Jump to content

tjhammer

Members
  • Content Count

    358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by tjhammer

  1. 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 Page [1,894,429]

    2. Homosexuality [1,475,437]

    3. Homosexuality and Hepatitis [515,993]

    4. Homosexuality and Promiscuity [416,375]

    5. Homosexuality and Parasites [387,265]

    6. Homosexuality and Gonorrhea [327,795]

    7. Homosexuality and Domestic Violence [319,073]

    8. Gay Bowel Syndrome [305,261]

    9. Homosexuality and Syphilis [261,781]

    10. Homosexuality and Mental Health [243,293]

     

    Obsess much? :-)

     

  2. 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 driven by a feeling, not an argument, and I believe you prejudge gay people based on those feelings. I also believe gay people (myself, in this case) need to do a better job of educating and relating to you as part of the human condition.

     

    It's harder, perhaps, in this passionate issue to separate a wish from an argument, a desire from a denial.

     

    I'm busy today, but I do want to give some real thought and a reasoned response to your post, so I promise to do so tonight.

  3. 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.

     

  4. 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 "incapable of being the best kind of citizen", and what Mr. CA_Scouter really believes about him?

     

    Just as bad, if you and I disagree with the prejudice, by donating our money and time and adding our name to the membership count, we're lumping ourselves under this very public stance that the BSA has taken. Now we may both decide the overwhelming value of Scouting justifies our involvement, but to the young parents of a Cub Scout age boy evaluating the organization from the outside, they identify you and me and the organization as an agent of prejudice. Clearly, smart people will assume not EVERY leader in the organization believes as the national policy states, but since there's no mechanism for you to set yourself apart from the prejudice (no "local option", no tolerance for members who speak out against the policy, etc), how will you get through your implicit endorsement of the prejudice?

     

     

     

     

     

     

  5. 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 about 12, and continued well into my mid twenties before I decided the "phase" was probably not passing ;-)).

     

    I remember saying to this friend of mine, when he came out (and without admitting that I, too, was gay... I just couldn't bring myself to announce that)... I told him "listen, it's fine your gay, but just don't be up in people's face about it". Imagine the irony? I haven't seen him for years, but whenever I think about him I regret making that comment.

     

    Fact is, this is a guy who surprised every person in his life when he announced he was gay... he had concealed it so deeply, and struggled with it so personally, that not one other person helped him through the process. And when he finally acknowledged the fact to his closest friends (one of whom was too chicken to even admit back that he knew exactly how this fellow felt), the first thing we said was "OK, but don't buy a billboard to brag about it".

     

    I understand the frustration over the "thong wearing, in your face crowd", and I can tell you I've personally never felt it necessary to demonstrate like that.

     

    But at the same time, I do have some friends (most of them professional, successful people) who do love to join in the parade from time to time, and I think it's fun to watch. I suppose it has a lot to do with the a psyche that was forced to conceal such a basic part of their identity for so long, and the occasional opportunity to proudly declare it must be incredibly cathartic.

     

    And I'll also grant you there are quite a few gay people who take the "dramatic flair" well beyond the occasional parade. Like in all segments of humanity, there are also some pretty damaged, screwed up folks in the gay community. But I wonder how much of that has to do with the damage their psyche suffered through years of shame, silence and judgment from others? In that context, it's pretty easy to understand how a person could wind up pretty banged up, and act out in extraordinary ways.

     

    That being said, this is a generational thing. Kids are coming out at a much younger age today, than even just a decade ago, and they are making it through the process far less damaged. The result is remarkable... a lot of gays in their late teens and early twenties today are just normal, assimilated kids, with social networks that don't even think twice about their sexuality. Many of them look at gay people in their forties that have spent a lifetime acting out to justify their existence, and just can't relate.

     

    As more gay kids come out and are accepted for who they are, there's far less reason for Pride Parades and "in your face" attitudes. In many ways, the "gay culture" is swiftly, definitively disappearing.

     

    Sorry for the long post in response... but the point of my rambling is this: I totally get your point, and have even used the very same words as you... "fine, your gay, just don't shove it in my face". And while I don't own a leather vest or rainbow thong, I can nonetheless see where that culture came from, and don't really judge it too harshly. I can also see how that culture is disappearing, and it starts with kids who no longer feel the need to "be in your face" about who they are.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  6. 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 they've felt this way from the first moments of their sexuality. This is not a "decision" that a bunch of bad acting twenty-five-year-olds make... it's a realization that begins with young teenagers, and most spend the next decade of their lives quietly fighting, ignoring or denying this fundamental part of their being. You can guess how that alone damages a person... add to it prejudice from the people around them that they respect, and it becomes nearly unbearable for some.

     

    No, I don't expect I'm going to change the hearts and minds of the zealots among us... but I do hope to find a few hearts and minds that are already a little open. And I'd like to cause them to think through their implicit endorsement of the prejudice, and prepare them for the day when this issue does suddenly show up in their unit or family, so they'll be prepared with more than a knee-jerk reaction.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  7. 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 not of other influence, it seems to me Romans 1:26-27 says I would be wrong to become pagan, commit idolatry and have an orgy with women.

