tjhammer

Really Ed? Come on, now... do you really value Scouting so little that you'd bail if some troop across town or in another council decided a 16-year-old gay Scout should stay, or the gay parent of a boy should be assistant Scoutmaster?

You've demonstrated in this forum many times just how simple you are, but I can't believe it's that cut and dry for you.

Trevorum, we're not in disagreement. I've acknowledged that my own homosexuality is innate, much like being left-handed or having a specific personality trait, regardless of nurturing.

I also see the genetic argument that a society might adapt homosexuality as a percentage of the population.

But at the point we ONLY argue prejudice against gays is wrong "because they're born that way", we're entering a slippery slope. We have to be VERY vigilant that the "it's genetic" argument is not twisted by those who are prejudice to be "it's a genetic defect".

Those that currently prejudge gays do so based on stereotypes and presupposed morality. If a genetic "cause" is confirmed, many of the same people will continue to prejudge gays, this time pointing to the "genetic defect" that must be "treated".

My position is that society must ultimately drop prejudice against homosexuals regardless of the "cause" of homosexuality, and while that's an even more difficult proposition than "proving the genetics", ultimately it's achieved only through familiarity and breaking stereotypes and abandoning invalid views of morality.

OGE, I certainly did not expect that you personaly felt it was a "defect"... I've always had respect for your perspective on this (and other) issue(s).

I think you expressed yourself very well, and you've said nothing from which to back away. I'm pointing out a personal discomfort I have with the whole "genetic" debate (which is even more highlighted when the concept of "genetic defect" comes in to the discussion).

If we place all our emphasis on arguing that homosexuality is genetic, it's a slippery slope to then say it's a genetic defect, and then on to "treating" the defect. Once we head down that path, it seems we're ultimately play right back into the hands of prejudice.

The whole discussion of choice versus innate quality versus genetic "defect" is troublesome to me. I understand why the topic is proffered, but I think it could ultimately push the discussion in the wrong direction.

This discussion should simply be about whether gays can be good role models for Scouting. The larger discussion should simply be about whether gays are the same as everyone else, and undeserving of social prejudice. Ultimately, the answer to these questions should be answered regardless of whether I'm gay by "choice", by "defect" or "other".

Some people choose to argue the "choice" issue as a way to overcome the teachings of specific religions. The argument seeks to show incongruence between a literal interpretation of the Bible and the fact that God made some people homosexual. That's a fine discussion to have, but it's only really relevant if you're holding the discussion with people who subscribe to those specific religions and take the Bible as accurate and literal.

If you can only ultimately accept that I am a moral creature if you learn I was born gay, then might I suggest you're still judging the wrong thing in determining my morality?

OGE raises the issue of "genetic defect", as a way to better explain how it might be possible that God would create someone gay, and also explain how it's occurrence might jump around from generation to generation.

But the more we advance this specific argument ("genetic defect") the more we ultimately play right into the hands of the prejudice. If we argue that homosexuality is a defect (like being blind or deaf or whatever), then it's a logical step to suggest we should try to "fix the defect". "Fixing the defect" was at the core of atrocity to eradicate Jews and gays and anyone else the Third Reich was prejudiced against, and using that mindset (no matter how innocuous) is a very slippery slope.

The "defect" argument also tries to develop sympathy (even empathy) for gays, because somehow they are powerless over their situation. It argues not that gays are victims of man, but that gays are victims of God or Nature. I prefer to not view myself as a victim of any thing.

Why I am gay is not at all clear to me -- I just am. I never chose to be gay. For quite a while I chose to pretend I wasn't gay.

I don't believe I'm defective. I don't believe gays are handicapped, by anything more than prejudice.

I do believe being gay is an innate state, and I believe some percentage of people are "wired" to be homosexual. I also believe sexuality is a "sliding scale" (i.e. Kinsey), and I believe a loving God made the world that way for reasons I accept on faith.

I do believe I should be judged -- not prejudged -- for who I am and how I behave.

Though I must add, I don't have any short-term expectations of a change in BSA policy.

The current administration (including the Chief Scout Exec and his team, as well as the Nat Exec Board and the Nat Relationships Committee (where this policy was born and further clarified), are either incapable or unwilling of building consensus on this issue.

