tjhammer

Yeah, I agree with NJCubScouter (wow... it's been a couple of years since I wrote that phrase!)... almost certainly the quote from National about becoming more diverse applies to outreach to the Hispanic market. As for the future of gay marriage, BrentAllen, this chart tells the story better than any words could: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/11/marriage-and-the-generations.html

I'll be home and able to write a thoughtful (hopefully) statement in a few hours... Until then, just a quick post... your religious analogy was not inappropriate... I have no desire to change what you believe, and you should similarly have no desire to change what I believe (which is that I'm going to be just fine with God). But the evangelical conservative movement just can't seem to NOT focus on me... A little insight into the pathologies of the far-right. Here are Conservapedia's most viewed pages http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Statistics Most viewed pages 1. Main

The fact that you disagree with my religious beliefs should not lead me to conclude that you hate me... Even if you wanted me to give up those beliefs... I would not take that as hateful... I would assume you want me to change Actually, I couldn't care less about your religious beliefs, nor would I have ANY predilection for expecting you to change them. Why in the world would you think I would want to change you? you are not entitled to ascribe hatred as my motivation since you cannot read my mind or my heart I don't believe you're hateful; I do believe your perspective is drive

far from hating anyone, we want to convince people that they would actually be happier if they refrained from such activity Ay, caramba! Now I get it! Every single thought or attraction I've had since I was 12 years old, the enormous cultural resistance, fear of rejection from friends, family, church and Scouting... that's just because no one has taken the time to convince me to stop being this "way"! Gotcha. Nice prism you got there, buddy.

I'm not an atheist. But I do agree you shouldn't be concerned about my relationship "with the Big Guy in the Sky".

I find the phrase "not capable of being the best kind of citizens" to be denigrating when talking about me. And apparently that statement wasn't strong enough, so they've also added "immoral" and "not clean" to be sure we get the message. Denigrating enough for ya?

Does this mean that by the simple act of being a leader in the BSA, that I'm guilty of prejudice against one of my scouts? Yes, at least to a degree you and I both are guilty of implicitly endorsing the policy if prejudice. We both might rather focus on great campouts and developing leaders within our unit, and probably do for the most part. But to the kid who is quietly coming to grips with a part of his being that he's unable to change, do you think he's able to understand the nuanced difference between a BSA national policy you may or may not agree with, one that labels him "inca

Yeah, I hear you eolesen... it's funny, when I was 18 or 19, one of my friends (who was a couple of years older than me) announced he was gay. It was a complete and total surprise to me and all of his friends (BTW, he was also a very active Scout/Scouter). At the time, very few people knew I was also gay (this fellow had no idea I was either, despite the fact that we were close friends for years, it just wasn't something that we ever discussed). I was still struggling with accepting my own sexuality, and was still deluding myself that "it was just a phase" (one that started when I was a

On this Forum, I hope to only give pause to a leader who might not have thought much about this issue, or thinks it doesn't really involve them or their unit. I'd hope my arguments cause that leader to understand they could have a quietly suffering kid in their midst today, coming to grips with their sexuality, and not concerned with interpreting the nuance of their leader's unintended judgment or implicit endorsement of prejudice against that boy. What's so sadly ridiculous about some people believing gays have chosen to be gay, is that the vast majority of gay people will tell you

Thanks Ed... Romans is from the same Paul's epistle that supports the oppression of women and accepted slavery as a normal social practice, right? I guess we'll pick and choose his words carefully, like some of the other editors and revisions of the Bible along the way? I read those Romans passages as such: heterosexual men and women left the church, became pagan and engaged in orgies that were unnatural to them (they had group sex with men and women both, when their "natural" state was heterosexuality). Knowing, as I do, that being gay is my natural state, given unto me by God and

The part where Jesus condemned BEING gay must have been edited out of my version of the Bible... maybe the editors redacted it since they needed so much room for what Jesus taught about prejudice and sanctimony.

If you disagree with me, prejudge me as an individual because of some erroneous notions, proclaim me unclean, immoral and incapable of ever being "the best kind of citizen", call me out as the ONE kind of person to explicitly label unworthy of association, and implicitly teach the boys in your charge (some of whom are undoubtedly, quietly, discovering they are gay) that all this is acceptable behavior, then yeah, I'd call it hate mongering. Justifying it all based on lies ("watch out, gays are dangerous, wink wink") or sanctimonious interpretations of God's rules, then it's arbitrary h

On behalf of gays everywhere, I apologize for our role in destroying the sanctimony of these Scouters' marriages.

