Rooster7

I have no problem with BSA stating, "No homosexuals allowed". I agree that BSA should not have to ask about "sexual preference", but not for the same reason. They should not have to ask, because the natural order dictates that one should be heterosexual. Biologically, homosexuality makes not sense. It is a perversion. BSA should not have to ask for the same reason one does not ask another person if he is something other than male or female. If it comes to light that a Scout or Scouter is a homosexual (even if it is not through some overt action made by that person), BSA should refuse membership. Homosexuality is immoral. This is the stance of BSA. Why would the organization tell potential members, we feel it's immoral, but only if you tell us about it? That's ridiculous. I'm fairly confident that national will see it that way and step in to change that policy within the Otetiana Council.

Gay advocates correctly state that most child molesters are heterosexual males. But this is a misleading statement. In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males are more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, they appear to be three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations (1). And this does not take into account the cases of homosexual child abuse, which are unreported. NARTH's Executive Director Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, says that about one third of his 400 adult homosexual clients said they had experienced some form of homosexual abuse before the age of consent, but only two of those cases had been reported.

While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (2). Further, since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (3), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (4).

Popular gay and lesbian fiction often portrays adult-child sexual relationships as fondly remembered, tender "coming-of-age" stories. Much of this fiction is pornographic - aimed specifically at teenagers - and is recommended to them on reading lists distributed by gay-advocacy groups such as P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) (5), or offered to them in public-school libraries (6).

Tragically, the abused child is then more likely to become an abuser in adulthood (7). Thus, it is not surprising that we see more pedophilia among homosexual men: since they are more likely to have been victims of abuse, they are also more likely to initiate a repetition of that abuse with a same-sex child.

In 1990, the highly respected Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change" (p.133). Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles ... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." The loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. 162). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." (p. 164)

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reflects on the Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy":

"This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to male homosexual life" (8).

(1) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.

(2) K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.

(3) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.

(4) Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.

(5) "Be Yourself: Questions and Answers for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Youth," published by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, 1101 14th Street, N.W., Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20005.

(6) "Action Group Forms in Seattle," by Eleanor Durham, Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools, P.O. Box 28519, Seattle, Washington 98118-8 519, from the NARTH Bulletin, April 1998, p. 11.

(7) Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, J., Stein, J., The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: the Los Angeles epidemiological catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology 126, 6:1141.

(8) Satinover, Jeffrey (1996). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, p. 63.

A couple of simple points to be made...

1) Making the claim that BSA is being attacked, is not hateful nor is it inaccurate.

2) Discrimination as we traditionally hear the term is wrong. However, make no mistake about it, BSA is discriminating against homosexuals. It is their legal right to do so - as you clearly stated - It's called freedom of Association. This is the same kind of discrimination all types of groups practice everyday (i.e., Jews can't join Catholic churches, butchers are not welcomed to join PETA, etc.).

Jbroganjr,

You said, "Using words like attacking boy scouts, too much attention to homosexuals, etc. is a way of inciting the hateful garbage speech that takes away from the core issues and plays into the hands of the media."

How do these words incite hate? You keep trying to inject hate as people's motives. To me, this is a cheap way of trying to nullify other people's point of view. No one has used the word "hate" in these posts except you.

Scamp,

You said, "I am really anxious to see how that turns out! Local print media preview the program as an exploration of how different viewpoints are dealt with in today's society and the action that one young man and one older man have taken when an organization they love (Boy Scouts) establishes a policy they feel is at odds with values being taught by Scouting -- that is, respect and honor vs. discrimination against a specific group."

Discrimination is certain wrong when it is based on an attribute such as race. However, your statement presumes that the homosexual has no choice in his behavior. Secondly, as stated in a different thread to Mr. Eisely - What if it can be proven that there is genetic proof that pedophiles are predisposed to be the way they are? I'm confident that you would not support such behavior even if it were not completely by choice. From birth, many things are not within our control (birth defects, genetic makeup, who our parents are, what religion we are brought up with, etc.). Even with genetic evidence of a predisposition, I still see behavior (of any kind) as a matter of choice. It may be more difficult for some than others to resist certain behavior. Certainly, an alcoholic cannot resist a drink as easily as the non-alcoholic. Nevertheless, we (society) do not condone the life of an alcoholic. We hold him accountable to get his life together and resist the urge to drink.

