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 getting this message from Scouting even though it is contrary to what their parents and churches are teaching them.

In a previous post I raised an extreme example of the boy (an Eagle Scout) who brutally killed Mathew Shepard. I know that Scouting didn't teach him to do that. And I know that he probably picked up his extreme hate and fear of gays from many influences on his life (parents, community, etc). But Scouting certainly reinforced his views. As I said, I think it is irresponsible of us to believe that all of teh boys of Scouting understand the "subtleties" of our intended message on this policy.

Regarding who I am, I have posted many references to my Scouting background on this board. I am an Eagle Scout with more than 22 years in the program at every level from local to national. But this debate is not about me or you or any of the messengers. It is about principles of right and wrong and about the benefit or harm to our organization and the boys and parents we serve.

Bubba, don't "retire from this debate" too soon... I sense that you are a reasonable person who can truly view both sides of this debate. Some folks duck out because it's too hard of a discussion or because they conflicted about what's right or wrong in this situation. If you accept, even slightly, that Scouting could be causing harm to boys because of the current policy, how can you just decide to avoid the debate?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 age youth can read or hear (so in other words, what I'm doing right now) would qualify for banning from the BSA."Immoral" is defined by Webster as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles". Now I did not make these general or traditional morals, they were made over time. Until time changes what is moral then homosexuality will be viewed as "immoral".I agree completely with this sentiment. Morality definitely forms over time, and changes over time. I think that the glacier is already coming, though. Recall that major church denominations within Scouting (including parts of the Methodists, Reform Judaism, Episcopalian and others) do not teach that homosexuals are immoral. In Scouting, we teach the opposite, flagrantly ignoring our Declaration of Religious Principles."Guess I'm gonna wait for the next glacier to come along."I believe it is morally reprehensible to wait on the next glacier and persecute gays for no other reason than they are gay.I do know this: forcing a glacier to come along can cause a lot more damage than clearing its path. Do you think it caused great damage (let's deal in the topical world) when the glacier came along and lifted the ban on women Scout leaders, allowing local units to decide whether to accept them?Will a fourteen-year old boy be getting the message that they are immoral because they are having homosexual feelings? Yes. But as was stated earlier; they learn that in general population too. Am I OK with that? Not as an IN YOUR FACE statement.I find it amazing that the same people who can debate for hundreds of messages about whether it is wrong to harm a Scout by forcing him to sing when he loses his pocket knife can be so flippant about the damage done to gay Scouts through this policy.I am OK with that, however, as it upholds "general and traditional morals". We all learn what is considered right and wrong sometime.But who's "general and traditional morals" are we teaching in Scouting?I am not OK with the blanket policy you speak of, as you speak of it.Then why do you support it? Why do we pick one group and have an explicit, blanket ban just on them? We don't ban gays in Scouting because of any specific behavior, or even fear of any specific behavior (pedophilia), we ban then just because they ar gay, without regard to measuring their individual character.I believe it should be extended to all behaviors I agree, and we already have such membership standards, by allowing local units to judge the quality of each individual adult leader and boy member. No need for a new, specific national policy.As far as an ambiguous message; I think it is a very clear messageReally, you didn't realize that it included boys, too. I wonder if you realized that it included banning NJCubScouter, just because he is publicly advocating, in a place that boys might read, that homosexuals are not inherently immoral? I wonder if you knew how unevenly enforced the policy is (what exactly does "avowed" mean? No good reading a dictionary definition to me, because "avowed" is interpreted differently by lots of people in this case)? No, I think there's no doubt that the "policy" is ill-conceived, ill-enforced and ambiguous.The message wasn't brought into the limelight by the BSA, that is the BSA didn't spotlight the subject.Quite to the contrary, unfortunately. Scouting has had thousands of gay members for decades. And in many cases, the "powers that be" both locally and nationally were aware of the sexuality of the member, but didnt ask, and they didn't tell. It simply wasn't an issue in Scouting, as long as the person had good character and was a good member. This issue was specifically pressed by the Mormon Church at the National Relationship Committee, there is no doubt in my mind (Im sure BobWhite will come back and disagree with this, since weve debated this point before; whether the Mormon Church "drove" this policy in the beginning or not can be debated, I suppose, but theres no denying that it forced the policy to be created, given its threat to abandon Scouting and take 35% of our membership with it). It was then fanned to a fever pitch by outside gay activist groups and outside ultra-conservative groups.

