tjhammer

It seems to me that if what you are saying about the BSA is true, then my son (having been in Scouting since Tiger Cubs) would have a definite negative attitude towards gays. He doesn't.I don't believe all of the boys of Scouting are getting the message that they should have a "definite negative attitude towards gays"... quite the contrary, I believe most of the boys of Scouting don't even know there is a policy or an issue of debate. But that does not eliminate culpability for the BSA... some of our boys are getting that message, whether we intend for them to or not. And some of our boys are

Bubba, thank you for a very reasoned response. Allow me to counter... as I understand the issue, it is over an avowed adult homosexual being a Scout leader, however, I see the inference you are making.No inference at all... if you read the policy statements it does not limit this policy to adults, and in fact there have been several incidence of gay youth being expelled already. Further to the point, if you read the text of the arguments before the Supreme Court, you will find that it is not even necessary to be homosexual, merely advocating against the BSA policy in a place where Scout a

I did not call you a fool, I said the sentiment that this is irrelevant to the boys of Scouting is foolish. And then I went on to explain why. Are you OK with the fact that Scouting is sending a message to 14 year old Scouts that they are unworthy of membership because they are immoral, right at the time when they are coming to the realization that they might be gay? Are you OK with the fact that this is the only thing we feel it necessary to have an explicit and blanket ban on? Are you OK with the ambiguous yet dangerous message that we send to other Scouts that being gay is where we exp

BobWhite -- I don't disagree with your assessment, other than to say that there is clearly a difference in the relationship between a boy and his band teacher and a boy and his Scoutmaster. Scouting provides, by its very nature, for much closer, more personal mentoring relationships, and character and the growth of a boy into a man is at the heart of Scouting. Thank God that the adult men who mentored me along the way realized that Scouting was not as sanitized of a adult/boy relationship as was expected of the band leader. And I fully support your idea that a parent should be involved wi

It is all fine to believe that sexuality and discussions there of have no place in Scouting. I agree that its not a matter of the curriculum of Scouting. I certainly support the idea that such conversations have no place with younger Scouts, and I support the parents role in holding these conversations with their children before others do. But were nave to believe that 13 and 14 year old Scouts are not already discussing sexuality. And we are nave to think that most or all parents (particularly so many single parent families) are proactively answering their sons questions. And were also nave t

This issue is not about the boys. All else being equal, there would be no benefit in what the boys experience in Scouting if gays were accepted.This is a foolish and regrettable sentiment. I have recalled in previous posts three separate and personal experiences where someone in my Scouting world was affected by this current policy. One of those experiences I have mentioned, but hesitated to give too much detail on, supports just how much this is about the boys and counters what you claim to be an irrelevant debate. It is a fact that a percentage of boys, coming of age and becoming sexual

Rooster, do you believe that Native Americans were (are) incapable of being moral? Since they were largely pagan, and fall well outside your strict definition of "belief in God", I wonder how you might judge them to be moral? Or for that matter, can Buddhists be moral? They, too, seem to fall outside your perspective of God. I made the point flat out that I believe it is possible for an atheist to still be a moral man (though less likely, in my opinion). I would also suggest that pagans and Buddhists and a whole lot of other religions that don't closely fit to Rooster's insular perspectiv

Rooster, you should know by now that I rarely (though unfortunately not without exception) say something in this debate without having a clear and logical conclusion in mind. To the contrary, I try to maintain my side of the debate solely on rational and logical arguments without depending on emotion or insular perspective. Morality is a social condition. It is man's attempt to maintain standards by which he can be a social creature. Morality is certainly not God given, though certain mores are indeed derived from lessons and fables of the Bible and other religious doctrine (and, I would

I asked Rooster: Is it possible for man, in the absence of any interaction with other beings, to behave morally or immorally? I would say no.I would be interested in your answer to this question.

Rooster says: I believe the subject was "human procreation" and perversity.OK, for the record, just so we can simplify the debate and avoid going in circle after circle... Rooster, are you making the argument (this is the same question I used to ask DedDad over and again)...homosexuality equals perversion and perversion equals immoral so therefore homosexuality equals immoral?And for the record, are you stating that any sex or intimacy without the goal of procreation is perverse? And for the record, are you stating that anything perverse is always immoral? And for the record, are you

When you can show me the moral difference (in terms of perversity) between a homosexual and a man that "enjoys his food", I'll continue this debate.Ummm, hmmm. Well, while it seems that someone who has sex with food would qualify as strange and perverse (in my opinion), I have no idea how you would deem it a moral or immoral activity. It seems that you have a very liberal umbrella of what you deem to be a matter of morality. I've been consistent with my interpretation... I think I once simplified my description of moral behavior as "do unto others as you would have done unto you". Further expl

On the one hand, you trumpet homosexuality as normal because you claim no one can show you scientific evidence that it is not.I'm not looking for scientific evidence. In fact, I have even distanced myself (in the post a few up from this) from the scientific/genetic argument. All I've asked, which is consistent for months, is for you to prove your assertion that homosexuality is immoral, and do so without forcing your God, or your Bible, or your opinions on to me and my organization (my Scout troop).(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

It is your assertion (and the assertion of BSA National) that gays are immoral. The burden is upon your to back that statement with any sort of fact (without invoking your God or your Bible or your opinion). I've read every contribution that you have personally made to this debate, Evmori, and I've never known you to go beyond "it's wrong because I say so and God told me to believe that". If nothing else, you're consistent. But I'd like you to think a little harder and see if you can reach beyond that singular perspective. I see homosexuality as neither moral or immoral, just like heteros