Their own internal research (however likely skewed) still shows a sizeable percentage of parents disagree with this policy, and they heard from several chartering organizations (many that even filed friends-of-the-court briefs) against BSA's position. But those that oppose BSA policy speak far more quietly to BSA than those that support it, at least for now.

I was very discouraged (and disappointed) when BSA decided to "affirm" their policy about two years ago. Many hoped that BSA would emerge victorious from "Dale" and then quickly announce a local option policy, showing that BSA deserved the right to set its own standards, and that was what the "fight" was all about. Instead, they dropped the ball, in my opinion, by extending the prejudice argument further. That was BSA's chance to completely neutralize this entire issue, and do so in a way that would have shown integrity and caused little to no real "disruption" to Scouting.

I was in contact directly with a CSE from one of the major councils opposing BSA prejudice, and unfortunately we were both delusional on how the BSA would respond. We hoped for the best, but got the worst, and that cemented the BSA policy for many more years.

This policy now will only change (unfortunately) after BSA has suffered. When the membership continues to slide, and young parents either reject Scouting or ignore the BSA policy, Scouting will likely adopt a policy change as a part of a much larger overhaul of Scouting. That's a shame, because it would have been much easier (and less disruptive) to simply adopt local option right after "Dale".

The current administration has made up its mind on this issue. When Chief Scout Exec Roy Williams steps aside, perhaps a new leader with an ability to build consensus and inspire compromise within the decision making bodies will come along. Perhaps a new leader will be capable of articulating a solution where everyone is satisfied, anbd Scouting's image is intact.

It's more likely we'll go through at least one more administration before we find someone with the courage and willingness to try.

OGE asks why we have this discussion on this forum.

1) to help the leaders that read here be more sensitive to this issue, and cause them to think through the issue (hopefully) in advance of encountering it in real life in their unit.

2) to better understand those people that have opposing views of my own, and completely understand their arguments.

3) to place into the general "consciousness" of Scouting volunteers an articulate (as best I can) response to BSA's policy of prejudice (this forum seems to be about the most visible "discussion" of Scouting taking place online).

4) by "coming out" in the forum (albeit "avowing anonymously"), which I did not do until about a year into the discussion, I also hoped to provide an example of a gay man that loves (and was of value to) Scouting. I agree that most people with prejudice hold that because of stereotypes, and have very limited real, close experiences with gay people. Posting here just barely qualifies as a "close experience", I suppose, but it's a step in the right direction.

4) to change some opinions (which hopefully has a ripple effect though membership and ultimately decision makers, both of whom I suspect are reading here on occasion).

When I first started posting here about three years ago, I was one of only two or three (that I remember) people here that ardently argued against the BSA's gay policy. There were a handful of others that were rather lukewarm on the debate, and there seemed to be a very vocal group of people who supported BSA's prejudicial policy. I've noticed over recent years far more people joining the discussion and arguing against the BSA policy, and far fewer people vocally arguing in favor of it. I don't read too much into this, other than to note it's interesting to me.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

BobWhite, thanks for posting the data to support your claim that an "overwhelming majority" of parents agree with the BSA's prejudice against gays. Pardon me if I'm somewhat underwhelmed by the data presented so far.

This was based solely on "BSA Internal Research" surveying 2400 people. Exactly which 2400 people were surveyed? From what geography? What demographic? What was the question? Which chartering organizations were surveyed?

I don't doubt that "opinion" is generally in favor of BSA's prejudice, by I also don't doubt that opinion is dramatically shifting, especially among the young parents with kids entering Scouting age. And while I don't much care to debate "statistics" (though I do find it consistent for BSA to do so, given Roy William's previous statements that the policy would be revisited if more parents started to pull their kids away).

For the record (again, and again, and again), I LOVE what Scouting teaches, and so does nearly everyone on this forum. Many of us just believe BSA's dead wrong on this issue, and while we support Rooster and his CO to determine the moral fitness within their unit, we also support every Scouting parent and CO to do the same.

For you to suggest this specific rule "exist to define what the BSA movement represents" is a complete bastardization of Scouting's purpose, in my view. It separates us from our founding principles more than connecting us.