Bubba, you seem like a reasonable person. If you really believe your last post, then how can you possibly support BSA's current national, explicit, blanket policy?

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 explicitly draw the line about who is unworthy?

Whether we as Scout leaders ever personaly counsel a boy on this subject or not is of much less concern to me than the very public, inconsistent, ill-expressed policy that we "shield" ourselves behind.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 with any relationship between a boy and a Scout leader, and that any conversations regarding sexuality (or any other advanced or personal issue like that) should not take place iwthout the parents knowledge and consent. I just think it is unreasonable for us as Scout leaders to think that we will never encounter a situation where we could/should play an instrumental role in counseling a Scout on such topics... many of the adult/boy relationships I have had (on both sides of the perspective) far exceeded the boundaries of a troop meeting or campout... I have become very close mentors with many, and many of an adult became close personal mentors of mine.

I do respect how strongly you (and many others on this board) feel about only you having personal conversations with your child. I suggest that perhaps it is because you are a very good parent, with a stable family life and good communication with your child. It is perhaps because of this near perfect scenario that you can not imagine why a Scout leader would ever play a surrogate role. Unfortunately, yours is not a universal scenario in Scouting.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 to think that no Scout will ever come up to a Scoutmaster, whom they trust and respect and see is close to their family, seeking advice on sexuality.

The kind of close, personal relationships that exist between many mentoring Scout leaders and boys foster this kind of communication, and while rare, I dont think it is a practical matter to expect that the Scoutmaster will always find it appropriate to say dont ask me, go talk to someone else; I cant/wont get involved in your life).

And so what parents should do, is entrust their Scouts to troops and leaders that share their common values. I know that my own single mother trusted the men that lead my Scout unit, and realized (and encouraged) that they often served as surrogate fathers for me. And because she knew these men, and that they shared her values, she trusted them to be close to me when I sought out their counsel. Thats not a rare story, its probably more common than not.

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 beings, are also struggling with the self-awareness that they are (or might be) gay. I have seen this first hand with a young man who was very close to me, who was an Eagle Scout, camp staffer, Arrowman and all around super Scout. And who also happened to realize around the age of 14 that he was gay.

As he grew older the realization of his sexuality pressed hard upon him, he struggled to understand and come to grips with the feelings he was having. On top of the secret he was hiding for fear of rejection from parents, friends and family, he had to deal with two additional sources of extreme pressure from the two most significant organizations in his young life the Catholic Church and Scouting, both of which he was deeply involved in. And both organizations were very publicly telling this boy that he was immoral and unworthy (Scouting saying it even more loudly that his Church).

I watched that boy, not unlike a lot of boys in this situation, spiral into crisis as he dealt with the internal conflicts of self-worth versus the value that Scouting and his Church was placing on him. Teenage depression and suicide is already a terrible problem in our country, but among teenagers who are gay the rate of suicide attempts and serious depression skyrockets. I used to have a Scout Executive friend of mine who lamented to me in private how worried he was for the damage that Scouting was inflicting on these young boys in crisis. It never really fully rang true to me until I saw those concerns materialize in real life before me. What a terrible shame that Scouting, through its words and policies, can be so directly linked to contributing to the stress and crisis that these young men feel.

And what about the other boys in Scouting, that aren't gay? Is Scouting not teaching them to hate or devalue gays for no other reason than the fact that they are gay? Are we not sending that signal loud and clear to the boys of Scouting by saying that being gay is the one trait so heinous that it requires a specific and blanket ban from Scouting? Do we trust the boys of Scouting to understand the intended subtleties of this policy, especially when all they know about it is what they read through the papers?

I'm sorry, I'm willing to debate this issue on this board over and over again. But the one thing that I absolutely can not accept... the most offensive thing I believe my debate opponents can ever say, is that this issue is irrelevant to the boys of Scouting.

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 perspective are all capable of being moral people. Despite your protests to the contrary, Rooster, you are clearly talking out both sides of your mouth on this issue.

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 argue, that most of religion is conversely created by man based on certain mores, in a reciprocal way).

I have argued before that I do not accept such a thing as absolute morality, thus all morality is indeed relative. There probably is a majority of behavior that all humans deem to be moral or immoral, but that is still subject to time and context. (For example, murder is commonly recognized as nearly absolute immorality, but in certain context it is considered by many to be perfectly acceptable and moral (death penalty, war, etc).