     

    Also, many people think the context of Paul's comments in that passage is important. The very next passages are Paul warning Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin or to castigate or judge others.

     

    Got any scripture where the Bible's condemning me simply for being gay, without rapping it up in a context of rape, prostitution, sex with slaves or children or as part of a group pagan expression?

     

  8. 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 hate mongering.

     

    But you know what? I have no problem with you hate mongering and prejudging gays. Go right ahead... if the parents that place boys into your unit want to teach that lesson, it's up to them. Most will eventually, painfully, realize their bias was evil, or their kids will some day dismiss it as yet another unfortunate injustice of their forefathers.

     

    But why force the parents of my unit to join in your hate mongering and prejudice? If your chartered partner wants to "own" that type of lesson plan, why should mine have to as well?

     

    On one count we can both agree... some day, final judgment will be rendered... I'm comfortable my "sin of gayness" harmed no one, debased no one and would jive with the catchy "WWJD" far more than the other side.

     

  9. 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 Dana Perino said. "It was not watered down in terms of its science. It wasn't watered down in terms of the concerns that climate change raises for public health."

     

    Take a glance at the 1,500 words that were cut out of the remarks... redacted parts in red.

     

    http://www.desmogblog.com/full-version-of-white-house-edited-cdc-climate-report-with-hightlights

     

    Who's not to be trusted?

     

     

     

  10. 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 people that are saying "no harm, no foul" in this thread, are horrified about who I might be sleeping with outside of Scouting, back at home? This was inside of Scouting, at an event with boys in the neighboring tents, and you want to equivocate about "whether their marriages were 'technically' over by the time they were messing around"?

     

    Look, it was poor judgment, shouldn't happen again, but otherwise isn't an offense worth tossing the leaders. But the irony is just too much that some of the same people so adamant against the "immorality" of my "private life" are so quick to give this issue a pass.

     

    And lest you think the "no harm, no foul" argument is valid... I promise you the boys in the troop have an idea what's going on. Even without knowledge of this specific incident, they are gossiping about "Mr. Jones and Mrs. Smith are getting divorced and hooking up with each other". When I was a kid, the Camp Director and Camp Nurse both left their families to marry each other... we never saw them slipping into tents, but I can assure you the camp staff got tons of giggles out of that, and so will the boys in this troop, by "filling in the blanks" with their own imagination. In the end, it might be a distraction, and it might not be the ideal role modeling, but I doubt any of the kids will use it as the inspiration to grow up some day and cheat on their own spouses.

     

     

     

     

     

     

  11. 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 shameful that we allow prejudice to contribute to the destruction of young people's lives.

     

    Look, I haven't been in this Forum much lately, and usually jump into the discussion after long breaks and exhaustion from trying to use logic to counter passion. And really, part of the reason I stepped away from the debate here months ago, is because I started to realize the debate was already over.

     

    The hearts and minds of people all around the country have opened very wide in just the past decade, and more and more people are realizing the irrationality of prejudice. Those of you reading this post with a knee jerk reaction to deny my claim need not get too worked up about it... day by day, they truth is being revealed, particularly with the young generations, who are becoming parents for the first time, and with kids entering Cub Scout age.

     

    When Roy Williams was Chief Scout, he was quoted in the Rotarian magazine (in a rare slip of the tongue) saying the BSA would have to revisit their policy if a significant number of parents started turning away from BSA's position. More than anything ever argued about this matter, that summed up just how little the BSA's position is really based on "morality".

     

    As I mentioned in another post, it has a lot to do with familiarity, when people realize their sons and daughters, nieces and nephews and the guys next door are gay and "not bad people". And if they have any "agenda", it's simply to be treated equally for what they are... normal people who happen to be gay.

     

    Like most of the population under 35 (and quite a few over), I'm a fan of Jon Stewart's Daily Show... primo political satire (and one of the best ways to kill hours lost in YouTube).

     

    Comedy Central spent the past couple of months yanking all their shows from YouTube, only to recently post the ENTIRE history of the show up on their own site a week ago, going back to 1999. http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/ Great stuff.

     

    In a rare serious interview with Bill Bennett about a year ago, he makes the point of "familiarity" defeating prejudice. Pointing out that Dick Cheney, otherwise the very definition of a social conservative, doesn't oppose gay marriage. Bennett concedes it's probably because his daughter's a lesbian, and Stewart's poignant response: "But isn't every gay person someone's son or daughter?"

     

     

     

    Here's the clip if it's not appearing above: http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=110539&is_large=true

     

  12. 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 (or more importantly, the program from their kids).

     

    This explicit ban on gays joining scouting began to percolate in the mid-80's, coinciding with the LDS's increased influence over the BSA. Since the BSA program (or at least the LDS's modified version of the program) is the defacto youth program for boys in the LDS Church, their membership numbers are significant. But as you correctly point out, their percentage of chartered units is about DOUBLE their percentage of members (and in terms of influence, cash contributions trumps number of chartered units, which trumps number of members).

