NJCubScouter

I don't know what you mean here either - unless the "freedom" you are talking about is the "freedom" to control other people. Some people have always tried to do that in the name of religion. If they are finding it increasingly dificult to control what other people do, that means more actual freedom, not less.

Moderator's Note: In light of Packsaddle's request that this topic get back on topic, but because I thought that the discussion of marriage had sort of taken on a life of its own, I decided to move the seven posts on that subject (including mine) to a new topic, "Court rulings on marriage." Basically I split the topic. Due to the way the forum software works, it looks like Seattle Pioneer started that topic, when it was really just spun off from his post, but there is nothing I could do about that.

What knee-jerk reaction? The movement for marriage equality has been going on for about 25 years, it's not a new thing nor did it achieve immediate success. Now it has achieved some success, but still not completely. And what has been "messed up"? Who are you referring to?

I don't understand what this means either. Gay people are, gradually, getting the right to marry, which is no more than the rights the rest of us have had forever. How is that "special rights"?

That hurts, considering that my first career was as a newspaper reporter and editor. (I switched careers in 1983, to give you an idea of when we're talking about here.) But I guess it is true, because of the three "paying" newspapers that I worked for (either in summers during college or as a "real" job), one went completely defunct about 20 years ago, one is now a "free paper" and the third, a daily newspaper, still exists, but it probably has half the circulation it did back in the day, they sold the huge building I worked in (which has since been torn down) and moved to a small rented office, and the staff has been merged with that of another newspaper, and the really "local" news is few and far between. So there are still "papers," but not like there were... partly because those Gen Xers and younger (including Stout and my children) don't read them.

And by the way Alex, the membership resolution does not use the word "attraction", it says: No youth may be denied membership in the Boy Scouts of America on the basis of sexual orientation or preference alone. I'm not sure that attraction, orientation and preference all mean the same thing. And yes, I do see the word "alone", and I know what it says in the introductory language about behavior. I also know that there have been some sexually active Scouts, meaning heterosexual Scouts who are not "celibate" in their private lives (outside the troop), probably from the very beginning. And there are some now. So now what do we do?

I think most people are interpreting that to mean behavior IN THE UNIT. Not what we think or hear or assume might be going on somewhere else. Or do you think the policy allows us (or REQUIRES us?) to ask a young man what is going on in his personal life? Are Scouters supposed to be asking Scouts what they are doing on dates? Are they allowed to? I'm curious as to how your interpretation of this policy would work in practice.

You have a source you can cite for that, Alex? I don't remember reading the word "celibate" in the new policy. (Much less "totally celibate.") And unless I am mistaken, in the year and a half since the new policy was announced, I don't think I have ever seen anyone claim that is what the policy is, either on this forum or anywhere else. Now, if you are saying that a Scout that brags to other Scouts about his sexual exploits should be removed from Scouting, that's a different subject. I'm not sure that's the national policy, though. If it is, or if that policy can be applied as a matter of local option (cough cough), then it should apply regardless of orientation. In other words, we shouldn't be hearing about the young man's private activities, regardless of the gender of the other participant. (I'm fairly sure that if an adult got wind of such discussions in my troop, there would be at least one stern warning before any action was taken.) But now we're not discussing "celibacy," we're discussing TALKING about celibacy, or the lack thereof. Where does celibacy itself get into the picture?

That may have been what the agreement said, but I think what it really allowed them to do (and what they were really after) was to imply that they had some connection to the BSA. I remember at some point someone here posted a link to an interview with a leader of the AHG about some activity they were doing or some other organization they had an agreement. This talked about whatever she was asked about for about 5 seconds and then started talking about their agreement with the BSA and how great it was, which she had not been asked about at all. I got the impression this was her standard speech. They were definitely trying to hitch their wagon to the BSA, until the BSA decided that openly gay kids don't need to be thrown out until their 18th birthday, which apparently offended their religious beliefs.

We do not have formal introductions at Eagle BOR's in our district. From what I have gathered from this forum in the past, practices regarding these things seem to vary from council to council, and sometimes from district to district within councils. If introductions are the custom in your district, qwasze's sounds pretty good. Brief and to the point. The only thing I might consider adding would be a sentence or two about the candidate's project. Of course, since these things do vary, you may want to take the direct approach: Call up the DAC and say something like "At our last board of review you seemed to be expecting me to provide more information about the candidate. In the future I would like to be able to provide the board with what it is looking for. Can you give me some guidance?" If he is a decent guy he will appreciate it, and next time maybe you won't be getting quizzical looks that you don't know how to answer.

::tap tap::

AZMike, I know what it means, and you're right. I must have misinterpreted that image when I first saw it, but in retrospect, I'm not quite sure how. Maybe the fact that Pogo is "playing" a woman got me a little confused.

