packsaddle

Heh, heh, In that case the solution is simple. The majority of voters should raise hell (yes I know it's a myth), kick the bums out and get their new representatives to change the law. See how far that gets them. Otherwise I guess we'll just have to endure a bunch of whiners.

Beavah, we can argue the differences between legal and illegal discrimination but that is not what this is about. The fact is, this is the law. Period. You and others may not like it. And it may or may not be more costly to the public in the end - I do not know...that is speculative. But the law is the law. BSA directly and intentionally has a policy that will cause Philadelphia to break the law if the status quo continues. That is not a molehill. Philadelphia is within its rights to take this action, according to the lease, and is following the law. Whining and messing in our pants over this will not change these facts. BSA is still free to offer the services. They can either chum up the rent or find new digs. Time to grow up indeed.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

Gern, do you like Monte Python? "That's what being a Protestant's all about." "...I can go down the road any time I want and walk into Harry's and hold my head up high and say in a loud, steady voice, 'Harry, I want you to sell me a condom. In fact, today, I think I'll have a French Tickler, for I am a Protestant.'" "But, despite the attempts of Protestants to promote the idea of sex for pleasure, children continued to multiply everywhere." As I remember, Mrs. Blackitt was anxious to get it on throughout this lengthy exchange. But Mr. Blackitt just didn't seem to think along the same lines, heh, heh, being a Protestant and all. BTW, I get a charge out of this scene every graduation. When Elgar's music, 'Pomp and Circumstance' begins I am able to put the words of the Catholic dad's song to it: "Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." and so on...works really well. Plus it brings a smile every time and helps pass the time for those long, boring speeches.

Gern wrote, "I'm married. I don't choose to have sex." Holy smokes! I sure do! What I don't do is to choose to be attracted to females, the attraction is something I can't change. I am attracted to females (maybe not ALL of them, though, and I'm not talking about Ann Coulter either, she's definitely HOT!) and the only reason I keep coming up with is biological - I just can't help myself. Given our evolutionary history and the forces that have shaped our instincts, this intinct makes a lot of sense. It isn't a choice. H'mmm, however, there WAS that time in New Orleans though, I didn't know she (whatever) was a guy at first. What a figure! But for some reason, after I found out, I just couldn't feel the same attraction anymore. Oh well, it's just the way I am I suppose.

Beavah, I was under the impression that the law Philadelphia was refusing to violate was based on our Constitution. But I do not see the humor in that - do we not encourage all scouts to obey the law? Rather, I would say that if Philadelphia did NOT obey the law, it would be hypocritical, even criminal. Gern has been fairly consistent in proposing 'local option' as a way to avoid these situations in the future and I tend to agree. However, I think resistance to this at the National level is based on the fact that 'local option' would effectively end CONTROL at the National level.

Wow, my daughter and I have also felt your pain very strongly. We went through much of the same struggle. I wish scouting was co-ed. I see nothing but enhancements to the program. That said, I understand that this is not going to happen anytime soon. So I echo Aquila's mention of 4-H as a great alternative...and IT IS co-ed. Good luck.

Vicki, I agree with your observation regarding changing minds and even if you got the name wrong I enjoyed all the characters portrayed by Gilda Radner. Also agree with Calico regarding prejudice, although I'm not sure I think of arrogance in terms of morality. However Vicki, I would like to observe that homosexuality is not necessarily a biological "dead end" if you think in terms of inclusive fitness (for gay men) or if you consider the fact that gay women are nevertheless quite capable of pregnancy, just not necessarily in the 'regular old way'. The mere fact that gay couples provide loving nurturing homes for adopted or their own children is a huge contribution in itself. "For neither do men live nor die in vain." One of my favorites.

Eolesen, there are indeed dishonest business persons out there but this was a rather standard lease agreement. BSA didn't have to sign it if they didn't agree to the terms. BSA wouldn't be in this situation today if they hadn't chosen to take the stand they did with the SC. The consequences were obvious and if BSA didn't foresee this, maybe it really IS idiot science. But BSA is and always has been in control of its own fate. nldscout, not exactly a scout spirit sentiment, IMHO, a spiteful act of arson.