     

    At one time the United Methodist Men, a group within the UMC (itself deeply divided over the issue of gays and the Church) was on an active campaign to register as many new units as they could, thus increasing their influence at the table and helping to overturn this policy.

     

    BTW, it was also the LDS Church that was staunchly opposed to women serving in adult leadership roles, and helping to drive the BSA's court battles to avoid that. After BSA changed their policy, LDS units enjoyed the "local option" and continued on excluding women from troop leadership positions. That compromise seemed to work out just fine for them, after years of resistance.

     

     

  13. 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 might "avow" my homosexuality in Scouting, probably sooner rather than later, because I recognize "familiarity" is the only way to overcome prejudice. But for now I choose not to avow it, and continue to support the Movement the best I know how today.

     

     

  14. 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.

     

     

  15. 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?

     

  16. 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 explicit definition of what they intend. In the mean time, I've already conceded that we're quiveling over words, but it's a game that BSA is playing as equally as I am.

     

    I can interpret by the defacto "don't ask/don't tell" approach they've taken, and inconsistent enforcement of the policy, that they must not be talking about me. If BSA Inc. ever does come around to instructing me personally to leave, I'll have no choice but to do so. (BTW, you wouldn't have much choice if they decided to boot you because they don't like motorcycle riders as a class, and you explicitly... and that's their privilege.)

     

    I don't go around "avowing" (whatever that means) my homosexuality in Scouting. I don't expect you "avow" your heterosexuality in Scouting (by the same arbitrary definition of the word).

     

     

    As for why you don't recognize any gay people in Scouting and I do, I guess it's that mystical gaydar thing. ;-) And the fact that most of the gay people I've met along the way was back when I was younger, and I was probably much more sensitive to and approachable on the subject. As a side note, I'd be willing to bet your high school age kids know far more gay people than you ever have in your lifetime... maybe we're evolving. ;-)

  17. 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 case by case stance on whether to exclude them. I've been around national committees that included folks who lived in committed same sex relationships and BSA Inc chose to ignore it as irrelevant.

     

    That's certainly the case in many, many local units (and even many Councils, including nearly all the major metro Councils who explicitly refuse to enforce the policy while giving lip service to adhering to it), where individuals are not PREjudged, but judged as individuals, to determine whether they are good role models.

     

    The hypocrisy of the national policy is that it's poorly defined and inconsistently enforced... which leaves in the lurch a lot of really good kids who are secretly coming to grips with their sexual identity. It also leaves the Scouting in a lurch with public opinion, especially among young parents that are considering putting their kids into the program.

     

    Of course, BSA Inc. is in a precarious situation... they can't really explicitly define the policy or more aggressively enforce it for fear of expanding real prejudice. They have just enough vagueness in the "wink, wink" policy to placate the LDS church (which were principally, though not exclusively, behind the National Relationships Committee's crafting of the policy declaration in the first place).

     

     

    (Re: tents sharing, etc... if you recognize that thousands of gay kids already exist in the program, you'll know planning for how to deal with gay kids joining is a red herring.)

     

  18. 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 both the organization that I love, and real people, does make me feel dishonorable. But I'm not much more dishonorable in that respect than than about half the participants on this Forum who have suggested they also think the policy is wrong. And since I know it's easier to affect change from within (for now), I've decided to live with that hypocrisy a bit longer.

     

    What about homosexual youth? Should they be allowed to tent together?

     

    Well, we did when I was a kid (which was in the 80's, just as the BSA was concocting their policy to explicitly label avowed homosexuals "incapable of being the best kind of citizen" and unworthy of leadership. I knew about a dozen gay kids as I was a kid growing up in Scouting... a couple that I knew at the time, others didn't come out until years later. (I had a lot of involvement in OA and national events, so I knew a lot of people... no doubt I knew many more, who concealed it and I've since lost track of over the years.)

     

    What about homosexual youth?

     

    Yeah, what about those youth? I'm pretty lucky that Scouting instilled a huge amount of self-confidence and self-worth in me, and that I didn't worry much about the nonsense over gay people in the program... that's not to say I didn't hugely struggle with coming to grips with my sexual identity, and recognizing that it wasn't anything I could change.

     

    But I had it much easier than some of the kids I knew, who quietly suffered... imagine hearing you're the ONE KIND of person that's explicitly incapable of being "good" and worthwhile as a participant or role model.

     

    The struggle (and in no small part the condemnation of Scouting) lead one of those young boys to foolishly attempt suicide... it wasn't until after the attempt that I learned he was gay. The next year he went on to be one of the best OA officers I've ever encountered, so he bounced back. ;-)

     

    Are you still involved?

     

    Yes, along with thousands of other gay men and boys. Watch out, there's probably been one of us in your troop. If there is, I pray he's developed enough self-worth through Scouting to ignore your prejudice.

     

     

  19. 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?

     

     

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...