NJCubScouter

Rooster says: It is our responsibility to teach them about morality, consequences associated with behavioral choices, and what our faith says about it. Right -- but as parents, with our own children, not as Scouters, with other peoples' children. I interpreted the original post to be talking about Scouters exposing Scouts to these issues, not about parents talking to their children. Parents talking to their children is none of anybody else's business.

I have never heard anyone discuss this issue with Scouts or say that they have done so. Admittedly I am in Cub Scouts where nobody would even think of discussing this issue with the boys. Most of them (except maybe for some of the older Webelos) wouldn't understand it anyway, but the main reason is that it is just not appropriate to discuss it with them at any age. It is, as you suggest, an "adult issue." I don't think that what you are talking about is a widespread thing, though I get the impression that a couple of Scouters in the troop of the Scouting-for-all kid in California were term

BubbaBear says: I keep reading of that most of us scouters think gays should be let in as leaders, NJ... I am enthrawled. Please tell me where you get that information from. I don't think I got it from anywhere, because I don't think I ever said it. If I did, please link to the post. What I have said is that I think that most Scouters don't care about the issue very strongly, and specifically, I think that if the BSA announced tomorrow that there was going to be local option, the vast majority of Scouters would accept it, or at least live with it. And I didn't get that from anywhe

(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

Ed Mori says: Morality can't be relative and change with the times. If that were the case, then morality would have no purpose. Whether "what is right and wrong" changes is a philosophical question that is, frankly, irrelevant. What is beyond dispute, however, is that society's understanding of what is right and wrong does change. I can guarantee you that you do not live by the "moral" standards that were accepted and enforced by society 1,000 years ago, or 200 years ago, and unless you are very unusual, probably not 50 years ago either. Our understanding of most values does

slontwovvy says: This man is clearly why we do not allow openly homosexual men in the BSA. This is a truly amazing leap of logic, and would have consequences that I am sure you do not intend. If one gay man appearing in a gay porno film justifies the BSA banning ALL avowed homosexuals from leadership positions, then the many, many heterosexual people who appear in "straight" porno films must mean that the BSA should bar ALL heterosexuals from leadership as well. That means you and me, chief. I am sure your council's Exec would be very interested to read your letter of resignation

This seems to be a 2-person conversation, come on everybody, I'd especially like to see if Rooster is going to criticize the school district for firing a teacher for appearing in a gay video. Anyhoo, fboisseau says: So my question is what makes Broward Counties morals more valid then the Boy Scouts morals? First of all, this discussion is a bit difficult because the newspaper story (which is 100 percent of what I know about this case) contains very little in the way of explanation for the board's rationale and motivation. Three-quarters of the story is the guy's own lawyer givi

First of all, fboisseau, I'm assuming by your "double standard" remark that Broward County is one of the Florida school systems that attempted to ban BSA units or charge higher fees for use of schools because the BSA excludes openly gay leaders. I do not know that for sure; when that story was going on, I just knew it was some school district(s) in Florida. Assuming that is the case, I do not see any double standard here. The story says the board wants to fire the teacher for appearing in a pornographic gay video, but the key word appears to be pornographic, not gay. They are not firi

This discussion confirms some conclusions that I have reached about my own "knot" situation -- (1) The Cub Scout leader awards program needs to be more flexible, and (2) the BSA should give more recognition to the fact that Cub Scout unit leadership exists on 2 levels, the pack and the den. The no-dual registration rule makes perfect sense in a troop, where there is only one "level," and also within "levels" of Cub Scouting. The CC, CR and CM (and CA) all must be different people (except I think the CR can be the CC.) But what harm would result from the CM or CA being officially recogni

Rooster, thank you for insulting and attacking my religion and its beliefs. As far as I am concerned, you have destroyed the force of your own arguments better than any counter-argument I could make. It is obvious that you are the one who does not believe in the true principles of Scouting.

Wow, this discussion did get heated up again. In no way do I have time to respond to it all, so let me just say the following in response to this and all the other threads, just so you don't think I went away: First, I agree with tjhammer on the issue of whether homosexuality is moral or immoral, and on how the dispute should be resolved. Second, I disagree with everything Rooster says about the subject of homosexuality, except that I agree that the issue of what primates do or don't do is irrelevant. It is, however, worth noting that primates, unlike humans, do not pass their days

There are two things at work here, policy and common sense. The policy prohibits a fairly narrow range of conduct, limited to monopolizing a unit and approving your own leadership position, as BobWhite says. When different "levels" are involved, we are into the real of common sense. There is only so much time in the day, and even beyond that, the more you divide your focus and attention, the greater the chance something will "slide" or slip through the cracks. An SM being a DC strikes me as a bad idea just as a matter of common sense. Except for an extraordinary person, each job is just t

The policy is indeed a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. That means very little in and of itself. Practice and experience, including the cases mentioned in this thread, and the James Dale case, have indicated what the policy actually does mean. It is that if anyone reveals a gay orientation (without revealing any behavior) to anyone, and a BSA council or national finds out about it, the person is out. No trial, no hearing, no inquiry to find out if the person actually said it, no inquiry into what "gay" means in terms of actual behavior, just a letter of termination. It doesn't have to have

Well, your local council will sign you up and help you find a unit. It is a council function, not a national function. If you go on the BSA national web site and go to "Sign up for Scouting" you will eventually be led to a "Council locator," then you contact the council about finding a unit.

yaworski said: We all discriminate. Plain and simple. Your wife discriminated by marrying you and not the other guy. All those girls that I knew in college discriminated by not jumping into the sack with me. The VFW discriminates against non-veterans. Discrimination is part of life. That is true. Does that mean you think all discrimination is acceptable? And if not, if some is ok and some is not, what is your standard for determining which is which?

