today is the main reason so many scout packs, troops and crews have lost membership, along with incompetently run councils by incompetent professional scouters who lack any kind of ethical or moral work ethic.

The strange argument you are attempting to make is that a group of males you arbitrarily draw a line around and define as "homosexual" or "gay" includes only those who do not want to have sex with male adolescents, so anything outside your semantic definition must be "heterosexual" or "straight," or a third group that practices homosexual acts (mostly sodomy) but can no longer be described as homosexual. You're doing violence to the English language when you try to do that. Heterosexual males do not have sex with other males, by definition. You are talking about homosexual or bisexual (the "B" in "LGBT") behavior, as defined by the dictionary and common use. There is a perfectly good word that described adult males who want to have sex with adolescent males, "pederasts." The practice of homosexual acts between an adult male and an adolescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent males is "pederasty." It is used by the gay community (some of whom celebrate its practice, both historically and currently), so why not use it when describing who is most at risk to try to molest a scout?

You are using the self-definitions of people who are lying to you. If someone is claiming to be "straight" or "heterosexual," but they are practicing homosexual or bisexual behavior, why would you accept their self-description? Behavior is the truth, not what someone claims to be.

I can't make any sense out of what "This is very, very flawed logic that not even scientists who attempt to prove homosexuals are more likely to... will wander into.." Maybe its because of the new software.

An interesting (older) article from the LDS perspective from sci-fi author Orson Scott Card (whose book "Ender's Game" is recommended for scouts and scouters alike - the movie version is coming out in November), and why the loss of scouting if the LDS pulls its charters for moral issues would be a bad thing for a lot of LDS youth:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/2000/05/What-Will-The-Church-Do-After-Scouting.aspx