Jbroganjr,

Allow me to address each point of concern, one by one:

1) I am against the homosexual agenda in general and specific to BSA. That fact does not mean I am on a witch-hunt, nor does it mean I hate any group or individual. None of my posts, or any of the others I have read, indicate that the homosexual community should be subject to hate. This is was your conjecture.

2) I have known and had friends who were homosexuals. However, I reserve the right to disapprove of their behavior. The fact that I do not approve of the behavior, does not mean I do not understand or care for them. Again, this is your conjecture.

3) For starters, read 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9 & 10 (Yes, its in the New Testament). Of course the same verse condemns other sins, but I never claimed homosexuality to be the only sin. My contention is that we should not try to normalize what is easily identifiable as wrong. This does not mean we don't love homosexuals, but we should not turn our backs on sin either. Did Ruth endorse prostitution? We love the sinner, not the sin. Also, look up Romans 1.

4) One's religious beliefs, race, or nationality are not behavior choices. And again, no one has said that the homosexual should be hated. Once again, this is your conjecture.

In regard to your statement, "It is sad that you need hate and discrimination to foster your own beliefs and give you the false sense of moral strength" I find this most offensive. It is sadder still when one feels compelled to twist facts and other people's thoughts to counter an argument that no one ever made. If you disagree, fine. But don't tell me or anyone else that we are promoting hate. This is the biggest lie of all.

Mr. Eisely, I can't provide a source for my claim at this time. I did read it somewhere, but my memory is not as good as it use to be. I will research it and get back to you.

Thanks.

Be happy that this article appeared in the Times and not the Post. As someone who has read the Washington Post, on and off for nearly forty years, trust me when I say it would have been a completely different article. Steven Cozza would have been portrayed as the hero of his generation. BSA would have been touted as the "evil empire". And PBS would have been praised for bringing to light this "horrible injustice". I'm thankful that there has been a resurgence of conservative papers and radio talk shows to counter the left agenda. It wasn't that long ago, all we had in the D.C. area was the Washington Post and the Baltimore Sun.

The fear is not unfounded. Statistics support the argument that the homosexual is more prone to pedophilia than the heterosexual. Furthermore, while this is not a politically correct response, the behavior is perverse. The most basic class in animal reproduction supports this claim. The homosexual ignores the laws of nature in preference to his own desires. He chooses to engage in the "life style" because this is how he derives pleasure, even in the face of intense pressure from society to do otherwise. Like the pedophile, his gratification reins supreme, no matter the consequence (scorn by family, rejected by society, jail, etc.). Some portray homosexuals as passionate and honorable as they fight for acceptance. I see the homosexual as driven by his lust to the point of dishonor. This is not the kind of man that I will leave my child alone with under any circumstance.

Do I have my own sins? Yes, but I don't tell myself or anyone else to accept them as normal.

Mr. Eisely,

You make good points. I do feel we need to examine the facts. The more we base our arguments on facts, the more apt we will be heard. However, I wouldn't throw out the "belief system" argument. After all, the BSA exclusion of pedophiles is really based on a belief system. It is wrong for adults to have sexual relations with a child. If someone could scientifically prove that a particular child was not harmed by such an act, we still wouldn't endorse it. It would still be wrong. Likewise, most folks believe it is wrong for one man to have sexual relations with another man. For the most part, this premise is based on a belief system as opposed to scientific fact. Regardless, I see it as having merit. Some truths are self-evident. The natural order of things indicate that this behavior is wrong (not to mention most religious faiths). Not everyone chooses to acknowledge these truths, but it doesn't invalidate them.

