NJCubScouter

DLChris says: I would be very careful about making that distinction though. I didn't make any distinction, and I agree with you, one should be careful. As I said, I think there will be all kinds of polls before the election telling us what issues are affecting the election, and I think it will be mostly nonsense. And then after the election "they" will tell us what made the difference, but that will be mostly nonsense as well. The fact is that in a close election (which this will most likely be) it is really impossible to tell what made the difference, because every issue contributes to the result in some way. Personally I think the election will be determined mainly by (a) peoples' perceptions of how the economy is doing, (b) peoples' perceptions of whether Romney really has any answers to the economic issues, and © which candidate people decide they "like" more. I think that's what determined the 2008 election, and in my opinion © does not get enough "credit" from most people. I think a lot of people listened to McCain and said something like, "This isn't really a nice guy. Do we really want to listen to this guy talk every day for the next four years?" I sure didn't, though that isn't why I voted the way I did. If you notice the absence of any real ideological issues on my list, that's correct. Although you wouldn't know it from a lot of the discussions in this forum, I don't think the majority of people, and certainly not independents, vote that way. So no, I don't think the gay marriage thing is going to be a big issue. I think Obama made his comment because he is trying to generate more enthusiasm among the "Democratic base," and his apparent opposition to gay marriage was annoying to some. I think he also figures that almost everybody who would vote against someone because they support gay marriage, wasn't voting for him anyway.

Only time will tell. There are now "Lion" programs in some places that, unlike the 10-year-old Lion Dens that were eliminated a year before I would have been in one, allow kindergartners to be, essentially, Cub Scouts. In my school district, a child in kindergarten can be as young as 4 years 11 months old. I have no doubt that at some point in the near future, this will become a part of the nationwide Cub Scout program. But why stop there? Our school district also has a pre-kindergarten program for some kids, and they can be as young as 3. So after kindergarten-Lions becomes established, is the BSA going to start a pre-K program too? Including the kid on the cover of Time Magazine, who is still "attached" to Mom?

So, Engineer61, what you are saying is that announcing that he is in favor of gay marriage could help the President win re-election? Wouldn't that be something? It would certainly say something about where the country really is on the issue. I am not so sure myself, but I am sure there will be several dozen polls between now and the election, just on the issue of gay marriage, to give us conflicting and ultimately meaningless information on how it will affect the election.

OGE says: I seem to recall Kirk saying something like "Star Fleet learned years ago they could not control love, so they stopped trying" or something like that. I don't remember that, and at times in my life I have been sort of a borderline "Trekkie" to the point where I probably would at least have some idea of the context or something about the episode. I also tried a couple of Google searches and couldn't find it. I also have to say that there were several references in several of the Star Trek series about how officers, especially the captain, should not be fraternizing with his (or her) underlings. On the other hand, and perhaps more to the point of the thread, I do recall one "Next Generation" episode that specifically addressed the issue of "forbidden love", with great sympathy for those who are expected to conform to the norms of society in violation of their own personal feelings. It was a very thinly disguised expression of sympathy for gay people, the disguise being that the inhabitants of the planet in question were androgynous, not of any particular gender. I believe their society forbade them from engaging in intimate relationships at all, and they instead procreated in some more sophisticated manner. So of course one of the people on planet found that her "female side" was winning out, and fell in love with... who else? Commander Riker. Much drama ensued, and in the end the alien (well, she wasn't an alien where she was, it was her own planet) was "reprogrammed" by her people so she was no longer in love with our favorite first officer, who was usually much more successful in the arena of amour. (And it appeared, in a couple of episodes and films, that he adhered to Kirk's philosophy (as reported by OGE) that one cannot always control how one feels about one's subordinate Starfleet officers, either.) It was one of the sadder episodes, I thought. But there isn't too much question of what they were talking about. Then there was the one that, in a way, dealt with the "gay issue" more directly, but not as the central focus of the episode. It was the one with the Trill who fell in love with Doctor Crusher while he was inhabiting the body of a man, and then when the host died, he (it?) was switched into the body of a woman (though in between it was the body of... who else? Commander Riker), and the female host was still in love with Doctor Crusher, who awkwardly mumbled something about... ok, I'll go look it up. "Perhaps it is a human failing, but we are not accustomed to these kinds of changes. I can't keep up. How long will you have this host? What would the next one be? I can't live with that kind of uncertainty. Perhaps, someday, our ability to love won't be so limited." You can't get too much more blatant than that last sentence. There apparently was some criticism, in both directions, regarding the apparent issue of homosexuality in the episode, as well as some hedging by the writers about what they were really talking about, see http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Host_%28episode%29. A lot more than you wanted, I'm sure.

