mk9750

Ditto, ditto, DITTO! As I have seen Bob White and others say a few times, advancement is a RESULT of a good program, not the purpose of it. If the boys put together a quality program, with the purpose of developing Scout skills, then if I'm not mistaken (and I'm going from memory here), only two requirements for Tenderfoot through 1st Class cannot be learned and earned properly (The drug program, which at least in our area is done through the schools, and meeting an elected official, which, although it would be possible to arrange for one to visit the Troop, we feel there is value in asking the boys to do this on their own. There is a wider range of types of officials contacted, and they get the experience of calling a stranger to request a meeting). Merit badges are specifically inappropriate for Troop meetings. We sometimes ask the SPL to schedule 10 - 20 minutes of Troop meeting time to gather a group of boys who are interested in doing a badge to discuss enmasse the requirements and expectations of the councelor, but no work, and no one-on-one discussion ever takes place at a Troop meeting. This time is far too valuable to the overall program to allow serious chucks of time to be taken away on individual merit badges. I think you should be commended for standing your ground, and continue doing so. And, I am suprised it hasn't been asked or mentioned here, but what is the training level of the existing leaders? I have often said that if our Troop Flag said "Mark's Troop XXX", things would be different. But it says "Boy Scout Troop XXX", and as such every member of the Troop, directed by the adults, should be utilizing the program of the BSA, not their own concept of it. As I have seen discussed between Bob White and others, including me, there has to be some latitude in how the program fits with particular groups. But the program is the program, and nowhere does it allow for boys to be given Tenderfoot with a few requirements undone, nor does it provide for using MB topics as the sole activity of Troop meetings. Good luck to you and your son. Mark

All of the above points are good. He should have a buddy when doing a Merit Badge, ESPECIALLY if it with someone he doesn't know. He should have contacted the councelor before he started. And, a very important part of the MB program is a boy learning to interact with adults. This is even more valuable when it is a stranger. However, at 12 years old, there is reason for a boy to feel aprehensive in this situation. If he was 16, I'd say suck it up and make the call. But a t 12, someone like the Scoutmaster or Advancement chair could help make the initial contact for him. I'd steer away from the parents doing it. There's more harm than good in that. But if a known adult can grease the skids a little with an unknown adult, eventually he will get the confidence to take care of this himself. Don't do it for him, but keep encouraging him to take care of this without procrastination. He'll be a better Scout, and eventually a better man, for it. And this brings up another point. We as adults, and MB councelors in particular for this discussion, should be attentive to these kinds of problems. We can often be the cause of an otherwise great Scout becoming disinterested if we don't meet kids half way. They are learning. They aren't always sure of themselves. We know the ropes, and we can help. Eagledad suggests that maybe the councelor could call the boy. This small gesture, even though it isn't one of the requirements to be a councelor, just might pave the way for a boy to succeed. A phone call is a pretty small price to pay for that. Good luck! Keep at it! Mark

Ryon, Hang in there. If it was easy, everyone could do it. You have the job because you are either qualified, or have the potential to be qualified. A few suggestions: 1) Make sure you get trained. It sounds like the resources might not be available in your Troop for JLT, but even if they aren't hook up with another Troop for this very important training. And get to Council JLT as soon as they offer it. 2) One of your jobs as SPL is to train your replacement. This is the best oppurtunity you have to make your ASPL valuable to you. Use him and his tallents, whatever they are, wisely, and the job eventually will become easy. 3) As much as everyone would like to think, you're not supposed to be good at the job right from the start. It's supposed to be a learning experience, not a demostration of how good you are. Failure occasionally is expected, even though no one likes it. It's admirable you desire to do a better job. It means you care. 4) You mention some of the negetive inducements you have tried to get your Troop mates to fall in line, but have you used anything positive? Even how you frame things can make them appear more positive. Rather than "OK, if you don't quit talking, you'll have to clean your tent", try "If you stop talking, I'll make sure you don't have to clean your tent". Instead of "If you haven't washed your hands, you'll have to eat last", try "First one with his hands washed eats!". 5) Lastly, it just might be that your Scoutmaster, whom you say doesn't help much, is doing you more of a favor than you can appreciate right now. If you become successful, you will have earned the respect of the boys in your Troop on your own. If the SM makes you successful, which he could do, probably, do you think you will get the same level of resect from the guys? Speaking fromn the side of the adults, one of the hardest parts of our jobs is to sit back and let you struggle. It really is hard to do. It's our natural instincts as parents to want to make things easier for you. But if we do, it's not going to teach you the life lessons youshould get out of the program. btw - Don't tell any of your fellow Scouts about this last paragraph. you guys are supposed to think it's all fun and games, and what you learn is supposed to happen without you knowing it. So don't let on there's really a purpose to the game! (LOL) good luck! Mr. K.

