shortridge

"Fact is, I don't like gay's. Never had and never will. It is an unnatural abomination plain and simple. If you disagree, thats your choice, just like its gays choice to be gay. No one is born gay, they choose to be that way of thier own free will." Nldscout, How do you square your comments with the anti-bias provisions of the judicial code of conduct in New York, which includes sexual orientation? How do you separate your powerful personal feelings from any decision you might have to make involving a gay person? How can any gay person trust your rulings? I for one hope the mods do not remove those comments and the name-calling and the profanity. You have shown the raw hate and ugliness that undergirds your beliefs.

"Here's an idea! Those who support an open BSA membership policy in regards to sexual orientation can wear rainbow striped epaulettes." When on camp staff in the mid-90s, we had a create-your-own-slide policy - the more creative the better. The shooting sports staff used shotgun shells, etc. One summer, I turned a necklace of rainbow rings (image: http://www.outmaine.org/images/necklace.jpg) into a neckerchief slide. The rings were just the right size for the necker.

Thanks to Linas for sending me a copy of the document. It appears to be a guidance memo for inspectors to interpret state codes as pertain to camps. I sent a query to the department the other night, but have heard nothing back. Of more interest to me is that these hybrid structures must be at least 15 feet apart. That woubugbane been a tough task in some sites at my old camp (though not in Michigan). Some patrol sites are squshed together like sardines.

"Peel that old Eagle patch off the uniform......Fly to dallas.....Call the local Fox news agency and tell them since the BSA doesn't let gays in your going to Resign as an Eagle and you will met them in front of National Scout headquarters with the purpose of personally turning in your Award and a personal letter...... "Ya get a number of adult scouters to do it and it makes the national news.....Ya might see some change.... Till then it is just a bunch of scouters whining around the virtual campfire." Oh, like this? http://www.npr.org/2012/07/25/157371035/eagle-scout-returns-badge-in-protest?device=iphone

If the LDS Church left - and I will bet there is a secret contingency plan in a file cabinet in Irving preparing for the possibility - the impact would vary by council, as the church is stronger in certain areas. But for sure, everyone would lose at least a handful of units. Donations would dry up. Staff would eventually be laid off. Camps would be trimmed. The overall numbers would go down by about 420,000 youth, or about 15 percent. My council would see relatively little impact. In the west, though, I can see some areas being crippled and unable to recover. Acco, what you're suggesting is a local option, which I understand is anathema to the church for some reason. More likely, I would see them taking their boys and starting a similar internal youth group of their own. There would still be some more liberal boys and parents who would continue in Scouting, but without the backing and leadership of the ward and stake. But the Catholic Church would likely depart, too. That impact is difficult to gauge precisely, as not every member of a Catholic CO is Catholic, and not all Catholics belong to Catholic COs. There's also the gradual shift away from papal infallibility to consider. Many contemporary American Catholics routinely disregard church teachings on birth control; would they follow a directive to break ties with the BSA? And something tells me that the church may have some difficulties starting a full-fledged internal youth program of its own to compete ... parents these days may not be all that willing to let their sons go off into the woods with priests.

Seattle, as many have pointed out in this thread and past ones, each OA lodge and chapter is different. Just because you don't see OA chapters and lodges doing unique program things in your corner of the Pacific Northwest doesn't mean they're not doing those things in other places around the country. In fact, they are, and more. The "Indian theme," as you put it, does not exclude or prohibit OA members from doing other activities and programs. Or do you really think that every person who wears a sash goes off to an OA weekend, strips down into breeches and feathers, and walks around spouting ceremonial lines to each other until Sunday morning? The ceremonial aspects help provide a sense of intrigue and mystery and a structure for organization, but they are just the outward trappings, not an end unto themselves. There is a whole heck of a lot that even a poor OA lodge does behind the scenes that is still valuable, even if you don't know about it ... setting up camp, clearing and marking trails, building benches, installing fencing, giving latrines a deep scrubbing ... in many councils, they do a good deal of the work necessary to get the summer camps ready for business. Don't dismiss that just because you see no immediate benefit in your current job. The key to a strong OA program on the district/chapter level, in my experience, is integration. The OA chapter chief and adviser should be sitting in at Roundtable meetings and sharing what they're doing, getting ideas for new events and offering to help. Has your district leadership made them welcome?

Silly. Learning different oaths is part of the process that separates the programs and makes moving up neat. It's like a password. Definitely a sort of rite of passage. Are Tico et al trying to leave their mark on the program with some legacy change? The Venturing oath is nothing in comparison to the OA Obligation. That sucker just keeps on going like the Energizer bunny.

Not every lodge dances and drums - mine didn't. Ceremonies were a means to an end. The end was service. Everyone who came back after their induction understood that. But making national generalizations based upon one local lodge is a bit silly.

Linas, do you have a link or other source where I could find this document directly? I've just spent a half-hour searching the Michigan register of regulations and the Department of Human Services website, and have been unable to find anything that remotely touches upon that topic. And the date of 6/10/11 does not match up with the issuance dates of new proposed regulations in Michigan. Care to share?

Rest in peace, Dr. Ride.

As I understand it, BSA was forced to make Learning for Life inclusive because so many of its units are connected with public institutions, such as fire companies, police departments, EMS agencies, etc., and local governments' nondiscrimination laws would have kicked out traditional Scouting units. So it's not exactly a shiny thing that National wants to advertise. Its participant numbers are also fairly small - 777,243 compared to 2,723,869 in the traditional membership. And I do have to wonder how LFL counts "participation." If that includes a youth who attends a single career development program and never comes back, that's not exactly burning up the wires.