Eagledad asks: I'm courious, does anyone know any other country now or in history where marriage was anything other than a man and wife? Apparently, Merlyn interpreted this to include "multiple marriages" and other exotic relationships, and focused on a more historical perspective (i.e. concubinage in the Bible, etc.) I, on the other hand, assume that Eagledad was more straightforwardly asking whether anyone knows of any countries where same-gender marriage is (or has been) permitted. (And after all, same-gender marriage is the subject of this thread, though I realize that sticking to the subject of a thread is sort of a novelty around here.) Here is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject (and I think someone else posted part of this): Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in the Brazilian state of Alagoas,[2] Mexico City and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, parts of the United States, and all states of Brazil and Mexico. Australia recognises same-sex marriages only by one partner changing their sex after marriage.[3] As of 2012, proposals exist to introduce same-sex marriage in at least ten other countries. The entire article, including the footnotes, and a lot more detail and links to articles about same-sex marriage in many of the individual countries, is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage (By the way, I am a firm believer in the idea that "you can't always believe what you read on Wikipedia", but in fact this article seems to be well-researched and there is no reason to believe it is not accurate.) It is an interesting article, containing among many other tidbits that one of the first couples to become married under Iceland's new same-gender marriage law was the current Prime Minister and her partner. So the answer to Eagledad's question is, yes, there are some countries, and there are likely to be more as time goes on -- including more and more parts of this country.

Oh. Well, I guess I misunderstood your post, Beavah. Maybe I got confused because the issue of whether the government should be involved in marriage really has nothing to do with the subject of this thread, which is whether under the existing system where the government DOES recognize (or not recognize) marriage, that recognition should extend to people who are of the same gender. If you (and others) want to discuss life on some other planet where the government is not involved in whether people are married or not, that might be interesting for another thread. Here on this planet (or in this part of it, anyway, other parts have already resolved the issue) the question is whether the government sanction should apply to 95-98 percent of the population, or all 100 percent.

BS-87: I don't see the president doing any "clamoring" on this issue. He was asked his opinion, and quietly and calmly gave it, including his opinion that the federal government should not be legislating on the issue anyway. It is a subject he has given his opinion on several times over the years, and now he has changed his mind about it -- as I did a few years ago, and as millions of other people have over the years. If there was some political calculation involved -- well, there's a presidential election in six months, what do you expect? What do you think Mitt Romney is doing right now, but preparing to shift his entire platform and rhetoric closer to the "center", because he is about to be addressing a different audience than he was before he wrapped up the nomination. Beavah, what makes you think that gay marriage is going to make a "furball" out of these various areas of the law? Basically it's going to mean that about 2 to 5 percent of the population that hasn't previously had the right to get married (or get divorced) will now have those rights. Big deal. And several states have gay marriage already, and several others have civil unions in which the participants have (almost) all the rights of married couples, they just call it a civil union and they call the divorce a "dissolution." The state I live in has civil unions, and the only additional legal issues I am aware of is that many of those involved claim that they aren't really being given all the rights of married couples. Earlier this year the majority-Democratic legislature passed a bill expressly recognizing gay marriage and the Republican governor vetoed it. One of these years the political stars will align differently and we will have gay marriage in New Jersey. When we do, most people will hardly notice it, just like they hardly notice civil unions now, unless they or a relative or friend are in one. To those who think that allowing gay marriage will somehow damage or threaten the "institution" of marriage, I would point out that we heterosexuals (as a group) have done more than our share of damage to that institution already. Look at all the celebrity marriages that end in divorce, with custody battles, adults behaving like children, etc. -- heck, most of you can probably just look around your own families. Between my relatives and my wife's relatives, I see a tremendous amount of damage to the institution of marriage over the years, all involving marriages of one man and one woman. But don't worry, gay people will have their share of divorces, custody battles, adults acting like children, etc. It's because they are people, not because of the gender of who they marry.

SM: "Scant minutes"? Or, "Secretary missing"?(This message has been edited by njcubscouter)

Hey DLChris, how many trailers? Storage shed? Those are some pretty high-class troops you visit. We have one trailer, which is our "storage shed" as well, with the rest of our stuff crammed into closets in the "Sunday school" building where we meet. And you'd better meet with our SPL very quickly "after the meeting", he needs to get home and finish his homework. (He's not my son, that was just a general comment.) If you ever visit my troop, please let me know in advance so I can be somewhere else at the time. Just kidding. But you do, in the words of the Saturday Night Live sketch from my college days, "ask a LOT of questions." They are good questions (well, mostly: I would drop the WWW one) but there are a lot of them.