Man, in the absence of interaction with other beings is incapable of being immoral. He is capable of being wrong, of course. If you were a religious person with a belief in God you would be capable of being sinful, but not necessarily immoral. Morality is about conforming to social standards and relating to other beings.

I know this part of the debate seems a bit academic to some, but I believe it is fundamental to understanding Rooster's perspective on the entire debate. Not to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you see morality and God as synonymous and inseparable. And anything that you personally deem immoral ("not conforming to standards") you are projecting to be in violation of your God's will, and vice versa.

To answer your questions...

Do you consider a man, who watches pornographic movies of children alone, to be acting immorally? Absolutely immoral. There is an exploitation of another being (in this case the children in the movie, whether they are present or not).Do you consider a man, who fantasizes about rape, to be acting immorally?A bit tougher, because now you are asking to judge the thoughts, not the actions or behavior of someone. I think this is the subject of a new Spielberg movie ("department of precrime"), which looks interesting. I would argue in your favor, however, that this too might be immoral only because a clear and likely causal link to actual violence could be shown. Though I might change my mind on this one after thinking about it a bit it certainly is wrong, though Im not sure morality can yet be measured.Do you consider a man who refuses to acknowledge God to be acting immorally?First, for the record, I believe in God. I am a Christian. I know I have said this several times on this forum, but you have insinuated a few times recently that maybe I lack such a belief, and I don't want to allow that to go without response. I think your insinuations are consistent with NJCubscouter's response to you above, in that you really do put forth the opinion (despite your protests to the contrary) that anyone who does not have the exact same perspective or belief in God and religion as you is wrong, misguided, lesser or worse.

To answer your question directly, "a man who refuses to acknowledge God" is neither moral nor immoral because of that. He is not righteous, in my opinion. And his lack of belief in God may allow him to violate morality and harm society, but I certainly believe it is possible to be an atheist and a moral man (though less likely).The man is a glutton. He constantly eats more than he needs. I say his actions are immoral, for to waste food is wrong.Ugh, yet another liberal application of morality. Cubs, who is to say that the food is wasted, just because he ate more than he needed? Was it somehow depriving someone or something else? If not, its not a matter or morality. Gluttony might be considered a "sin", if you happen to be of such religious beliefs, but its not immoral unless it violates societys standards or harms another being, and since there's no society or other beings on your island, how can we measure it?

Morality and religion are not synonymous and not inseparable. I'd say that they are often derived from each other, but only by mans evolving interpretations of each.

To place this in the context of this debate, homosexuality is not in and of itself a moral issue. Unlike all the other examples (by which some attempt to "link" or associate), there is no violation of society or free will of another being. (Pedophilia, bestiality, etc require the subjugation of free will by one being over another and/or violate the acceptable standards of society. Homosexuality does not violate other beings, and is not in violation of the acceptable standards of society (quickly evolving to be even more true).

To beat a dead horse, let me state again since we clearly have such a different understanding of what is moral or immoral, and even what can be judged for morality's sake, it seems to me the solution is for me to respect and allow you to choose who you want to associate with and what you want to believe. I would expect the same in return, and believe the only feasible level of our Scouting society to pick and choose these associations and beliefs is at the local unit and as close to the parents of our Scouts and chartering organizations as possible.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 equating all perversion (and thus in your mind immorality) as equal?

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 explained, is it possible for man, in the absence of any interaction with other beings, to behave morally or immorally? I would say no.

You on the other hand, deem any and all behavior as either moral or immoral, with nothing in between. Your question about the man and his food is about as relevant of a moral quandary as, say, a person who picks his nose. I don't see any correlation to moral/immoral behavior (unless you're claiming that masturbation is immoral because the Bible tells us so).

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 heterosexuality is neither moral or immoral. Some of the actions or either homosexuals or heterosexuals can be judged for morality, but their sexuality in and of itself, and most of what they do in the privacy and intimacy of their relationships, cannot be judged for morality. There is no way to do so.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 it ignores the fact that the pedophile did not have a "choice" about his orientation.My position on the morality of gays is not based solely on the fact that it is not a matter of choice, and to juxtaposition your question back at me as such is misleading. I suggest that this is a fundamental matter of the "rightness" or "wrongness" of the debate, but certainly not the only fundamental consideration. Without associating homosexuality with any other activity, I've yet to hear a single argument in months of debate as to how society is harmed by the existence of gays.