I decided to actually answer your questions, even though they sort of got buried under the jokes. Question 1: Forum members can send flag reports when you see advertising, as several of you already do. I would say the majority of the reports are acted on within 24 hours, most of the remainder within 48 hours. Occasionally a "reported" post will not be removed, because the moderators have (either individually or collectively) decided that it has some merit in a Scouting discussion even though it may also be seeking customers or donations for something. As for the moderators, we can delete posts and threads or move them to where you-all can't see them, and we can also ban the users, though the latter has little real efect because the spam-bots or spam-actual-people can just make new accounts. Question 2: Not that I am aware of, but keep in mind I am one of the most recent batch of moderators appointed in this forum. Does anyone know differently?

I just carted last night's and today's shipments of spam out to the trash. At least, I hope I did, half the time it gives me an error message and about 80 percent of THOSE times it actually did what I asked it to, while simultaneously telling me it couldn't. If there is still spam please use the "Flag" button and one of us garbagemen, I mean Super Moderators, will take care of it at our earliest opportunity. By the way, the Swedish one seems to be part of a growing trend toward spam from foreign lands. I love progress.

Yes newscouter3, there is a matter of perspective going on here. For my troop that does most of its camping in NJ, PA and NY, 33 degrees in the late fall through early spring would seem positively tropical. Next month they are going to Maryland, where You Never Know. I went on that trip twice and had two very different experiences. But as long as you FEEL cold, the above advice from our fellow Scouters will do the trick.

Originally I thought this thread was skating near the edge of Issues and Politics territory, but I wanted to take a wait and see attitude. I waited, and I saw skeptic's post, with it's references to a change that some people believe is necessary as "PC nonsense." So here it is now in Issues and Politics for the debating pleasure of all of you. Stosh, I will have to let others try to figure out what point you are trying to make, because I sure can't.

I'll ask you for a second time, Stosh: What changes are you referring to, that you think have changed public perceptions of the Boy Scouts?

Is that first paragraph a quote from someone? I couldn't even find it at that link. And "Snow Day # 1" seems to be some anonymous person on the Internet, and he isn't really saying anything about the Boy Scouts. As for YOUR comments, exactly what changes are you talking about? Red shoulder loops replaced by green? The EDGE method? Or what?

Scoutldr hit the nail on the head, and made me laugh as well. "Awkward" family situations, that leave a Cubmaster or other leader in the spot of having to figure out who has the right to who and to be where, and when - which is really not part of the job description, even if the leader happens to be an attorney - were with us long before same-sex marriage entered the picture. I don't know why it would be a surprise that gay people present some of the same issues. Same species, same issues. And wait till some married gay people start getting divorced, get into custody disputes, etc., I can hear it now: See, SEE, gay marriage doesn't work. To which the response would be, I guess heterosexual marriage doesn't work either, since so many straight people get divorced, have custody disputes, etc.

Following up on what Alex and Papadaddy said, when I first saw this thread it made me think of the Lions program. (Not the Lions that existed when I joined Cub Scouts, which was for 10-year-olds and was eliminated in favor of making Webelos a full-year program, this was around 1967, but Lions as a kindergarten program.) It seems like its been five or more years since it became a pilot program in some councils. I have heard of some Lions programs that seemed to be part of a pack, and some that seemed to be separate and were technically part of "Learning for Life." It all seemed to be very experimental, with it being organized differently in different places. The fact that it has gone on for so long without being adopted nationally has led me to believe that National probably does not intend to do so, but that's just a guess. It's been a pretty long "experiment." I personally think such a program would be a mistake, although admittedly I have no direct experience with a Cub program for kindergartners. I do have experience with the Tiger program, however, and in my opinion some of the kids weren't really ready in the first grade. I can't imagine what a Cub program for kids a year younger, some of whom are still essentially toddlers, would look like. I understand the philosophy and strategy of starting the program at the youngest feasible age, but I think kindergarten is too young. Such a program would resolve the issue raised in this thread. Well, part of it. It would not resolve the issue of a Cubmaster who is falsifying registration records, if that is indeed what is happening. I am wondering whether the original poster has had a chance to speak with the Cubmaster as I suggested previously.

Good ideas from qwasze and RememberSchiff. I remember back in the mists of time in my son's Cub Scouting days, we had a law enforcement agency (I am pretty sure it was federal - customs, maybe) bring in one of their drug-sniffing dogs. Huge hit with both the Cubs and the adults. I had never heard or read about how the dogs are actually trained to detect the different kinds of drugs. It was very interesting. I am sure we had a police officer come in once or twice, but I don't remember any inordinate badgering by the kids about their weapons and equipment. Of course, that was a long time ago.