Day by day, it's easier to see how the GOP of today is about as far away from what I grew up believing was good about the party. So, for those of you convinced Gore is lying about global warming, how do you explain the Bush administration's editing of it's cabinet member's reports to Congress? The CDC director gave Congressional testimony on the health effects of climate change last week. But her statement was cut by the Bush White House from over 3,000 words to 1,500, omitting large parts of her prepared remarks. "She was able to say everything she wanted to say," White House spokesman

Am I the only one (through obviously biased prism) that thinks this thread stinks of double standard? (1) I wonder why it was moved OUT of the Issues and Politics Forum, where it originated? Divorce pending, hooking up with another leader, fraternization on a campout... all that is just a "Camping & High Adventure" topic, instead of "Issues & Politics", because they at least believe the important parts of the Bible? (This is rhetorical... not trying to be too heavy handed on the moderator that moved it, but pointing out the inconsistency.) (2) In that Forum, the very same p

Yah, one can also be prejudiced in favor of gays, eh? I suppose if someone was saying "all gays are the best kinds of citizens, and incapable of being immoral", then yeah. But that's just dumb... sure sounds goofy when the prejudice is inverted to the same degree, huh?

Folks, this isn't about agendas, or majority opinions or traditions. It's about morality. This is about an entire class of real people, especially young people, who some of you (and collectively all of "us" in BSA) are prejudging. Without knowing a thing about them, without a real understand of what makes them gay, we're labeling them incapable of being good citizens, and unworthy of association. Most of these gay youngsters suffer from the prejudice around them, most make it through, but some don't. I find it hideously immoral that we're contributing to the prejudice. I find it sha

so it's not just the LDS throwing their weight around where issues of faith and morality are concerned. eolsen... ever sat in the National Relationships Committee meetings, or spoken to anyone that's aware of this crucible for the policy? The LDS are the only ones that have actually threatened to cancel their charters with the BSA. The LDS were the only ones cited in amicus briefs before the Court threatening to cancel their charters. Sure, some other religious chartering partners would oppose a change in the policy, but none of the rest have threatened to yank their kids from the program

Charter, Bylaws and the Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America BTW, you must have a different copy of those documents than me. The policy saying gay people are incapable of being the best kinds of citizens is not in those documents. As to why I choose the play the semantics game that BSA started... I'm a product of Scouting. More than any influence on my life... more than church, school or friends... as much as family, Scouting formed and shaped the man I am today. My debt to the Scouting Movement (if not BSA Inc.) is immeasurable and non-expiring. Some day I migh

I studied dance and worked in the theater as a young man. Hmm, I wondered why my Spidey sense was tingling. You try to dance around the fact but you, not BSA, is the hypocrite. Already copped to that plea. And I'd feel even less honorable about it if BSA hadn't defined the rules of engagement on this equivocation.

Again, exactly what principles do you not want to abandon? I'm having real trouble figuring that out. If it's Biblical inerrancy, are you prepared to explain all other parts of the Bible you choose to ignore or interpret differently? And regardless of whether you are, why should the Bible matter to Scouting? Scouting doesn't claim the Bible is any more or less relevant to them than other "holy scriptures". So what principle are you being asked to abandon?

What does that have to do with... Uh, everything. My membership in the organization was not contingent upon a poorly defined and inconsistent policy, which up until about a year ago you had to interpret from scattered comments in random places. BSA finally got around to actually positing a policy on a web site (not on a membership application, or in any training literature, mind you), but leaves it up to your imagination to define what it means to be an "avowed homosexual". You clearly think it means one thing, I think it means another, and we'll likely never hear from BSA an explic

Have you signed a membership form that I haven't signed? One that asked you to declare to BSA Inc. whether you were a homosexual or not? We can debate ad nauseum what the BSA policy means by "avowed homosexual"... I'll go ahead and concede in advance that it's just silly word games... but it's incumbent upon the BSA to define what that means (which they've done inconsistently for years, but always as the sole arbiter, which right they one as a private organization). Said another way... I promise you that at all levels of Scouting, BSA Inc. knows there are gays involved and takes a

The rules don't apply to me because I'm special. Deep breath... always fun when someone new like Gold Winger joins the Forum, huh? (BTW, does his response assuage any suspicions from a few pages back about his true identity, and whether Gold Winger's a recurrent troll? I'm not sure, really.) I'm not breaking any "rules". I'm compliant with the BSA's policy, which amounts to "don't ask/don't tell". I'll grant you that participation doesn't feel very honorable to me sometimes, but not because I'm breaking a rule... implicitly endorsing a policy that's wrong causes real damage to

I'm gay. I've been in Scouting for 28 years, and involved in leadership positions locally to internationally. The question for me is: what principles are you standing by? Biblical inerrancy? That calls for explanation for any number of other questions that so many evangelicals seem indifferent toward. What are these principles whereof you speak? And why are they relevant to Scouting?