Any way, I don't want to pick an argument with an ally. I was just hoping that most Scouters feel as do. This behavior is wrong (scientific proof or not). Thanks.

Mr. Eisely, I appreciate your comments. I hope most Scouters support the current BSA policy. However, you implied that you might feel differently if it can be proven that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. If this is true, than I would like to offer you this food for thought:

What if it can be proven that there is genetic proof that pedophiles are predisposed to be the way they are? I'm confident that you would not support such behavior even if it were not completely by choice. From birth, many things are not within our control (birth defects, genetic makeup, who our parents are, what religion we are brought up with, etc.). Even with genetic evidence of a predisposition, I still see behavior (of any kind) as a matter of choice. It may be more difficult for some than others to resist certain behavior. Certainly, an alcoholic cannot resist a drink as easily as the non-alcoholic. Nevertheless, we (society) do not condone the life of an alcoholic. We hold him accountable to get his life together and resist the urge to drink.

I see a counterpoint on the horizon, see let me anticipate and address these exceptions. By all means, we should be tolerant of behavior that is the result of brain/nerve damage (or other physical ailments) and/or psychologically problems. I realize, sometimes, behavior is not a reflection of a moral choice.

In today's world, homosexuality is not being portrayed as an ailment or psychological problem of any kind. The homosexual community would have us believe that it is not only a product of genetics, but as natural as heterosexuality. I don't know if genetics is involved, but I don't see it as excusing the behavior. In regard to it being natural, any casual study of nature proves that claim to be false.

Thanks.

Sorry...I don't see this as good news. To me, this is not about "diversity"...This is about political correctness. I am saddened to hear that such high-ranking council members are seeking the spotlight at the expense of BSA. Homosexuality is a choice in behavior. It's an evil pursuit. It's wrong...plain and simple. I am disturbed that there appears to be some in our organization who wish to normalize it. If you feel as I do, I pray that you speak up when the time comes. We need to stand together.

Our Chaplain's aid recently introduced a prayer at a Troop meeting whereas all the participants hold hands in a circle with their arms crossed in front of them. Some of the boys felt uncomfortable with this concept. They felt it was "Girl Scout-ish". Last night, at the PLC, the SPL bought the prayer up for discussion. The LC voted to ban this prayer for future Troop functions. Frankly, I'm a little shocked. Our Scoutmaster was not available for the meeting. An ASM was standing in his place. I was a little dumbfounded at the time and chose not to say anything. Is it just me? Or is there something wrong with this vote? Here are some of my concerns:

1) Barring anything offensive and/or inappropriate, I feel the Chaplain's aid should be free to introduce prayers as he sees fit.

2) This appears to be micro managing. What if the LC decides to tell the Dues Scribe how he should do his job? Suppose they tell the Troop Historian what pictures he should take? Can they edict the format of the Troop newsletter? Shouldn't these types of decisions be made by the boys given the leadership position?

I feel a more appropriate action would be for the SPL to communicate the concern to the Chaplin's Aid, but leave the decision (to continue or stop such a prayer) up to him. If the boy continues to perform his job in an unpopular manner, then the Troop can seek a different boy leader for that position.

The bigger issueWhat decisions, if any, are outside of the LC's purview?

Thoughts anyone

I wish I knew...It's not intentional. Every time I hit the "Submit Your Message" button, out it comes (the double post). Sorry...If you know what I'm doing wrong, I'm all ears. Thanks.

Perhaps I over reacted...To be truthful, I understood what you meant. The bait was just too tempting. Back on pointA cell phone just makes sense. Nothing is going to work all the time, but why eliminate a tool that can potential save lives.