BW, I had always heard Scout isn't a rank, but our Council Registrar is requiring that we turn Scout rank awards into the Council now. I think it has something to do with the Computer system BSA has started to use (I can't recall the name of the program). But they are now treating it like a rank, even if it isn't. Mark

packsaddle, Your rights were absolutely violated when you registered to vote, but it certainly wasn't because government (and in this case, if your state is like mine, it wasn't even the federal government, it was a county) was establishing a religion, it was the ignorance of the local elections official(s). You certainly should have argued about this, and brought suit if denied. But I don't see this as evidence of a right wing conspiracy theory to overthrow the citizen's government and establish a theocracy. Nor is the position of Justice Scalia. He is attempting to do his best to defend the intent of the Constitution: That Governement will not establish a national religion. A long time ago I heard this definition of conservatives. They are the people who defend what the liberals of 225 years ago envisioned. This sounds like an issue where this definition is right on the mark. Mark

littlebillie, I am glad that you posted this. I have always read into your posts on the topic that you were somewhat hateful of Scouting, at least with regard to this topic. I think I see now that you are a Scout supporter, just not about this issue. Knowing that allows me to give your comments a little more respect than perhaps I was. Stripped to the bones, Scouting will always be relevant and vital. It has too much to offer, and too many people who know that, to die. Our task is to continue to expand those who know of its value and importance. Seems to me, that just like the baby boomers and echo boomers, Scouting is cyclic too. I remember during the 70's when I was a teen, Scouting's reputation among boys in my area was very weak. Few boys participated. They are parents now, and are helping their children make choices. In addition to the increase in choices available, I'm sure a certain percentage steer their kids away from Scouts because of their negetive opinion formed in their youth. But other time's, the rolls have bulged (in our area, we just finished a 9 or 10 year run of increasing membership). I'll bet in 16 - 24 years, these young people will help guide their children toward Scouting. In the meantime, we all have to work to spread the news about Scouting. The original post I think was way too overblown, but I think it makes a valid point. We at the local level, who can really do good in spreading the word, are hampered by these national political issues that involve Scouting. Scouting should be more agressive defending its position (in my view), or in reviewing it critically (in the view of the other side of the arguement). But they have to help, not hurt our efforts. Mark

I missed one point. If it is tracking down and eliminating terrorism that is the reason, than both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia appear to be more inportant targets right now. Mark

On another thread, someone mentioned how prevelent it is that people are conservative on some issues, and liberal on others. This is a perfect example in my case. I am staunchly conservative, and although I am a declared independant, and will and have voted for a Democrat, my general leaning is hard right. I believe GW IS the right man for our country, and am glad he was elected. This feeling only increased because of the way he handled 9/11. But I can't figure out what our real reason is for the potential attack on Iraq. As with everyone else here, I believe Irag, and more specifically, Saddam, is bad for their region, and for the world. But I haven't seen ANYTHING that makes me stray from my belief that another nation's soveirenty should be attacked. Milosovich was just as much a tyrant, or more, than is Saddam, and we allowed him to continue for years and years before he forced our hand to do something. The USSR in general was a terrible threat to peace for years and years, and we never did anything about them militarily. Dictatorships in South America and elsewhere are further examples. Believe me, I think the best thing would be to remove Sadddam from the picture. But just like I think it would be great for the neighborhood bully to get his due, unless he threatened me or my family directly, I don't think I would be justified in doing anything more than protecting the neighborhood from his tyranny. I certainly don't have the right to storm his house and make him pay for what he might do in the future. I realize that classified information might be the key to GW's decision. It's just that I don't get that feeling. Empty wareheads that could be used? Is that really enough to disregard another country's soveirenty? I just don't see the evidence, and don't get the warm and fuzzies that it's there but just not available to the general public. And other major countries don't see it either (yeah, I know France has always been a weenie, but they're not the only one). As for the likelohood of success, KS, I agree with what I think you are saying. Technology alone would make us so far superior that it's almost unfair. But I think we had that same superiority in Viet Nam, but with no national will to fight this one, which I believe that this sampling of opinion suggests, are we headed for another Viet Nam? I hope not. I pray that God will inspire those who must make such decisions to deliberate very carefully before we commit ourselves to something like this. Wars must be fought, I know. And if they must be fought, we should do everything necesary to win. But if this one isn't needed, I'd much rather avoid it. Mark