Frankly, I'm worried with the genetic argument. If it is scientifically concluded that gays are genetically such (not a far fetched idea given the recent advances in genome research), I'm concerned that some people (perhaps not you) would STILL reject that God made gays, and would instead start to treat it purely as a "disease" to eradicate (like muscular dystrophy). Such is the zealous opposition and singular perspective of those who fear or hate a person or activity that differs from their own, for no reason other than the fact that it differs.What evidence is there that homosexuality is wrong (i.e., perverse behavior)? How about basic biology? Try making a simple examination of the world around you.Another repetitive argument to which the response is always "Are you suggesting that any sex or intimacy that does not result in procreation is perverse and wrong?" and the subsequent answer is always missing.Am I a heterosexual by choice? Hmmm. Interesting question. Can't really say. I guess I'll have to give you that one.So your sexuality is "wired" into your being, but gays are just "behaving badly"? I do believe God designed us to be heterosexual. Furthermore, I honestly believe that anyone who truly seeks God will know the behavior is wrong.And I respect your belief and right to hold the belief. I don't know why you refuse to respect my belief in God and that this is not His will.I also believe there is plenty of physical evidence that more than suggest homosexuality is a perversity. Is it perverse to you and your life? Sure. Is it perverse to many in the world (in that it differs from the "norm" and less than 10% of the population is gay), sure. But is it immoral? Other than what your God and your Bible and your opinion state, I've yet to hear a logical argument to support the immorality of homosexuality.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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 inappropriate topic for flaunting in front of Scouts. If BSA National and every council in America were to ratify a clear statement similar to Boston (and about nine other councils so far have officially done so) I would be satisfied that a flawed policy would have been corrected. Some might say that the term "avowed homosexual" goes far enough to imply a "don't ask, don't tell policy". Unfortunately, as we have seen in debate on this board over the past several months, there is a wide spectrum of opinion on what "avowed" really means. I personally would take a pretty liberal interpretation. It is not enough just that other Scouters or even Scouts learn that one of their fellow Scouts or Scouters is gay. It would cross the line, however, if that gay Scout or Scouter continued to make their homosexuality a matter of discussion or advocacy in front of Scouts. Much as it would cross the line if a heterosexual Scout or Scouter continued to discuss their sexuality in front of Scouts.

To put this in a real world example, I would remind the board of one of my previous posts. This is the story of one of my very good friends in Scouting, an Eagle Scout that I grew up with, worked camp staff with, served in local and national OA events with and watched serve admirably as a unit and district commissioner. In his late twenties he met and formed a lifetime commitment with another man. Before this time none of his Scouting friends knew he was gay. When he formed this relationship, he did not do so very publicly (he did start wearing a simple ring and let some of his closest friends -- most of whom were in Scouting -- know that he had found someone to spend his life with. Several months later, word had spread along the gossip grapevine, and he eventually received a letter from the Council office saying that his membership was being revoked. No discussion.

In my opinion, this person did not come close to meeting a standard of "avowed homosexual" worthy of banning from Scouting. He was an exemplary Scout and Scout leader, and at no point advocated or made a point of flaunting his sexuality in front of Scouts (or anyone for that matter). What if the Scouts in a troop he served found out he was gay? Still not nearly enough of a standard.

I believe clarifications like the Boston Council's statement are great, especially when they come along with diversity and sensitivity training. St. Pauls council adopted a similar diversity position after their council executive board went through diversity training (with the idea that you should not have a policy on a subject for which you lack knowledge). The volunteers of the board found the training so enlightening that they extended it and made it available (almost even standard) for all adult leaders in the council.

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 a curriculum of activities promoting diversity, including race, religion and sexual orientation.

And to make sure the Council's policy opposing the ban on gay troop leaders is very clear to the city and to the national troop leaders, the council invited Boston's WBZ radio host David Brudnoy to be master of ceremonies.

"There are a lot of straight guys out there who could do this," Brudnoy said Monday. "[The council] said, 'We want to signal, through you, our nondiscrimination policy."'

The council's nondiscrimination policy, developed after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled two years ago that the Boy Scouts of America can exclude gays as troop leaders, essentially keeps scout leaders' sex lives private. It says its 18,000 members will be served "without regard to color, race, religion, ethnic background, sexual orientation, or economic status."