The money may be important for one argument but it is trumped by the law. Philadelphia would be in violation of the law if it continued the subsidy. The subsidy constitutes a cost to the taxpayer in that revenue is not currently collected for the lease. This is the revenue that a fair-market lease would bring to the city but currently is not collected for the taxpayers because the property is leased at the $1 per year rate. This is not 'rocket science'. BSA knew the terms of the lease and chose to act the way they did. BSA knew the consequences of their legal stance and the risk of sticking to their principles. These are the consequences. Philadelphia has chosen to stick to the principles established in our Constitution and interpreted by our courts. They have chosen not to break the law. Coincidentally, they stand to gain some revenue that was previously uncollected and will not have to pay out legal fees for a losing court battle. This is also not 'rocket science'.

Onehour, heh, heh....beware the gom jabar!

Gold Winger, despite your exceptional taste in motorcycles, I wonder on what basis you think you can speak for the 'average heterosexual man'? Moreover, because I disagree on this topic with your idea of the 'average', does that make me 'above-' or 'below-average'. I'm curious as to your characterization. Your call.

Erickelly65, a hypothetical: A person who maintains personal prejudice that gays tend to be pedophiles - on that basis justifies exclusion of gays from an organization. Does this not qualify has "homophobia" in your dictionary? Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster: "irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals" If the shoe fits......

Zeiger states that the Philadelphia decision is wrong. But I'm still looking for his reasoning. There is nowhere in his article any reasoning for why the government should subsidize BSA using taxes from members of the public who are excluded from membership by the recipient of those tax subsidies, BSA. Scouts can still use playgrounds. Scouts can still do service projects. None of that is relevant to his contention. Of course, governments do contract with many private vendors. However, if a paving contractor, for example, is known to discriminate on the basis of race, for example, they can probably forget about getting another contract. Or else the government can expect a lawsuit for breaking the law. Same principle.

OK, let's try that again, now.... OGE wrote, "TJ says the gays are already in scouting..." And I say it too. I know this for a fact and I also know for a fact that these are great leaders who pose no threat whatsoever to the boys. Dan, I sometimes think that homophobia is diminishing. And then I have to wonder if I'm deceiving myself by that.

Aquila Calva and Aquila, if you are the same person, could I get a sample of your brain tissue some time?

This close to Halloween, OGE and Gern that's what it is isn't it? You're both trying to scare me a little, right? I would welcome ALL young people into scouting, period. I would not single them out as gays and straights, girls and boys, or for that matter atheists, protestants, or religious looney tunes. Just young people. All young people should have access to the benefits of scouting. I do recognize, ahem, that this forum would slim down quite a bit...not as much to argue about. Let's see - is that an upside or a downside...thinking....

Wow, this thread has EVERYTHING! Brent trashing Beavah, Merlyn cracking jokes, OGE plagiarizing a Beatle, Ed missing the point, biblical infallibility...and not even two pages yet. Nice. But it looks like BSA has noticed some of the inconsistencies and backed off a bit. Still a few left though. Just a matter of time. It will happen.

...going for 15... Trev, if my daughter decides to marry someday, you'll benefit from an invitation, my declining bank account, and a big NY Italian wedding. But right now she's intent on avoiding those sorts of entanglements. Might have to wait a while. Gold Winger, your point has been made before. But as a practical matter, unless you are going to enforce the rule yourself in some manner, as TJ notes, BSA won't. BSA is, in fact, as guilty of your assertion as TJ is since BSA itself does not enforce its own rule either often or consistently. If it is wrong for an individual, in your view, to ignore the rules, then your condemnation is at least equally applicable to BSA. Moreover, if you want to have maximum impact on rule-following, you should seek some way to persuade or force BSA to take the action you desire, ferreting out all avowed gays (and don't forget those atheists) and ejecting them. Good luck. Brent writes, "Man, I'm glad my ancestors evolved!" That would be OUR ancestors, I hope.