It relates to Scouting in that I have four Eagle Scouts who are turning 18 in the next 6 weeks in my Troop. I have 11 Eagle Scouts and two others that have been out of my Troop for 1 - 7 years, two of which are in the military, one in Kuwait. And it relates to Scouting in the same way that both Citizenship of the Nation and Citizenship of the World do. If it is inappropriate for this forum, I apoligize and plead ignorance. I saw a thread concerning supporting our Troops, and felt that my question was on par with that. Mark

What is everyone's opinion on the imminent war with Iraq? I'm not talking about support for our troops, That should be an obvious given. But how about opinions on its validity, and on the likelihood of success? I'd be curious to see how others feel. Mark

kwc57, I said earlier that I probably should bow out of this discussion and let more intellegent people carry on. I probably will wish I had heeded my own advise, but here goes: Scriptures were written by humans, inspired by God, but framed in the context of their understanding of the world. Hence, there are a lot of examples of things that seemed acceptable in the day they were written (stoning people comes to mind, in addition to slavery), but are not acceptable now. Your question I think is good acedemically, but I can't believe anyone in this forum would take up the arguement that any of the things that were acceptable in Biblical times but are not now should still be OK. Can anyone here really say that there is any chance God allowed slavery because he thought it was good? Rather, I think He allowed it because he determined that humans should have free will, and this free will allowed humans to make many mistakes, even on the magnitude of slavery. littlebillie: Please feel free to call me Mark or MK9750, or late for dinner (not many have called me late for dinner!). We disagree, but we are friends both in Scouting, and on this forum. I am sorry to say that I have to profess ignorance - What is UUA? I am not familiar with them or the issue that you mention. And it's stuff like this that makes me even more certain I should back away and let more knowledgable people continue. Mark

lv, As much as I disagree with you on two issues very important to us both, I too am sad to see us lose you. I must protest your use of the terms bigotry and intolerance. Are you not as bigoted and intolerant in your position as you think Scouting (and those that defend) is? I'd rather believe that neither are being so ugly. Scouting's position is AT LEAST as reasonable as is yours. If yours is a reasonable position, and Scouting's position is its equal, than either both are bigoted and intolerant, or neither are. And as one who thinks, at least in this case, that BSA is right, I take your comment personally. And it offends me. I am not bigoted, and I am only intolerant of that which I have absolute belief to be wrong, as I assume you do too. Mark

littlebillie, Can I admit you make a great point about the tea party without saying I agree with it? Here's why I ask: Take any topic in the past that was heatedly debated: Slavery, taxation w/o representation, to name a few, and it is mostly fair to say that the majority, or at least those that held the power, believed their position was right. We now know they were wrong. How can something widely held as moral or right become immoral or wrong? And if it can happen in those cases, could it not happen with other issues, like homosexuality? Obviously, you can see that I get your point. But I still, stubornly, disagree. And I think the way I defend my position is to say that those things (slavery, taxation) were wrong whether the majority called them wrong or not. Morality doesn't change. People's understanding of moralty does. When enough people have their understanding changed, society's perception of rightness or wrongness changes. Could this happen to the issue of homosexuality? Yes, it could. but I don't think it will. I don't believe the majority of any society will come to accept homosexuality as normal. Other cultures in other times have done so for short periods of time, but it has never lasted. Can I be sure of my position? Absolutely not. But I am convinced I am right. tj really knew what he was dong, didn't he? This discussion has provoked a great amount of interest, and creative debate. Mark