The national organization has maintained that "an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices."

Brock Bigsby, scout executive for the Minuteman Council, which covers Boston and 27 other communities, said the national organization is powerless to stop the award: "Local councils do have the flexibility to establish awards like this to meet the needs of our kids, that's where our focus is. Scouting traditionally has been a very diverse activity."

[6/14/02]

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 "wrongness" of the issue.

As I believe NJ first eloquently stated: I believe God made a small percentage of his people to be homosexual, and quite possibly did so as a test of tolerance for all his people.

There is significant scientific evidence on both sides of the genetic debate. Consider for a second that evidence is inconclusive (because it is contradictory), so let's throw it all out for the sake of this point.

What evidence is left to consider whether homosexuals are such by choice or by the hand of God?

I can only state, as I have done so many times before on this forum, that I have never met a gay person who would tell you that they chose to be gay... not one. Many will tell you that they have felt gay as far back in their childhood as they can remember (the earliest feelings of sexuality). Most will also tell you that it was such a traumatic experience for them to first understand those feelings, then come to grips with them, that no person would consciously choose to go through that process. And many would tell you that the struggle against society (having to live closeted, be told that religion rejects you, be told that you are perverted or psychologically defect, be told that you're just weak and have an immoral "lifestyle") is hardly worth it if they had any choice in the matter. Finally, many who are gay would tell you they would choose not to be if they could (look at how many of the Christian "ex-gay" programs exist, and how they consistently fail). Can gays choose not to act on that orientation? Sure, just like you could choose not to have intimacy in your life. Can gays choose to live life contrary to their inate nature, sure, and some do. But the most stable people I know who are homosexuals have accepted the innate nature, accepted that it does not define their life or self-worth or value to society or God.

I'm not sure what evidence you can cite to support your case that homosexuality is just a behavior. It seems to me that any thing you would cite is just opinion. Of course you could say that all of my "evidence" above is also just opinion, but at least it is the opinion of people who are gay, not just looking in from the outside with no real ability to relate.

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 well explained view on the Mission of Scouting at http://www.scout.org/wso/publications.html#basics

Even B-P didn't include a heavy religious emphasis in his original concepts of Scouting, or his Scout Oath and Law. Those were additions the BSA made to the Scout Oath and Law in the earliest days, based largely on the influence of the YMCA over formation of the BSA. I'm glad that the BSA added those items, as I believe spirituality is important to forming character. As NJCubScouter has pointed out often, the BSA does have a declaration of religious principles that embraces a Scout's Duty to God, but does so in a completely non-sectarian way. Unfortunately, both the BSA and many of the people on this discussion board have difficulty really honoring that declaration, or maybe even understanding it.

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 that popular belief is the "more right wing you are the more Republican you are", or the more "left wing, the more Democrat". I don't recognize that as true at all, for either party. Both political parties have factions and wings, some of them quite extreme. And most of those extremes beat their chest a lot and claim to control their parties. In recent years though, it seems the extreme wings on both parties have been neutralized and are more irrelevant. Neither Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson (and their respective camps) carried much weight in the recent elections or in the public arena.

But I digress, and back to the specific debate. My point above was to suggest that you and I (literally and symbolically for our respective sides of the debate) are not as different as you suggest. And herein is actually one of my basic premises.

You see this argument as "me versus you" or "us versus them" you have portrayed all those who disagree with the BSA policy (and thus you) as being everything from just plain wrong to being a radical activist. The fact is, even you and I (Rooster and tjhammer) probably have more in common than most other folks, yet we're at polar ends of this debate on this forum.

You believe that homosexuality is nothing more than behavior abhorrent behavior at that. I recognize homosexuality is innate and neither a matter of choice or morality. I consider neither the "state of being" nor the "activity" as immoral, and I see no negative effects on society (granted, there are very public exceptions, but not the rule).

And while we probably would find that we agree on more issues than we disagree on, I just think you are wrong on this one. And that's OK. You can be wrong. You aren't alone you're not even in the minority. You're also correct in asserting that, for political purposes, this is an issue that typically follows major party lines, though certainly not exclusively.

And it's just fine that you believe I am wrong. It's also fine if you don't want to "associate" with me because of my belief. If you don't want me in your troop, I'll understand and just start another one across town. This new policy can change, so that neither of us are forced to accept the other person's opinion or live by new rules established by the other.