No offense, but adding a sense of "danger" to a Scout trip, is not what I call a good idea. If you truly want to be "on your own", don't tell anyone where you're goingBut again, that's not exactly safe Scouting. Certainly, a cell phone is no guarantee that a disaster will be avoided. However, I'm fairly confident that its use has helped save a life or two. I love Scouting and I understand why we have policies such as "no electronic gadgets". Nevertheless, sometimes I feel many of us get stubborn about these concepts to the point that we ignore common sense. As long as the phone (or walkie-talkie) is used correctly, there shouldn't be a problem. If it turns out that you're "out of range", then go to plan B. As for a GPS, I can't commentBut I wouldn't rule it out simply because its battery operated.

It sounds as if the Wood Badge SM is requiring everyone to outlay a rather large expense for something that is not really required. I don't know if that is a true statement, but if it is, I would pick a fight just on principle. We, adult volunteers, already have to spend large amounts of money, time, and energy, without folks inventing new requirements. I wouldn't bow down to a demand for a large expense like this unless someone could justify it to me.

Just to clarify one point...

When I stated "...we need to spend much more time honoring those boys who make the sacrificeAnd perhaps less focus on those who don't..."

I didn't mean we should abandon those boys who don't make the sacrifice. I meant, perhaps we are better served if we make examples of those boys who are the exception as opposed to penalizing the boys who are not.

Regardless, jmcquillan I appreciate your words. If we could somehow cultivate all scouts to have the same attitude as "those really remarkable young men" you spoke of, that would be something. I suppose I should be more of a realist. Still, I can dream...

Thanks.

As a 42-year-old man, it's easy for me to pass judgment on these boys. After all, I have the benefit of growing old and learning what's really important in life. Unfortunately, we cannot transplant our life-lessons into our children over night. Many of us, if given the chance to go back to middle school or high school, would like to change things. I like to think that I would put my faith and principles above my popularity. Truth be told though, even knowing what I know now, I'm not sure I would be brave enough to make the right choices. We all need to have a sense of belonging. Consequently, when I see boys making the right choice (particularly boys in high school), I feel compelled to tell that "boy" that his decision reflects the character of a man, not a boy. Our best hope is to uplift these brave individuals and honor them within the Troop. Make them the example to follow.

Several years ago, we had two brothers (twins) in the Troop that were very popular (athletic, liked by the girls, etc.). I kept praying that they would lead the way for the other scouts to follow. As much as I wanted it to happen, it was not meant to be. They weren't horrible kids. They just fell victim to those influences in high school that so many others do. They were more concerned about what others thought of them. Imagine what could have happened if they chose to follow a different path. If they had embraced their scouting values unashamedly, those boys would have paid a price. However, they also would have gained something that few of us can stake claim toA sense of honor that only comes with true sacrifice. This cannot be mandated. It must be a voluntarily action or there is no honor in it.

In short, we need to spend much more time honoring those boys who make the sacrificeAnd perhaps less focus on those who don't.

Two more comments...

1) As "KL" mentioned, the breaks have to be long enough so that the slower boys can caught up AND REST. This is our troop's practice as well.

2) Mike (Long), I do not understand why you oppose the walkie-talkies or cell phones on the trail. If you're suggesting that they can be a distraction, I agree. The use of these tools needs to be limited to their intended purpose (keeping everyone reasonably close together and to help find the lost). Neither one should be used as a means to "socialize". If you're objection is based on the "no electronic gadgets" policy, I disagree. The purpose of that policy is to ensure boys do not envelop themselves with "the pleasures of home" when they should be enjoying the great outdoors. I do not see walkie-talkies or cell phones (for this purpose) as such a gadget.

Mr. Eisely,

Here are my thoughts...

I would not prohibit slower hikers from participating. In particular, this would penalize younger scouts. It's a good bet that they'll never develop to be faster if they're not given a chance while they're slow.

Walkie-talkies are a great idea. We use them in our Troop all the time. This is how we handle it. Generally speaking, we ask the older/faster boys to slow down a bit and keep within walkie-talkie distance (two miles). When they get too far ahead, they find a scenic spot to take a short break. We also keep at least one adult back with the slower hikers.