Twocubdad, I sense that one of the posts you take to task with your discussion of the "love it or leave it" issue was mine. If so, let me offer this. I see merit in both sides of the arguement as to whether tj or other homosexuals could or should be asked to leave Scoutiing. I also see merit in both sides of the arguement as to whether Scouting should even limit membership to those who are not gay, regardless of how that is defined. My point is that if Scouting does desire to avoid homosexual leaders, it should not matter whether they "can" kick someone out. I believe that someone who knows they violate the rules, and has no intention of stopping, should voluntarily leave. I see this as the honorable thing to do. As to your disagreement of the rule, everyone should respect that. Not only should you have every right to disagree, you should have every oppurtunity to argue against it. But until and unless it is changed, I think we all have an obligation to follow it. You use the Scout pants as an analogy, and it is very appropriate. You don't like them. I think they are fine. You surely can (and should) work to change what you see as wrong, and, even though I disagree, I must respect your position. However, even though you don't like them, want them to be changed, and try to effect that change, until it is changed, you should be wearing the Scout pants when it is appropriate for you to be in uniform, and requiring that of your Scouts when it is appropriate. Both of these are great examples of the point I was trying to make about disagreeing with the Catholic church's position on contraception. I don't like it, I don't agree with it. But I abide by it. If I knew I had no intention of abiding by it, even though no one might ever find out (if I didn't avow that I was a contraceptive user), I think the right thing for me to do would be to stop calling myself a Catholic. That doesn't mean that people of other faiths whose beliefs allow birth control are wrong. But they have their church, one that allows them to use contraception without guilt, and I follow the mandates of my church. tj, you hit a funny bone with your comment about assuming every post should be the end of the conversation. I do it all the time. I think the above should be the final word. But I bet not. Mark

Yes, tough one indeed. I would guess that the Dad is staying for the weekend, but is not a SM or ASM, right? If that's the case, he likely doesn't understand the hardship he causes by leaving. If so, I would have two suggestions. The first would be to explain to the Dad what the conseguences of them leaving are to the boys and Dads left, and strongly suggest that they not do so again. The second is a little more radical. Our experience has been that often these kind of father / son duos could benefit from a little more time away from each other. If they seem to always hang around each other during the campout, if they take hikes by themselves at the exclusion of group activities on a regualr basis, etc., I think this is a sign that Dad is being a bit too overbearing on his son. The Scout often needs the oppurtunity to strike out on his own, and Dad's presence at the campout is a hinderance in doing so. It's difficult, because I think any parent should be allowed to join any activity anytime they want, but in this case, we would certainly strongly suggest that the dad be discouraged from attending the next campout or two. This I think starts to deal with the root cause of the problem, which is the constant presence of Dad in the Scouts Scouting life. Most full time leaders know how important giving their son space on a campout is, and work hard to do so even when they both go on all of the campouts. Part time leaders (which is the best term I can think of for the dads that go on all of the campouts but not much else) often don't realize this. One added idea is to arrange the transportation so that he is needed to drive more than just his son home. If he has to stay or a couple of boys can't get home, I think he'd stay. And, if all else fails, I'd be tempted to entice my PLC to decide to schedule the next campout so that we were breaking camp early enough Sunday morning to include these two. I think it would only take one time for them to either get the message, or for peer pressure to take over. Mark