I think that pretty much says it all. You support calling teenagers troubled and immoral based upon who they have feelings for. You demand respect for your beliefs, but disregard mine. You refuse to debate except on your terms, where the Bible is the ultimate authority. You cannot muster up a single point in favor of the ban to convince those who are not Christian. Point made, sir.

I apologize if I have insulted anyone's faith; that was certainly not my intent. But it is just as insulting to my beliefs and values when people on your side call gays and lesbians "not normal, "troubled" or "immoral." You have a right to practice your faith, as do we all. But your faith is not everyone's faith. Your God is not my God. Yet you feel compelled to force every Scout and Scouter obey your God on this issue. My God, who tells me that banning people based upon who they love is not right, gets no voice, simply because the numbers are in your favor. That is a might-makes-right situation. That is the part of this debate that supporters of the ban simply fail to understand. If my faith compels me to accept homosexuality as normal and yours does not, why does yours win out? Barry, if this was really about freedom and choice, then you would not be so threatened by the local option. Your arguments about why your God orders you to believe X carry no weight with me. I'm asking for an argument in support of the ban that shows why gays are immoral based on universal principles, not specific religious doctrine. Not a single person here can defend the ban without resorting to the Bible. In my beliefs, that book is just a book. It was written by men who are infallible. It is a great book, to be sure, one of many. But I do not take it as the word of God, as you do. So again, please, explain the reason for the ban in a way that makes sense to me and the other non-Christians in Scouting. ----------------- Addendum: I find it ironic that I am lectured to show respect for others' positions and faiths, yet am then told to be quiet, quit the organization or change my faith, simply because I do not believe what you believe. (This message has been edited by Shortridge)

I'm committed to change from the inside. If there are no internal voices speaking out, it will be that much more difficult to get this accomplished.

Correct, Barry, and my morals and values say discriminating based on love is repugnant. So again, why do your morals and values trump mine? If you can give me a reason without quoting religious texts - because BSA includes members of many faiths, some of which disagree on this issue - and without resorting to the COs-support-it argument, you will win a prize of me shutting up for a day. I simply want to hear a line of argument that is intellectually honest, because I'm very skeptical that one exists.

Because not every religion believes being gay is immoral, SP. In a pluralistic organization, quoting religious texts to support a point provides no support for a position. Brewmeister contends morality is black and white. Yet my morality holds that homosexuality is perfectly normal, and that it is BSA's discriminatory policy that is in fact immoral. I would like to hear an argument from those who support the ban that relies on logic, not fear, and substantive facts, not religious doctrine. You can quote the Bible all you want, but Scouting is not a Christian organization.

Wasn't the Corps of Discovery supposed to play this role in some councils for Venturers?

Without quoting religious texts, can you explain how homosexuality is immoral?

I would just caution you to not make a huge production out of it. Call the DLs up, hand them their doodads, shake hands, and done in a few seconds, unless the boys want to be involved like Polaris' experience. Generally speaking, there's nothing more embarrassing than adults in a youth program making a big deal of themselves. Keep the focus on the kids, and it doesn't matter when you do it.

"it's about freedom to provide and make choices." Barry, I'm glad to hear that you support the local option!

So it does come down to might makes right. Glad to hear in your own words that you can't defend this on logical grounds.

That's the crux of the matter, Barry. Not all Scouts and Scouters quote Matthew, nor believe that homosexuality is immoral or not normal. Some of us believe the opposite, that the act of discriminating against people based upon who they love is itself immoral. Yet your morality and religious doctrine outweighs my morality and religious doctrine. How is that right?

So gay people are troubled, and the comfort of the majority should come before equality? Wow. Is this about natural law, religious values, safety or fear? I've heard all and more as reasons for this ban. All are odious.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's been around since at least 2009.

"Conservative churchs aren't losing members nearly as bad as liberal churches." I never said they were. Is the only evidence you have to support your assertion that "national trends" support the ban on gays? That the anti-gay groups are losing members, but hey, not as many as the place on the next block, so people support us? Gallup reported recently that 32 percent of Americans are nonreligious. That's pretty staggering when you consider the 2000-2010 stats showing a decline in almost every denomination. While religious affiliation certainly isn't a predictor of views on civil rights issues, the numbers certainly don't look good those who cite Biblical truths and principles as their evidence for a ban on gays in Scouting. Seems like none of the trends are in your favor except for the rise in Mormonism. And frankly, I'm kind of skeptical about how they count their membership. # # # "The only time a Gay kid would be asked to leave would be when he becomes either a threat to other scouts, or insists on making it public, which then causes friction and controversy." The whole "we're not against gays, just people who are openly gay" line is just so much garbage. Our current Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy is a complete and utter farce. We see posts on here all the time from heterosexual leaders saying "I don't make my sexuality public, why should the gays?" Well, let's consider the subtle ways you do make your sexuality public: - You wear a wedding ring. - Your spouse drives a vehicle to a camping trip. - You talk about how your spouse is going to have a lot of dirty clothes to wash after this camping trip / or any other casual conversation. - You chat around the campfire about how your wife did [insert funny joke, comment, etc.] last week. - Your spouse is a member of the BSA and serves on a committee. - You have children in the unit and mention their other parent in earshot conversation of other boys. Do any of those things - which we all routinely do as a matter of course - cause friction and controversy? Of course not. Then why should a gay man or woman's casual discussion of their partner do the same?(This message has been edited by shortridge)