May I draw a specific focus to this debate and ask why this should not be a matter of local choice?

We empowered local parents and units to choose women Scoutmasters, if they wanted. And we've empowered them to determine what faith (if any) they want to follow as a group. Why can't you and I both have our own beliefs without tearing apart or dividing an organization that we both love and value? I don't believe I have ever heard or read a real thought-out argument against this solution.

Why can we not empower these same parents to make this decision for themselves? Why can't this become a complete non-issue by taking it to the local unit level? How would your unit be effected if a troop across town or across the country were to allow a 16-year-old gay Scout to remain a member or admit the gay father of a boy to be an Assistant Scoutmaster for the troop?

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 50% or gays have had sex with a minor. That is an obscene total!!That's also an absurd total. Where in the world did that "statistic" come from?Even that alone should be enough to exclude or heavily limit gays from the organization.Gays are not pedophiles. Neither are heterosexuals. Pedophiles are pedophiles, and Youth Protecting protects our boys from them.Secondly, I believe the BSA does not allow gays because they fear the gay-rights activism that often follows. I would fear for the BSA if their name was tied to gay-rights activism, etc.Huh? So the reason we're acting so staunchly anti-gay is because we're really afraid people will think we're a radical gay activist group? This mentality is pure irrational homophobia. That's not an epithet I'm hurling, just labeling the mentality for what it is.Thirdly, we are talking only about avowed homosexuals. These are people that are members of activist groups, or are at least intent on disseminating such material.Hardly. Better check your dictionary, or just ask anyone to define the word for you. "Avowed" means they don't lie when asked if they are gay; "avowed" means they put a ring on their finger and tell a few friends in Scouting that they've decided to form a lifetime commitment with someone. Check my examples above of true stories of expulsion from BSA already... those folks weren't "handing out pamphlets".Again, do we really want to let these people in? I don't think it would be a good business decision, for then we would be attacked on more sides claiming that we've turned left wing.Is this all about a "business decision"? While I have cited a drop in membership and expressed concern over the way our organization was being typecast, I've really rarely used that as a major argument for overturning the new gay ban policy. As soon as we can get back to the basics and keep the focus on the real value of Scouting the better for all. Any fool who looks at Scouting's real value as being a safe haven from gays is no less a fool than one who would look at Scouting as a gay group after the policy is overturned.Lastly, one must see how little information there is on the subject. Little information about the homosexual condition is known. Almost none is definite. The BSA is being cautious here. Hmm. Well this argument does hold some water. Fear of the unknown can be justified sometimes. But I think we take that out of the equation by leaving it up to the parents, leaders and charter partners at the local level to determine whether or not they want to let a kid named "Bob", who happens to be gay, join their unit. See, they are not only going to know Bob is gay, that are also going to know that he's a good person, and that he is the kind of person they want in their troop. Regardless of the "mystic and mystery" of the science of homosexuality, I think those folks won't have a lot of "fear of the unknown" in Bob's case.While it may not be morally right (which will be hotly debated), the BSA is circling the wagons so it can provide Scouting for as many as possible without losing a large portion of members who would quit if the BSA changed its policy.Any person who would quit Scouting because the BSA decides to let local units admit gays (if they want to) is a huge fool. They are a fool for believing that Scouting's value is gone just because some unit across town or across the country has a gay member. (I also don't believe most people who say they would quit really would when the time comes.)You're right! You also have a legal right to believe that homosexuality is not a sin and that the BSA is bigoted for choosing to protect its youth from the influence of a sinful lifestyle...But that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.And since we both believe we have the right to include or exclude and believe or not believe, let's both keep those rights. Local unit option is the best way for you and I to both preserve our rights.Rooster opines: I have a strong suspicion concerning the statistic... I'm willing to bet... as a group... homosexuals... more like a 13 to 17 year-old boy and a 35 to 60 year-old coach, teacher, family friend, priest, etc.

I think many, if not most homosexuals, are predators.Well, this all certainly sheds some light on your perspective and on what specific aspects of the debate you should become educated on.Rooster continues: I think their ranks are filled with men (and women) who are militant about their cause. Their cause being - 1) "recruit" the young [i'm sure that'll draw fire] and 2) make the rest of the world accept us.Well, the vast majority of gays are not militant, left wing radical activists. Just like the vast majority of conservatives are not fanatical, right wing, Bible-thumping fear-mongers. As in both cases, the majority of the world lives between the extremes.