Our Troop currently has three patrols with @ 40 boys. Except that each patrol has its own quartermaster (to whom the Troop Quartermaster dispenses gear when a patrol needs Troop gear), the patrols only other leadership positions are PL and APL. At a Troop level, we have all of the standard positions, plus a webmaster. We hold elections every 6 months, however, as I described in another thread, our elections seem to be a stepping stone process, where mostly everyone just moves up a notch. Den Chiefs are identified and assigned, but they only qualify for credit as a leadership position if they have been able to fulfill the function. This doesn't always happen, because packs don't always accept our offer to provide Den Chiefs. With this structure, we still have absolutely no problem with boys lacking leadership positions when they need them. I suspect that there are a couple of reasons for this. First, the boys seem to know who needs or will be needing a position, and find a way to elect those that do (I think we don't get the best leaders like that, but it does kind of make me feel good they try to take care of each other that way), and secondly, we tend to not have many positions filled by Scouts less than 1st Class, meaning those positions are available to the boys that need them for their next rank. If you have a lot of Tenderfoots and 2nd Class Scouts being Scribe, for instance, the likelihood is that the job will not get done as effectively as if it were done by a higher rank, older Scout. This is because maturity has to help a boy do a better job, and... (waiting for Bob White to jump on me...) our Scoutmaster conferences and Boards of Review require conversation and some evidence of effectiveness in a leadership position. I started to type "luckily", but decided to scratch it because it isn't luck that causes our youth leaders to generally meet the expectations of their position. They know in advance that "effective" leadership is our criteria, and most work to meet that expectation. And "effective" to us does not mean absence of failure. If it did, no one would advance in our Troop. But it does mean that first, the boy recieved training, second, he put significant effort into the job, and third, he learned from both his sucesses and his failures. In my 6 years with the Troop, two people have been held back for not meeting this standard, and one of them was my son. I supported the decision 100%, as I know how little effort he put into his first responsiblity. It was the best thing Scouting has done for him. He now takes all of his responsiblities more seriously most of the time (he is only 13!). He does better in school, he is a better Scout and a better leader, and he actively participates in our Troop level JLT as an instructor now (the adults have joked that if he is the example of the results we would get by holding a kid to a higher standard BEFORE he advances, we aught to arbitrarily hold them all back! LOL). Man, I promised myself I wasn't going to allow this to get long. Sorry! Point is, I believe there are plenty of leadership positions available if handled properly. Mark

tj: Thanks for the olive branch. I am glad that my inadequate efforts to describe my position did not overshadow the genuineness of my respect for you. I had two reasons for my use of the work "lifestyle". Mostly, it was an easy catch all word for homosexuality, homosexual tendencies, and activities. But I do admit that I intententally used the word to convey my belief that it is a choice, not predetermined. Also, I assure you that my participation will not change regardless of whether I know a gay person is here. I get a real kick out of people using the work "Homophobe" (it has not been used in this thread, i don't believe). My wife calls me a homophobe all of the time. I take this to mean I am afraid of homosexuals or homosexuality. I am neither. I admit that my exposure to gay people has been limited (as far as I know - and I realize that just that comment supports much of your side of the discussion). I may disagree with it, but it, or the people who practice it, do not frighten me. sctldr said: "As Leaders, we have an obligation to prepare the youth to survive in TODAY's world and the world of the future, which may or may not coincide with "traditional" values." I've got to say that this is one of the most balanced statements I have seen on this topic. We ARE responsible to guide today's Boy Scouts to live, work and lead in the world they will find when they get there. Homosexuality will be a part of that world. To think otherwise is burying our head in the sand. Whether gays are or are not permitted to belong to Scouting, we do our boys a disservice if we do not adress it. In contrast to others who have said we should ignore all sexuality, I think that we as leaders should actively help guide boys toward healthy and moral attitudes about sex. This has to be done while respecting the family's role and authority to guide their own child as the first authority. But we surely must address it, just as we adress 1st aid, leave no trace, and any other topic which might be important or an influence on them. We would have to know each other much better than we can through this forum, but my impression of you is such that if it were confirmed after getting to know you, I would be honored to have you be an influence on my children (assuming you didn't try to persude them to be gay, which I don't imagine you would). This is a tremendous compliment from me, and I hope you see it as such. I tell you because I truly hold nothing against you because you are gay. Let's be honest: On the scale of bad things to be, being gay even in my view is far closer to being moral than being a child molester, a rapist or a murderer. I made my position known how I feel about your relationship with Scouting, I think. Should Scouting change its principles I would like for you, and others who are as dedicated, to be the first back in the program. But until they do, my opinion is that you and Scouting are not the match that you think you are. Mark