=========

BW, again 80% of your post is red herring. Enough already... we all understand and AGREE that the BSA has a right to set its own rules of association. No one is debating that.

To hide behind "it's the rules, we're just enforcing the rules of membership" also deliberately avoids the point in its entirety. This debate is NOT about what the membership rules are, it's about the underlying issue of whether that membership rule is right or wrong and should be forced on all parents.

>>The whole idea behind the freesom of association is to allow groups of people with similar interest to associate without interference.

Yes, and those "groups of people with similar interests" should be parents, at the local level, where every other decision of moral fitness is made.

We're not talking about a girl, a four year old, an army veteran or any other silly example of "not eligible" you can come up with. We're also not talking about Rooster's favorite slippery slope, pedophiles.

We're talking about a boy, who for one reason -- and one reason only -- was rejected by "us" - because as he came of age, he discovered he was gay, and he chose to not be ashamed of that fact in every aspect of his life (away from Scouting).

"We" decided to reject him because the majority of OUR churches and COs disagree with HIS church (also a CO though more expendable in BSA's view). BSA violated its own Declaration of Religious Principles to be "absolutely non-sectarian" by picking and preferring the beliefs of one "owner/religion" over another.

>>To say that the rule is saying that the the person is "unworthy" is simply a tool you and some others use to feign martyrdom.

More nuance and double speak, just to try to make us feel better about ourselves. That's not your "intended" message, you say? If a 14-year-old kid "hears" "unworthy" in your message, it's in his mind and his problem?

Would you be more comfortable with "undesirable"?

How about going completely innocuous and simply saying "unqualified"? Would that make you feel better standing face-to-face with a boy and saying "Son, I know you've been with our group since you were 8, but I heard through the grapevine that you've acknowledged you're gay. Suddenly, you're just unqualified to be amongst us."

That might be an easier message for you to deliver, but do you think there's much difference in the adjectives for this boy? Do you think this boy is going to walk away from that conversation "hearing" unqualified? undesirable? unworthy?

All that boy is going to know is that the BSA carved out a special national policy explicitly to label him, and it doesn't care what his parents, troop leaders or church has to say about the matter.

More likely, he's going to struggle with prejudice elsewhere too, but Scouting may be "the unkindest cut of all". Et Tu, Boy Scouts? (Maybe it would be better to go back to thinking this policy "doesn't affect youth at all" (present company excluded, of course)?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

OGE asks in another thread "of all the gay parents/legal guardians there have been, what is the breakdown of the childrens sexuality gay vs straight as opposed to the general population."I Googled "kids of gay parents" (because all I have is anecdotal info) and almost every match in the first few pages indicate that the kids are no more likely to end up gay than kids raised by heterosexual parents (statistically about the same).

One recent study that surveyed more than 12,000 kids across the country also confirmed "what countless other studies have shown [for nearly 50 years], that sexual orientation is irrelevant in terms of promoting and rearing a healthy child" (http://www.alternet.org/rights/22199/).

One other thing I found while reading, my statistic of "3.5 million kids being raised by gay parents" was a bit dated already, and recent surveys show that number is 8 to 10 million kids in gay-parent households today.

I feel like I need to apologize, because after years of discussing this issue in this forum, for the first time I can actually feel my blood pressure rising. While I am responding specifically and directly to other posters, I will continue to label and challenge their ideas, not them personally.

I hope most would agree (and my writing on this forum will support) that I have usually been fair - and reasonable - in arguing this issue on this forum. I have tried to avoid being very emotional, and stick to the logic of debate.

And while it's true that I am a gay man, who grew up in Scouting and credit Scouting with playing a dominant role in making me the man I am today, I have always avoided any sort of "woe is me, I'm a victim of BSA policy" emotion in this forum. It's really NEVER been about me, personally, and my debate here has mostly to do with the fact that I've had a unique perspective to contribute.

But suddenly - after several years and countless debates with the same folks about the same thoughts - something seems to have radically changed for me. I'm finding as I read through posts today that I'm far more agitated and emotional.

I took a break tonight, and thought about why I'm suddenly responding differently to the same things I've heard so many times before, and it didn't take me too long to understand.