Sorry to stumble upon this so late. But let me get this straight: You have a district with ONE active troop in it. Your council has a rule requiring 10 boys to charter a unit, and they won't waive that to get a second troop? I find that mind-boggling. Every Scout professional I have ever met would move heaven and earth to get a new unit in his/her area, and this in in an area that has at least a couple dozen troops per district. The idea that your council would let the rulebook stand in the way of a SECOND troop seems very odd. Maybe this decision isn't coming from the top, and someone needs to go to the SE and ask whether this is really what the council wants.

I have a green beret -- a green Scout beret, that is -- that my father must have traded something for. It says "Scouts Canada" on it. I also have a red beret, though I never wore one. When the "hat option" was given around 1972, my troop voted for what we called the "Smokey the Bear hat." When I look back at troop photos (all of these items, including the photos, are inherited from my father), it appears the troop switched a couple of years later to the baseball caps, at which time those of us who had been to Philmont were wearing our Philmont baseball caps. It may be that after I left the troop, but my brother was still there, they had a brief flirtation with the red berets, so maybe I have my brother's beret. Unless my father just went out and bought (or traded for) one of those too, just to have one. About 6 or 7 years ago my son's troop shared a campsite at summer camp with a troop that wore red berets. Not sure whether they were actual BSA red berets. I thought they looked cool, personally, but if you are going to do that you need to have EVERYBODY wearing them, and wearing them correctly (which they did.)

Do we really have to say "fat"? How about "overweight"? We're trying, we really are...

Cito, my advice would be that if you want to bring something up or ask a question, go ahead and do it and don't worry about the consequences. Keep in mind that if someone reacts in a "negative" way, it may just be that one person's opinion, and their "pet subject." There are a few "regulars" here who seem to get their "agenda" into almost every thread that remotely touches on "their issues," and even some that don't. (And I am not even talking about "Issues & Politics" subjects.) And as Packsaddle said, there is no way to predict (or control) in which direction(s) a thread will end up going anyway. Just jump in when you want to.

So, no references to "bodily functions"? Does that mean that the time-honored "important papers" skit is out? (If you don't know what it is, just Google important papers skit, and several variations of it are right there. I see that some people have made it more elaborate than it is usually done at campfires in our district. Usually it is just the adult who is MC'ing the campfire who is calling for the "important papers", and rather than a skit of its own, it is often done as a series of run-ons between other skits. But you could say the "punch line" does indirectly refer to a "bodily function", so I don't know.) To say nothing of the "sap is still running" skit. Is that now banned as a "put down"? Even though it's a very mild put down, and in our district the "sap" is almost always an adult rather than a Scout or Cub Scout? (On Cub Scout camping trips, it was, again, often the commissioner-type who was running the campfire.)

Now I am really confused. If you want to go back to the beginning and explain exactly what happened to who and by who, and when, it might start to make some sense, and people might be able to make useful comments. I also think that if you want meaningful responses, you are going to have to be a little more specific about the "legal issues." If you choose not to do so, I understand. But right now, I don't even see where the council made any decision at all. Your leadership position was apparently terminated by the CO, but you don't say why. Were you ever actually registered? If these questions make it sound like I am confused, like I said, I am. You have received the answer to your actual question, which is that the council is required to notify a rejected applicant. However, if your CO has chosen to take action, I am not sure what recourse you or any of the others involved might have at this point.

Fehler, in these discussions, that subject almost always manages to make an appearance. Shortridge, I think that about sums it up.

If there was no notification, whoever made the decision to deny the registration clearly did not follow the procedures prescribed by the BSA, which are spelled out in the document that Basementdweller linked to. Just out of curiosity, Disappointed, has there been any acknowledgment by council that the person (or persons?) were actually "turned down"? Is there a possibility that it could have just been a matter of lost paperwork? It has been known to happen. I think one of my applications was floating around for months before it got to the right place and I was actually registered.

OGE, I would send that to my son, except I am pretty sure that HE has sent it to ME in the past.

I have to say, I actually find DLChris's approach somewhat refreshing. He basically says, "I have the rules that should govern everybody right here in this book, and the BSA should impose them on everybody else." Obviously I disagree with him, but it's a straightforward argument, and either you agree with it or you disagree with it. I prefer it to arguments like, for example, "If the BSA changes the policy the LDS will leave" or "membership will go down" or "membership will go up" or whatever. Who cares? All of that is just politics. Like DLChris, I believe this is a simple matter of "right and wrong", I just think he has the "right and wrong" backwards.

Tokala, if I recall correctly, that phrase was in a document that was posted prematurely on the Internet but never officially released. Nevertheless, it does appear in at least one document on the national web site (http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/BoyScouts/AdvancementandAwards/eaglealt.aspx see item 9) and a Google search on "youth development committee" produces hits on many council web sites. It reminds me of the changes when I was a Scout, from "rank" to "progress award," "board of review" to "progress review" (or whatever it was), "junior leader training" to "troop leader development", and so on. When I "returned" to Scouting as an adult, I found that they had changed most of the terminology back to what it was originally.