Yaworski, I'm wondering a few things. First, do you think your use of vulgar language helps you make your points more effectively? Do you think it impresses people? Is this how you teach your Scouts (if any) to communicate? Or is it something that only grownups do? (By the way, I do not claim to be a candidate for sainthood, and the stray epithet does escape my lips now and then, more often than it should. However, the written word is different. I assume your keyboard has a backspace key, something that my mouth lacks.) Second, as I said earlier in either this or one of the

I didn't think yaworski was DedicatedDad. DedicatedDad's writing exhibited more class. Wow. Did I really write that? But I think it's true. Not much more, just more. As far as I am concerned, the writings of people like DedicatedDad and yaworski ultimately advance the cause of change in the policy, by making the pro-policy position look ridiculous. For every one of us who posts on this topic, there are maybe 30, 40 or more people who read the forum regularly but do not post on this subject. Our minds are not going to be changed by reading a post from the "other side," but those

Rooster, I think most gays stopped calling being gay a "lifestyle" about 15-20 years ago. Try to keep up. (No insult intended.) As for this: In short, we're talking about a sexual perversion, not a preference. This fact should be plain for everyone to see; simply pick up a book on biology (no insult intended). Well, what I assume you are getting at, is the biological fact that certain sexual acts can lead to reproduction, and certain other acts cannot. (I am going to try not to get too clinical here, but Parental Advisory is in effect.) Is every act in the "cannot" category a

Quixote says: NJ, you say Personally I would rather not know or hear about the religious beliefs of others I'm just a little surprised to read this statement. I would have thought that you would be a little more liberal on this point. Well, I don't think liberal or non-liberal comes into play, because I didn't say people shouldn't be free to express their religious beliefs. They should, and they are. I do realize that what I said, taken literally, contradicts the fact that I am interested in religion as a matter of knowing my fellow human beings. When I read religious argume

Just to add a bit -- of the few people in my district who hold the title of Unit Commissioner, I am not sure how many (if any) actually have particular units assigned to them. One guy who wears a UC patch is actually the district FOS coordinator as well as the "acting" Cub Scout Roundtable Commissioner, and probably a few lesser things as well. (I put quotes around "acting" because he has been doing the job for at least six months.) He does a lot of important work for the district and does it well, but he is not a Unit Commissioner as far as I can see. A few others with that patch seem to

I did take the poll, only to find out the results so far. There probably is a way to view the results without voting, but I don't know what it is. I think polls like this are basically worthless. The first post I ever read in this forum was a poll that OGE had started, I believe it was about whether you would leave the BSA if it changed its policy. The relatively few voters who are actually involved in the BSA were soon overwhelmed by a particular group of outsiders who had been "invited" to participate by a member with a particular point of view. I think a poll in this forum migh

I only ever see commissioners at roundtable. (An ADC did come to one of our pack meetings this year but that was just to do an FOS presentation so it doesn't count.) I saw a district roster once and it had 5 UC's, and the last I heard, our district has 27 troops and 37 packs, if that's any indication. If we have a Unit Commissioner, I sure don't know who it is. On the other hand, when our unit has asked for advice, we get it (usually from the DE.)

littlebillie, Rooster seems to believe that belief in God is a "cure" for being gay -- something that I suspect would come as a surprise to the Episcopal priests who are openly gay, Reform Jewish rabbis who are openly gay, etc.

Hmmm, BobWhite and Rooster agreeing with each other on an issue outside of the "politics" folder, maybe we should stop this before the Earth and Moon break free from their orbits and go crashing into each other. Maybe this is all semantics, I don't know. I just see a difference between "get more boys" and "get more boys by the end of the month so I can put them on my spreadsheet." After tonight's meeting, I'll have to tell you how many boys we actually get. I'm hoping to register at least one full den of new Tigers tonight, and that the woman who told me that she and her husband would

BobWhite says: You are right NJ, what is uppermost on the minds of scouters outside of unit scouting is the growth of the program. You surprise me, BobWhite, by twisting my words and meaning. You know that is not what I meant. I expect such gamesmanship from some in this forum, but not from you. What this particular commissioner had uppermost in his mind at the moment in question was not the growth of the program -- it was getting credit for numbers. The boys in question (who are still hypothetical for another 18 hours as I write this) will get the program regardless of wheth