Now in our midst is not just some "nameless" boy who may or may not have been affected by this policy. Now there IS a boy here who WAS affected. I don't know Matt, but I respect the hell out of him for his courage. In so many ways he was far more courageous than I could aspire to be even when he was just 14 years old, and today (not too many years later) he seems to be growing into an intelligent, thoughtful man. Judging by the life he's planned out for himself he is a man Scouting can be proud to have helped build. It's shameful our role in his life was cut short (though in his case, I think he's clearly becoming an even better man for facing and overcoming the manner in which Scouting abandoned him).

I'm clearly more agitated today, hearing the same old remarks from the same people, than I have ever been, because I find it so insidious that Scouters could stand "face to face" with this "boy" and tell him (quite explicitly in these posts) that his religious beliefs are wrong, that he brought this all on himself, that he's to blame if he feels persecuted by us (even that the persecution is "in his mind"). I know it's your right to believe these things to Matt (and to other boys who may be reading this), and I don't challenge your right to say them in this forum. But I can still find it insidious.

It has nothing to do with youth and in fact you are among a tiny number of youth whose membership was affected in this way. Most were adults.I missed this remark in a previous post until just now. The absurdity of the sentence is self-evident (telling a boy who was affected by the policy (even acknowledging that he was affected) that "it has nothing to do with youth" is lunacy. And it's far more than just the few boys like Matt that have actually been expelled. It's the countless more that suffer quietly or slip away as they come to grips with their sexuality under the veil of BSA's judgment.

And its all those other kids - like the ones in Matt's troop who taunted and teased him under the knowing eye of their leaders - who get a not-so-subtle message from BSA that it's OK to think of gay kids as "less than the best kind of citizen" simply because they are gay. It may be Rooster's right to teach his children to believe that way, but the same right should be afforded other parents in other neighborhoods who disagree and want no part of institutionalized prejudice.

>Please do not confuse the individual opinions of any scouter as the viewpoint of the BSA.

BW, in your thinly veiled attempt to continue as the "anti-Mori", you fail to understand that you took two posts and 95% more words to say exactly the same thing as him.

>>a private organization the BSA has the legal right to determine membership

Enough of the red herring. I've not met a single person in this forum that didn't understand AND agree with this. Not one person. So quit using it as a hammer to try and change the subject to "BSA victimhood"... we ALL agree the BSA should have the "right" of association. Even Merlyn agrees with that.

>>This is not a matter of "is that right or wrong", it is simply what is.

Wrong! This discussion is ONLY about whether the BSA's choice to ban gays is "right or wrong". It's legally our right to make the choice, but are we making the RIGHT choice? "It's about morality, stupid!" (to paraphrase the war room). Now who defines morality, and is that "right or wrong".

>>In this case Matt chose to not only belong to, but to start, a group in support of gay/homosexual activity or lifestyle. A preference not supported by the membership criteria of the BSA

One of the more obtuse statements I've read, of course. In two short sentences, you state YOUR "facts" that Matt's gay/straight alliance was created to "support gay activity" and "lifestyle", and that being gay was his "preference" (you actually state this backhanded a couple of times in your remarks, but then try to back away in separate remarks). First, Matt started a group that helped show tolerance and counter prejudice. It was to create a safe haven where gay kids (and kids who understood that gay kids are no different than anyone else) could stand together against what can be a VERY hostile world for 14 year olds coming to grips with their sexuality.

>>tiger membership, adult partner ... That can be anyone approved by the parent or guardian. I have never heard of a Father/son camporee being done in the BSA

Nice. Your "nuance" has been "we didn't kick-out a 14 year old, he "chose" to not meet our membership standards (how innocuous), and now you suggest "the gay dad's can stay home and just have the neighbor stand in their place". It's superb how much "wiggle" room BSA can find to avoid accepting blame for hurt caused by this policy.

>>Not as many as you might think about two years ago the BSA had a poll done and found that an overwhelming majority of the membership polled supported the BSA values including their membership criteria.

Where's the data, BW? Don't make claims without the specific data, and give us all a chance to review how "scientific" that study was. (For the record, I don't doubt that the BSA's population parallels (and slides right of) the general population on this issue, though I doubt it's as "overwhelming" as you believe. Do you see that overwhelming of a slant to the "right" on this issue within this forum? Think this group is all that non-representative of "real BSA"? And I would love to evaluate the "stats" of that poll on the younger generation of parents with kids just entering Scouting age (where the general population opinion runs 60%+ against gay prejudice). Wonder if the pollsters were savvy enough to consider this?