Trevorum, I had a really clever retort for that "thinking trilobite" comment and then I read this, "Bill's marriage had adapted and evolved - his wedding vows were just relics of the past. I'm sure Trev and pack have a similar view of their marriage vows, right guys? Adapt and evolve! I'm sure their wives will agree with their views." Now I'm wondering if a 'thinking trilobite' might be possible. Brent, considering that you really don't know much about me or Trevorum or our wives, much less our marriages, if you are this "sure" about me and Trev and our wives' views, I have to say it is cause for question when you say you are "sure" about anything else. Our wedding (more than 30 years ago now) was a traditional New York Italian extravaganza almost like it was right out of "The Godfather". A real blast with abundant food, music, dancing, and lots to drink. It nearly killed me. "Obey" was also absent from our vows, which we also wrote ourselves. The priest didn't seem to mind. As for the monkey thing: Trev took the bait - you go ahead and play him, but please throw him back so we can play again another day. GoldWinger, a while back another poster thought he had 'outed' me during an exchange similar to the one you're having with TJ. My point back then was we signed the application individually and we only answer individually to ourselves if BSA accepts it. We did NOT take on the responsibility to be enforcers for BSA, sleuthing out other members who may be in violation in our opinion. That responsibility belongs to BSA if they so choose. So far they haven't. TJ's comment about a "troll" is in regard to one person who entered the forums several times in succession under different aliases, and who (as far as I know) is the only person to have been excluded from it...on each successive occasion. Some of us, like TJ, were sensitized to the deception. I have not sensed anything similar, however. IMHO. Eolesen, 14 pages or so has often been the max for these threads in the past. I think this might have something to do with bandwidth, the time it takes to load the entire thread for a reply...problematic for members with slow connections. I can't imagine what it would be like with a modem.

Yeah, as I remember people either loved it or hated it. My wife hated it too. Maybe that's what drew me to it. Go figure.

OK, I'll mince a couple of words here. A belief is something that can be based on faith alone or nothing at all. So, depending on a person's desire to self-deceive, they can believe almost anything. Otherwise I wouldn't still be getting all those really lucrative offers from Nigerian princes. The concept of 'support' when used in the sense of science invokes several things. First is the logic itself. In the case of global warming, the basic logic is sound. Most of the objections are as to the cause - human or not. And the logic is supported by observations that seem pretty good. Moreover, as more evidence mounts, it tends to support the logic even more. The problem is...evidence isn't unequivocal yet. So in that sense, it 'supports' both opposing views on human influence. Perhaps in time this will be a little clearer. GoldWinger, you reminded me of THE best episode of one of the best TV shows ever. Here's the essential clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjPPDyFocJI "She bit me on the neck, Peg! Now I'm going live forever...Oh Nooooo!"

ahem....populations adapt AND evolve.

Molscouter, That "jollies" comment could well apply to many of us but although I have no idea what source Merlyn has for "jollies", I have been impressed with the attention to detail he brings with his arguments. I have been unable to find flaws in his logic. Yes, he is direct and he is obviously very interested in one aspect of BSA. But he brings a valuable perspective to the forums. You don't have to like him. But if calling him a "spoiler" is the best you can do for a counter-argument, it doesn't exactly indicate great merit for your ideas. If you want to really have an impact, bring a better idea to the forum with better reasoning to back it up.

Erickelly65 wrote, "How could the BSA accomodate non-theists and retain the theistic elements of its program?" The answer is that BSA does this already. Read what DanKroh and GernBlansten recently wrote in this thread.

Adanecito, Welcome to the forums! Some discussion relevant to your question can be found in a previous thread: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=169077#id_169299 Your question seems to pop up frequently and it usually arises when someone wants to establish additional standards for advancement or something like that. Most troops are aware of the many competing programs and try to accomodate boys with those outside activities. Remember, Boy Scouting is also an outside activity...in many respects. But I am aware of scouters who think attendance must be 100% or else the boy won't qualify as being active enough or showing enough scout spirit, or something along those lines. This unit recognizes the need for accomodation and we are glad whenever boys decide they WANT to attend the meetings and activities. My personal opinion is that if a boy decides he doesn't want to attend, either he simply isn't interested or else the program isn't attractive enough. I try not to put the onus on the boy, but rather on the leadership responsible for the program. IMHO. Welcome to the forums!