Now that I go back and read page one of the posts, I see that I am wrong, and ScoutParent did say that. Another apology. Perhaps I will now act on my offer to retreat and let better minds take up the discussion. Mark

tj, You attributed a quote to ScoutParent I think that actually I made. It would be ashame to allow him or her to take any critism you mean for me. I belive you do not live up to the Scout Oath and Law in that you are not being truthful about your lifestyle. Do we all have to be truthful about ours? No, because ours does not violate BSA rules. Additionally, everyone can see how I live, happily married. I do not live a lie to the Scouting part of my life. I believe this is contrary to the first point of the Law. If I were I to cheat on my wife, this would be immoral, and not living up to the requirement that I be morally straight. There is no rules against unfaithful members (I think there should be, but again, by my membership I agree to the rules as they are). Participating in homosexual activity is just as immoral (or not morally straight) as is infidelity. Therefore, you do not live up to your commitment to be morally straight as an active homosexual. Your arguement about the belief Muslims have about money does back me into a corner, I must admit. At the same time I believe both that what is morally correct is an absolute, and not subject to personal interpretation, and that each person must be true to his own religion. It will take one more intelligent than me to help reconcile that dichotomy. I am not aware of the arguement you make that the BSA's stand is based on religous (particularly LDS's) opposition to homsexuality. I have nothing to offer as proof, but I don't believe this is the sole, or even major basis for the position. But, even if it were, I believe I have heard that the backbone of the BSA is it's Charter Organization partnerships, and as such it is probably proper that they do have an influence on policy. I am sorry that my opposition to your lifestyle looks like a comdenation of you. I really don't mean it to seem that way. But, just as I think you work so hard to convince others you are right because you belive in it so strongly, I feel compelled to argue the opposite. I bring very little in the way of facts or evidence, and perhaps for that I should retreat and let others who do have such make the arguement better than do I. But I cannot sit on the sidelines without protesting your position: Doing so to me implies that I agree, and I won't. One more time, I wish you the best. Mark

kwc57, You caught me not checking the dictionary for an exact definition, and I apoligize. However, you seem to have gotten the biggest part of my point. tj and others break at least the spirit of the rules by being homosexual. Regardless of anyone's knowledge, one cannot actively participate in homosexual activity and justify those actions as in alignment with the Scout Oath and Law. SagerScout, If the inclination toward homosexual tendencies is not chosen, as I think you argue, (I disagree, but I admit that disagreement is not based on any thorough knowledge of the science on the issue), than yes, I do believe that one could choose not to participate, just as people choose not to participate in heterosexual conduct that is inappropriate. It happens all of time. The obvious example is in the Catholic priesthood (well known and sad examples excluded), but more often it happens in everyday life that people deny their sexual urges. Singles who are as of yet or decide to remain unmarried, even married people who find themselves away from their spouse for extended periods all often choose to control their urges. Many people do this at least in part, because they believe to do otherwise is wrong (immoral, sinful, hurtful, or whatever wrong is). If one can choose to control heterosexual urges, than one could control homosexual urges if they believed them to be wrong. Therein lies the issue. Homosexuals do not believe the practice to be wrong. A legitimate disagreement between their position and the BSA's for sure. But since the BSA can make its own rules, and expect its members to comply, it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. To answer two other questions you raise: Yes, I believe as sexual human beings most anyone could (and probably have) have at least some sexual attraction to someone of the same sex. The libido is strong enough to overcome many societal barriers to satisfy itself, if not controlled. Secondly, I can only speak for myself, but I cannot come before this forum and address this topic as pure myself. I am not proud of many things I did in my younger days, but I have to admit to doing them. I also have asked for forgiveness from those whom I harmed, including God. It is this profession of contrition that allows me to begin each day with a clean slate. Without contrition, and the intention to not repeat my failures, I don't feel I could be living up to my promises, to my family, my friends, the BSA, or God. Again, I hope I am being clear here. Although I believe homosexuality is wrong, I don't feel that I am in a position to judge for someone else that they are wrong. That is God's place. But I think it is fair for me to present my opinion when it comes to the BSA. Mark