>>Are you actually aware of any who took their own life because they could not be a boy scout? I bet not.

Disgusting and insulting. First, for the record (and as explained here before), YES!!!!, I do know of a Scout who tried to take their own life (and thank God failed!). And yes, a huge part of that madness had to do with trying to reconcile how the ONE organization he had spent his entire young life committed to, nearly daily, was telling the world that he was the ONE kind if person so unworthy that they were going to carve out an explicit national ban on him and his "kind". (BTW, try telling him that being gay was some "lifestyle choice" he was in the process of making.)

Second, back to the "disgusting and insulting". How dare you (or anyone) be so flippant and dismissive? You've got your opinions, and you're entitled to them. Associate with whomever you want, and treat people how you believe "scouts" should act. But DO NOT assume you have any right to tell me or every group of parents in every local unit across the country how we should treat people. And do not presume that Scouting belongs to you any more than it belongs to us.

>>Why is it you are so willing to blame your woes on the values of the BSA then on the strong possibility that for whatever the elements that have determined your homosexuality it is not consistent with the values of the majority of today's society. Isn't it just barely possible that the problem is in your lifestyle and not ours?

How can you respect yourself as a Scout and tell that to the face of a 14 year old?

Matt, first keep in mind that you are a "white elephant", or something several members of this forum prefer to believe has not existed. The fact that you were a 14 year old boy coming to grips with your sexuality while a very active member of Scouting is something some people pretend is not affected by this policy. (And the misinformation, apprehension or hate you experienced along the way from your unit leader, other Scouts or the BSA is "insignificant", statistically.)

In reality, we know you're far from alone in your ordeal, and thousands of Scouts just like you are affected (some very deeply) by this "gay policy" which is both incongruent with other "BSA policy" (DRP) and Scouting philosophy.

The question you raise is another example of the uneven understanding or enforcement of the "gay ban". In reality, the BSA has testified before the Supreme Court that they would ban any "avowed homosexual" because they're a "poor role model". and they would also ban anyone that spoke out in favor of homosexuals and argued that the BSA policy is unjust.

Parents of gay kids (BTW, I've mentioned here before that there are currently more than 3.5 million kids being raised by gay parents in the USA, a number that's rapidly increasing, so your question is far from theoretical) would be caught in the trap (and so, very likely, would their kids). The parents would not be able to register and participate with their child, and their child would be compelled to "keep secret" the fact that they have loving gay parents. The kids would be in an organization that taught that their parents were "unworthy", bad citizens.

In reality, it's not too likely that your scenario will be tested very often, though. (As a gay man likely to have kids sooner rather than later, it pains me to think that Scouting will not be part of the equation in raising them.) The fact that BSA is so openly hostile to gays would keep most gay parents from placing their kids in that environment. (Remember your own experience, where your unit leaders were clueless of the "real" policy and instead acted out on the limited information BSA has provided them, and how the other boys in your unit were allowed to imitate the BSA's policy with hostile and demeaning attitudes.)

1. The increasing population of kids of gay parents and the radically different views of all young parents with kids entering Scouting age will continue to be in contrast with BSA's "gay policy" and will be seen with continued shrinking of our membership.

2. Allowing local units to make their own decision on the "moral fitness" of leaders and associate with like minded families on whether

little Billy's two dads could be good leaders is the only honest solution to this quagmire.

Welcome Matt!

From one of the unlikeliest of sources, comes one of the more eloquent arguments for adopting local option and allowing local CO's to determine the moral fitness of their leaders. Stunning.

For the record I have no personal objection to the Declaration of Religious Principles, I only wish BSA Inc. supported that Declaration as much as I do.

while you are entitled to promote your values and ideas, you are not entitled to impose them on the BSA in my opinionAnd while you are entitled to your values and ideas, you are not entitled to impose them on the entire BSA membership (or so says the Declaration of Religious Principles).

My post was mostly intended to point out the irony of recent discussions on this forum where people couldn't accept leaders who knowingly violate rules having any standing to teach ethics, and I merely observe they don't usually apply the same standard to BSA Inc.