Robbin, Welcome to the forums. Was your husband a Scout as a youth? There are knots for the adult uniform for having earned Arrow of Light and Eagle. I like to joke that the first knot I ever earned, I earned when I was 10 years old (Arrow of Light), but I didn't know I was earning a knot until I was over 40. (I didn't say it was a funny joke.) I proudly wear it next to the two other knots I have earned, the Cub Scouter Training Award and Scouter Training Award. That one row of knots is probably as many as I will ever get. I don't think there is anything wrong with people wearing multiple rows of knots, though they do get teased a bit. My father had a lot of knots on his uniform, but he put in a lot of years and served a lot of youth to earn the knots.

Eagledad, Yeah, it happens. I think I have a lower profile on these forums than you and many of the others, because I sort of come and go as time and interest permit. So it might not seem that I have been around as long as I have. You do have more posts than I do. I would have more if we included the posts I thought about writing or wrote one sentence of, but then got distracted and never actually posted.

Horizon, I have heard that joke too, but I think it was set in a country club, not a prison. I guess it's a matter of who you hang out with, although actually I have been in more prisons than country clubs. Eagledad, actually, unless you were previously registered under another name, it appears I have been a member here about eight and a half months longer than you have. Admittedly I have taken a few breaks in the middle, one as long as two years, so I would call it a tie. The point is, I have seen a change in the past 3-4 years, specifically that of the people who have been joining since then, a majority (and an increasing percentage) seem to favor a change in the policy. I think that more than outweighs the Roosters and BobWhites and others who don't post about it anymore, especially when you consider those on "my side" who don't post here anymore either. Anyway, it's not a big issue, just an observation.

Beavah, First of all I did not say I was talking about a "sub-movement" within Reform Judaism. I do not even know what that means. I would say that the idea of inclusion of gays in society, without branding them as "sinners", is mainstream thought within Reform Judaism. It has some adherents in Conservative Judaism as well. What percentage of American Jewish people that is as a whole, it really doesn't matter. (And yes, I said American, I don't really think people in other countries are relevant to this discussion, one way or the other.) Second of all, I'll choose to ignore the implications of you calling Reform Judaism one of the "small sects at the fringes that believe all sorts of things." Yeah, we believe in all sorts of things, like treating people with respect. Crazy, huh? Many Reform congregations even require their Bar/Bat Mitzvah candidates to do a community service project. Wild. Third of all, when you add UUA, many Episcopalians, some Presbyterians, some Methodists, United Church of Christ, and probably other people I've never even heard of or don't know their views on this subject, it's not such a tiny fringe. I don't know the percentage who feel one way or the other, or in between, but then again neither do you, Beavah. Which brings us to this gem: Aside from small sects like your own or the UUA, there is relatively unanimity, at least a large majority, among religions of all flavors on this issue. With all due respect, counsellor, you're just making that up. There is nothing like "relative unanimity" on this subject. As for "large majority," well, I'll give you "majority," at least for this year. I don't know how large it is. And perhaps more to the point, how large does it have to be before the BSA becomes "morally correct" in ignoring the views of the minority on this "moral" issue? (And to me, it is a moral issue -- excluding gay people is wrong. That's why I generally don't get involved in discussions of how changing, or not changing, would affect the BSA's membership or finances. Changing to a local option would mean the BSA was doing the right thing, which is good enough for me.) I think you're just making up a number of other things as well, but I don't have time to deal with it right now. Your Rome analogy is just ridiculous. I would go on, but what I would say next would get the moderators "on alert," and I don't wish to make them earn their exorbitant pay today.

TT: True, and I can remember posters in this forum saying that even though the BSA presents this is purely an issue of having "appropriate role models for the values expresses in the Scout Oath and Law" (or words to that effect), they believed that the BSA was really trying to "kill two birds with one stone." (The other "bird" being the issue you are talking about.) What I think that argument misses is that if the BSA really equated gay leadership with child abuse, they could not logically have a "don't ask don't tell" policy or focus the policy only on "avowed" homosexuals. They would really have to "ask", and exclude all those who are "determined" to be gay, not just those who "avow" it. But they don't. In fact I seem to recall a situation a few years ago (reported on this forum) in which a camp staffer was not "avowed", but was asked if he was gay, said yes, was fired, and then when it was realized that BSA policy was violated, he got his job back -- even though he had "admitted" he was gay. And when there are these occasional, terrible stories about a Scoutmaster or other Scouter who sexually abused youth members, there is almost invariably a paragraph in the article that says something like "Smith's neighbors, when interviewed, said they were shocked at the allegations. They all said Smith was such a good family man, typical suburban husband and father, always helping his neighbors", etc.