Merlyn, Do you really think that the test for being "avowed" is acknowledgement? Do you not believe that if any member committed a crime, continued to commit a crime, and had no intention of stopping from committing that crime, though done secretively, he is not an "avowed" criminal? Please do not misunderstand. I am using an analogy, not saying homosexuality is a crime. But largely how we do or do not live up to rules and regulations is not publicly known. If we break a rule, and intend to continue to break a rule, and do so knowingly,it is incumbent on us, on our own, to acknowledge to ourselves that we are not living up to our Oath. Doing anything less is not being true to ourself, or the organization we say we serve. Mark

tj, First, to answer your question, I agree with scoutparent that your chosen life style is contrary to the policy quoted. I also believe that you continue to disregard the Oath and Law you agree to live by. We all fail, me more than most. But I don't wake up every day knowing that I will fail to live up to my Oath. I find a new and exciting way that life humbles me every day. You know every day that you cannot honestly profess to living the Scout Law and Oath. Secondly, and I fear this will be seen as insincere, but I really do mean it. I would prefer that rather than you leaving Scouts, you left your life style. I am rather new to this forum, and therefore have not benefitted from your participation as much as had I been around as long as have you. But I can tell that you are a sincere, good man who has a lot to offer the community, and probably youth specifically. Being that I believe so strongly in the BSA, I wish that this is where you could be of service. However, if you choose not to conform, I believe you chosse not to belong. I think that is sad, for, as I said, I think you probably are valuable to the program. Sadly though, I suspect that you believe you cannot alter your choice. If you really believe you cannot, please, PLEASE use your compassion and your talents somewhere. The world needs people who care, and you seem to be a gem. I will respect you for doing so (not as if my respect should mean much to anyone). But please respect the BSA's position. I think it is both right and righteous. But even if it is wrong, it is their rule, and they have the right to demand acceptance by its members. Mark

tj, I also have the same question Ed has. How do you, or those in Scouting who know the whole truth, justify that with being Trustworthy? I am 100% certain that you are a valuable member of the Scouting movement. I am 100% certain that your lifestyle is wrong. I am 100% certain that regardless of my opinion, you should lead the life you chose. But finally, I am 100% certain that if the BSA says that you should not be in Scouting, you should not be in Scouting. I am reletively sure that there are plenty of men who would make great Catholic priests, but cannot because they choose to be married. It is sad to lose valuable assests to the Church or to Scouts, but if the insitiutions do not welcome those in the category of person in which we find ourself, we should know enough not to ask to be included. I wish you good luck, and I hope that whatever you do, your influence on youth will be positive. Mark

KS, you out there? We haven't heard anything from you on your boys' trip. At least I am interested in hearing about it. Mark

I get quite a bit frustrated reading the debates over this issue. Many people feel that homosexuality is acceptable, many others feel it is not. I am in the camp of the latter. However, I respect, and DEFEND the rights of the others to believe as they see fit. They may certainly utilize their rights and speak about it and promote it. They may utilize other rights and associate freely with others who are of like mind, and they may exclude those whose beliefs are not consistent with their own. They can even start an organization that has the same activities, advancement themes, etc., as Boy Scouts, but are accepting of homosexuality. But I fail to see where anyone has the right to try to force a person, or a group of people, into accepting something which they abhor. It is just as wrong for people to try to do so as it is for me to join someone else's group and try to force them to change their core beliefs. As a young adult, I remember struggling with the Catholic Church's position on contraception. My parents were very clear: If you decide you want to belong to any group, you agree to accept all of the rules of that group. You are free not to like them, but you agree to follow them. I may be of the opinion that homosexuality is wrong, but I also believe in some else's right to believe otherwise. One of the things that draws me to Boy Scouts is it's position on this issue. I wish people would discontinue asking it to change. To think that this would be the last word on the topic would be ridiculous of me. However, I wish someone could phrase it so that everyone would get it. Mark