(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Of course. I think most (though obviously not all) of the posters on this forum agree with that).

Though the hypocrisy is stronger when the morality is so diametric, no?

Many of the same people who have argued there is nothing wrong with BSA Inc. institutionalizing prejudice and contradicting their own policies (i.e. Declaration of Religious Principles), are the same people who have passionately argued that Scout leaders who willingly drive five miles over the speed limit can not adequately model ethical behavior.

It's been argued that leaders who willingly violate the uniforming policies of Scouting are diminished in their ability to teach ethics. Though the same people who assert this with passion have very little to say about the corruption that BSA Inc. has shown in registration scandals, or choose to dismiss the situation as isolated cases of human misjudgment, instead of an institutional failing.

How is it possible for BSA Inc. to act fraudulently without compromising their ability to teach -- nay, interpret and establish -- ethics and morality?

Will any of the people who chant "those are the rules, accept them or leave" step up and question the authority of BSA Inc. to establish a prejudicial rule? Does anyone not see the irony in this observation, given the lengthy debate on this forum over leadership ethics?

I love Scouting, every bit as much (or more) as those that blindly defend it. But it's been systematically weakened by uncharismatic, unethical and ignorant leadership. Each Chief Scout Executive, administration and executive committee over the last century could be credited with a defining program or initiative that Scouting undertook during their tenure (sometimes bad, most often good and often credit went to the top simply because they happened to be there when the movement changed). The "defining initiative" of this generation during the last decade has been nothing positive, and the loss of membership is likely far more severe than we'll yet admit. Will we now dismiss the FBI (the way we've indicted the press, the ACLU and many others) as merely on a "witch hunt against Scouting"?(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Well see, Merlyn can't separate the "real and good value education we provide from the religious pomposity we've pushed more recently". He also can't separate "Scouting" from "BSA Inc.".

He's right of course, in that "BSA Inc." is acting both dishonestly and unethically. (i.e. the incongruity of the "gay policy" and the Declaration of Religious Principles, for example, or until recently encouraging government to own Scout units. BSA Inc. also has shown ethical lapses in its management procedures and hypocrisy among its leaders.) Perhaps the greatest ethical lapse of BSA Inc. is the divergent path that it's taken from the real Scouting movement over recent years, hijacked by special interests to redefine what it stands for at its core.

BSA Inc. didn't "make me the man I am today", and BSA Inc. didn't influence the countless thousands touched by the members of this forum. Scouting did. And there is a difference.

Unfortunately, it's not just folks like Merlyn that will find absurdity in the BSA claiming responsibility in helping kids make ethical choices. When the first Harris research came out ten years ago, BSA had not yet isolated itself into a corner. It was able to use that data much to its advantage, in recruiting new parents, kids and money to the organization, and to enhancing its reputation in public.

The great unfortunate part today is that more people (most people even?) will read that Harris poll headline differently. How many people (both for and against the BSA's controversial policies) will not first think of those issues when they read this headline, if even for a moment?

No, we've allowed the real and good ethics education our movement provides to be drowned out by the irrelevant religious pomposity BSA Inc. has provided.

I don't think this post belongs in the Issues & Politics section.

There's simply no denying the amazing impact of Scouting on the kids that we help mold... the Movement played an amazing role in my life, to help make me the man I am today. And we've all seen first hand the direct impact of Scouting's values with countless thousands of kids influenced just by the Scouters around this forum.

I recall the first Harris Research, and how that data shed light on what we all already knew.

I can't imagine you will find ANY person who posts on these forums that would challenge the research results that you cite above, nor the role Scouting can play in a kids life in teaching leadership, ethics and common values.

No, this research doesn't belong buried away in Issues & Politics, because it is more about the fundamental core of who we are as an organization.

The "values and ethics" that are debated so often in this forum don't really have much to do with the things that unite us... the common ground upon which we stand, like the research above.

The debate in this forum has more to do with things that really aren't Scouting "values" at the end of the day... the issues and politics debated here are usually because of sectarian and non-secular interpretations and perspectives, none of which is embedded in the research you posted.