And of course I would disagree with your assertion that gays seek to "recruit" new "members", even the Catholic Church understands that people don't "sign up" to "be gay". But I think you are correct in that most gays would definitely like the rest of the world to accept them, if by accept you mean an end of prejudice and hatred and discrimination and fear of them.

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 over to BSA Inc., but nonetheless).

Tell me what "facts" I have made up from this first post... what part do you believe to be a fabrication?

Do you think maybe the BSA's position is not what I have represented? (Then you better read the text of the Supreme Court Arguments... and by the way, I'll repeat AGAIN that I believe the Supreme Court decision is correct and we have the right to determine our association, I just think we're now dying on the sword we chose to fight that battle).

Or better yet, do you think the scenarios I have represented about what the policy actual means (who will be excluded, etc) is a fabrication? (Hardly, each and every one of the scenarios is absolutely true and has already happened.)

You say "we will NEVER be a local option" solution... that's exactly what we are right now on most every other standard for determining leadership. That's what we became on the controversial matter of women Scoutmasters (which at one time was a national policy but became a local choice, and certainly has not rendered "thousands of different versions of the program").

Bob, it seems that you're the one that does not want to be confused with the facts. Which is astonishing given how factual your other contributions to this forum usually are. I, too, encourage you to read the BSA's "official stance". But then also view not just what BSA Inc. says, but what it does. View their semi-private arguments in front of the Supreme Court. Better still, view their actual enforcement of the vague, inarticulate and inconsistent policy.

One or more of the scenarios I cited that have happened already under this policy should OUTRAGE you.

How about the one where I watched a young gay friend who grew up in Scouting go into crisis, a crisis that was encouraged by the BSA, an organizations he loved but that was telling him he was unworthy? Do you want to hear all of the gory details of that boy's crisis? Is that what it will take to get the point across how wrong this policy is? Don't worry, I won't dishonor him by trotting out the details, even annonymously. But I will tell you he's reading this forum. Why don't you tell him how the policy is irrelevant?

You either believe that those scenarios are fairy tales (in which I'll refer you to the news clippings to prove otherwise) or you're choosing to stick your head in the sand and say "it's irrelevant".

I don't expect you to respond or continue participation in this debate. You're certainly welcome to, but I hope you'll just go back to supporting program related questions where you can deal solely in facts and not your opinion.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

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, a "foundational lesson" taught by Christ that "love" is above all else. I suspect this is a more spiritual approach, than a specifically religious one.

Let me be clear... I have not said that I reject the Bible as a source for solid religious principle, not just for you, but also for me. I have chosen to be a Christian, but I don't believe that those around me that are Buddhist (or whatever) are wrong... religion (IMHO) is a way to live your life, not a means to an end (some of you may disagree?). I think some Christians are "crucifixion Christians" and others are "resurrection Christians"... depends on what you find most meaning in.

I have said that I believe no part of the Bible (when taken in pieces or as a whole) is the literal, infallible word of God. In other words, the Bible, IMHO, is a good book to live by, but I don't believe it's sacrosanct and divine; it represents man's evolving attempt to articulate a religion.Rooster said: Does your proposition mention anything about the morality or legality of the behavior? Actually, it does not. Even if it did, that would be counterintuitive to your defense of homosexuality. Of course my proposition is about morality. Homosexuality is not immoral. (I argue pedophilia is immoral simply because it subordinates the will of a child who is incapable of consent and breaks down our humanity; how does homosexuality break down our humanity? How is it immoral? This is the essence of the same repetitive debate we've had for months on here, which is to say the only viable argument placed forth on the "immorality of homosexuality" is that "the Bible says its so".tjhammer said: It's inconceivable to me how anyone could believe that and still permit the Bible to be translated, revised for political correctness and updated time and again.

Rooster counters: Most bibles that have not stayed true to the original text (and "were revised for political correctness") are the liberal translations that condone the sinful lifestyles of the day (i.e., homosexualityLet's take, just for example, the current NIV edits to use non-gender-specific pronouns. That's the kind of "evolving" I'm talking about. Do you think that's inappropriate? Do you think God literally meant just man, or is that too literal of an interpretation.Rooster said: if you read the Old Testament carefully, it does not condone slaveryI disagree, and this has been debated here many times before where the scripture was even cited.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)