How broad of a scientific poll have you conducted?Not too broad, and hardly scientific. As I said in my post, I've never met or heard of a homosexual who told you they were such solely by choice. Have you?homosexuality can be equated to pedophiliaYou can't equate homosexuality to pedophilia any more than you can equate heterosexuality to pedophilia. Pedophilia is immoral. Victimhood of the child is inherent. This is a repetitive red herring you use to try to condemn gays by associating it with disease or criminality, both tactics that have been debunked decades ago.That's a fair direction, but

BobWhite -- You'll note that I posted this story without initial comment. I agree with your assessment that Boston is just putting into writing a clear policy (something that BSA National has yet to do). I have said here before that BSA National's policy is essentially "don't ask, don't tell", but it is disingenuous to claim that in the absence of a clear statement of position from BSA. In the absence of such clarification, we have uneven enforcement and no real leadership. Frankly, I agree with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. I believe that sexuality (of any type) is an inappropr

From the headlines... BOSTON BOY SCOUTS PROMOTE DIVERSITY Massachusetts's largest Boy Scout council took another stride away from the pack Monday by announcing the creation of a diversity award at its annual fundraiser, hosted by an openly gay Boston radio personality. The Boston Minuteman Council, which last year adopted a nondiscrimination policy despite the national organization's ban on gays, has created a "diversity awareness award badge." The awards ? which will be given in the fall ? are open to all levels of scouts, scout leaders, and community groups who complete

Big difference if the behavior is by choice, less of a difference if the behavior is NOT by choice, and no meaningful difference if the behavior is genetic. Rooster opines: All behavior is by choice. I'm a heterosexual, but nothing compels me to have sex or to behave in any particular manner. This has been hashed out thoroughly in another thread.Rooster, I participated in all of those discussions in which this was "hashed out"... your memory really does fail you, because this was debated but certainly not to any conclusion. And it is a fundamental component to the "rightness" and "wrongne

Wait a minute, theres an idea. Now, on scout's honor, did you used to be Dedicated Dad?/OGE -- Ha! I wonder how many of the rest of us were thinking something similar?

bluecrash --- If you're doing some research, I encourage you to read a couple of previous threads on this board which thoroughly debated this issue. Maybe you will find additional insight here... Scouting's Real Gay Policy Now that we disagree, can we agree? Why it's relevant... It's a lot of reading, but I think you'll find both sides of the issue represented.

Welcome to the discussing, littlebillie. As you'll find, I agree that the BSA should maintain "reverence" and "Duty to God" as fundamental lessons we teach Scouts. I often disagree with many on this board who interpret these lessons to mean a very strict, conservative Christian perspective only. However, I have to comment on your assertion that the World Organization of Scout Movements (WOSM, the sanctioning body of Scouting over 216 countries) considers religion and spirituality to be a fundamental lesson. That's really not true at all, and I would encourage you to read their very w

Rooster, I do appreciate the thought you put into your response. And always, I respect the consistency with which you put forward the basic tenants of your argument. I trust that you agree if I associate you with the Christian Conservative wing of the Republican Party. While that is not a wing of the party I associate with, I doubt seriously that your "Republican credentials" are much stronger than even my own. I, too consider Reagan to be our greatest modern president (just finished my fourth biography on him, and have now moved on to a Teddy Roosevelt bio). I have always been frustrated

I can't allow some of the responses to go without specific observation. In the same thread where I cite true stories from the headlines, personal experience and court documents and still get accused of misrepresenting facts, it's unacceptable for me to allow my opponents to do that which I was accused.However, I would claim that admitting gays is a risk on the BSA's part, and a big one at that.Even the BSA doesn't claim that. Youth Protection works, regardless of whether we're dealing with heterosexuals, homosexuals, child abusers or pedophiles. Disagree?Eisely earlier quoted a statistic that

Bob, you can't pop in and out of the debate, making strong statements like this and then request to be left out of people's response. You're restating my arguments for me and fabricating points out of fresh air. I don't recall ever making a comment regarding the United Way, one way or another (other than to say that it's ironic that the BSA is having trouble with them since the BSA and YMCA created the UW in the first place). I certsinly don't advocate the UW (or anyone) pulling funds from Scouting (maybe redirecting them specifically into camperships or the program instead of turning ov

OGE, I said that we're becoming typecast as a narrow, Christian-only organization. I certainly do not agree that we should be, and have stated on many occassions that I believe we should adhere to our Declaration of Relious Principles and remain "absolutely non-sectarian". NJCubScouter, I agree with you idea to move this discussion in the direction of "should BSA members be limited to those who believe the Bible is infallible?"... it's the logical next step for the debate and a more appropriate way to approach the discussion. My obvious answer is "absolutely not".

(At this suggestion of others, this is a spin off of the United Way thread... I'll post my last message from that thread below, for those that want to continue this specific discussion) Christ was a historical figure. His teachings (and more specifically, the teachings in his name) are pretty simple, pretty clear and documented. I don't believe in a God that micromanages. I don't believe in a God that is vengeful. (That is the God often reflected in the Bible, and I reject those depictions of Him.) I do believe in a God who created man and measures us on our ability to preserve humanity,