I wonder how many people will be able to separate the real and good value education we provide from the religious pomposity we've pushed more recently.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

Ed, it's a rare slow day at the office, so I'll bite.

Do you extend the identical logic to the rest of the Bill of Rights?

In your interpretation would we have the right say anything we want (free speech), just so long as we're constantly talking? The right to own any gun, but we must own at least one gun? The right to assemble, but not the right to not assemble? The right to express grievances to the government, but not the right to have no grievances?

The language gets really confusing when you add prepositions that are not there.

As to my original point about whether the Founding Fathers were more likely to be "fleeing" Merlyn or you, do you see why many would believe you more closely fit the bill? Do you now recall that from grade school history?

You claim you've never inferred that a specific religion should be legislated... without my looking up your random thoughts, remind me again what you think about:

- whether public schools shoudl teach evolution is just a bunch of horse puckey?

- whether the government should own religious groups?

- whether taxpayers should fund facilities that are open to all except gay people?

Hmmm... Ed grade school history really doesn't get much more remedial than this, but didn't they actually flee people like you, who believed it was just fine to legislate a specific religion, the "beliefs" of a specifc sect, upon everyone else?

You might want to rethink that last point of yours.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

fgoodwin, thanks for finding that Boston Herald story, it confirms my prior assumptions better than I could have with my limited web research.

Staff -- not sure what was objectionable on the link I provided earlier to the GLSEN, but will defer to your judgment. I do however encourage you to leave the link that fgoodwin has provided above, because I think it explains how a safer sex pamphlet intended for adults and distributed in local bars was inappropriately (and mistakenly) sitting on one of many information booths at this conference, which was held by this association over the weekend in a high school gym they paid the school district to rent.

I suppose as good a question as why that pamphlet made it into that room (or at least that's the claim made by one of the Christian activists that attended the event but is denied by all the event organizers), is why the Christian activist was in the room in the first place. (Maybe, like Ed, they were wondering what's so good about being gay?) ;-)

Now see, I go and make a joke about a pamphlet, and one pos up before I can hit submit. :-)

Just for some perspective, quick research around the web will clarify that pamphlet that fgoodwin mentions was NOT published or distributed by the high school or the GLSEN.

It looks like that was a pamphlet designed by the Massachusetts AIDS Action Committee and distributed mostly through local bars to help with AIDS prevention and promote safer sex.

It appears the high school was hosting a national convention for GLSEN (the organization that sponsors the Gay Straight Alliance programs in high schools), and lots of presentations and pamphlets from lots of different organizations were distributed on how to make schools a safer place for gay and lesbian kids. Soeone probably contacted the AIDS Action Committee and asked for handouts, and ill-advised this was what was brought over.

This one brochure was probably laying around the conference along with lots of other publications, and instead of acknowledging all the efforts that went on at this conference (XXXX://XXX.XXXXXX.XXX/XXXXXX.XXX), the Christian activist decided to disingenuously claim this was an event specifically to distribute a guide to sex and local bars to all the kids in the school.

For the record, a guide to local bars should not be distributed, laying around or otherwise available at a high school, and the intended audience of that pamphlet when produced was clearly not high school students. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

Ed Mori says: I propose we answer with "So, What's so good about being gay?"Ed, are you asking for a sales pitch? Dang it, I'm sure I have a pamphlet around here somewhere... sorry I'm not on the Recruiting Committee so I don't normally stock these things. Maybe if I submit your nomination they can mail you something? Or maybe just drop by with a PowerPoint presentation, I'm pretty sure we have representatives in your neighborhood.

With all those draw backs Trevorum listed, it does make you wonder why smart, stable folks keep choosing to be gay though, doesn't it? I think that's covered in the PowerPoint... it's been a while since I sat through the presentation and bought in (as I recall back then they were giving away an ice chest that you could plug into the car just for sitting through the presentation).

Rooster, I rather expect God will judge us not on who we loved, but how we loved. Don't you think the Bible supports this notion? Regardless, I do wish you mercy when they day comes for you.

PScouter, sorry for diverging from your specific thread. I'm not sure much can really be said about the very specific question you've raised: it's obvious, as NJCub has said, that the BSA's "gay policy" is in direct violation to its Declaration of Religous Principles. Can any person defend the honesty of both at the same time?