The above works for biking and canoeing as well. We did a little study on a bike trip one day. One of the adults calculated that a boy on a 20" bike had to peddle his bike 6,000 times more (cycles) than a boy on a 26" bike over a 33 mile trip. Here again, you will have boys slower than others (even in they're all in good shape). And again, walkie-talkies work great.

While the above policy tends to "penalize" the older/faster boys, I look at it a different way. One, it teaches all of the boys something about Scout spirit - working as a team and looking out for others. Second, it provides an opportunity for the older boys to encourage and mentor the younger/slow boys.

Thanks.

In my experience, the dilemma stems from the ability (or inability) of the boy leaders to determine crime and punishment fairly. Discipline is metered out sporadically and inconsistently. While I agree the Scout Law and the Scout Oath is a good base. It does not provide the necessary guidance for a 12-year old Patrol Leader. Most troops would benefit greatly from a set of known behavioral rules, and of course, a set of known consequences. This would give new Patrol leaders the guidance they need. It would also ensure evenhanded discipline across the Troop, from one Patrol to another.

I agree with jmcquillan. 13 is very young, but it's not impossible to get there...And get there with honor. About three years ago, I had the good fortune to meet NASA astronaut Joe Tanner. He achieved eagle at 14. It didn't seem to adversely affect him. Great guy...First astronaut to carry a bible into space (that alone made me like him). By the way, here's a NASA astronaut and guess what...The guy is carrying around his eagle card in his wallet. That should tell your boys something about the achievement.

My feelings about boys "racing" for eagle is this...Don't snuff the fire out. Encourage them. I'm not saying let them slip by, or sign off on requirements not met...I'm saying if they have their eyes set on this goal, feed the fire. Add some parental approval and a little guidance from the adult leadership; I think more boys make it than don't. Conversely, telling boys to slow down is not always the best advice. In fact, sometimes this advice simply brings their efforts to a stop.

One last comment...I feel better about the boys achieving eagle at 14 and 15 (even 13) than the ones that suddenly become active at 17.5 and earn six badges in six months.

I attempted to post a reply several days ago, but for some reason it did not stay on the board.

OGE, I fail to follow your logic. If someone professes a strong faith, how does it invalidate others and their beliefs? Would I be less offensive if I pretended to doubt my faith in God? Does my confidence make you less confident? I would not normally ask these questions, but your previous post begs them to be asked.

That's funny...I'm always bemused by anyone who thinks EVERYONE has THE answer (even if those multiple answers contradict one another). Truth is not a decision, but a reality one must confront.

Stan, Kevin, and Chris... I agree, agree, and agree. However, I do have a word to say in defense of Mr. Rakes' philosophy. While every reasonable effort should be made to bring these boys into the brotherhood of Scouting, don't sacrifice your base. What I mean by that, is this...If, as of a result of these efforts, the program suffers and your active boys start to lose interest, then too much is being sacrificed. For instance, an inactive PL can frustrate an entire Patrol. Apathetic boys who do not conform to Patrol and Troop norms can demoralize your active Scouts. Behavior like this, if left unchecked, can cause an otherwise well run Troop to come to a shrieking halt.

Also, there is something to be said for believing in your group, cause, or organization. Take a church with loose membership criteria. If the new members do not really believe in the same theology as the church, eventually that church will not stand what it use to. Its theology will change. There is a danger of this happening to Troops and BSA as a whole. If new members treat Scouting with indifference or don't have the same passion for its tenets, its likely (over time) that Troop will not stand for it what it use to.

I like it too. Two suggestions:

1) I agree with the previous post. Larger font would be nice.

2) Try adding a little more color to the pages.

I agree with the last post in its entirety (including getting rid of the donation bucket). Perhaps the project could be enhanced, but by itself I do not see anything wrong with it. However, as an Eagle project, I agree with the others...It's not significant enough. In regards to the Committee Chair, if he's directing as oppose to suggesting, then he has overstepped his authority. Work with the Scoutmaster. Let the Scoutmaster deal with the Committee Chair.