tjhammer

Good question -- I'll let a homosexual answer it himself: Now see, for a second I thought he might be ready to quote from one of my previous posts. Like this one or this one. "Let's ask ourselves why homosexuals want to have access to other people's children." Why are you in Scouting with access to other people's children? That's an absurd insinuation. BTW, more than 3.4 million children live with gay and lesbian parents in the United States today, and the number is rapidly increasing. I'm in Scouting mostly because I owe a greater debt to the movement thanI will ever be able to r

>Now who said that? You better become more familiar with the "policy" you support, the way it has been enforced, and the implicit impact it has on kids. This policy is not just about keeping "flamboyant gays from being Scoutmasters", as I sense a few of you believe. It extends to kids, and kids have been kicked out. But it also impacts many, many more kids than just the ones that are booted. I have already related the very personal and very troubling story in this forum of a young man who grew up in the organization and was honored by the organization on many levels. Secre

>Current national figures show that 40% of Tigers >drop out and 25% of Webeols 1. Solve the retention >problem and you solve the membership loss. It is >unrelated to the membership restrictions. BobWhite, those are interesting (and sad) statistics. I agree we have a retention problem. I wonder, do you have the statistics on whether new member recruitment is up or down, specifically? It would seem we would agree that is the salient fact to this discussion. >quite offensive that you had to catergorize the states that >voted against the gay marriage referendu

Bob, try this logic: 1) the number of kids available to join Scouting is growing faster than the number of kids actually joining Scouting. 2) the most likely age in which kids join Scouting is Cub Scouts, which has not only not kept pace with the TAY, but has actually shrunk by 10% in the last four years. 3) parents of Cub Scout age kids tend to be people under 35. 4) people under 35 tend resist prejudice more and view homosexuality more favorably than those over 35, and a generational trend that seems to be widening. Can you draw any hypothesis from this information?

One survey, Bob? Come on, this is not just one survey (I've actually referenced two separate ones in this thread alone), but the majority of all surveys with real representative samples show the same thing. To deny that is to continue to be obtuse, and prefer we as an organization stick our head in the sand. As for my "hypothesis", I'm merely asking how one could be true ("Scouts Canada is losing members because it dropped its prejudice against gays") and the other could not be true ("BSA is losing members because it affirmed its prejudice against gays"). Far from scientific analysis, I r

OGE... some random, quick thoughts. Those referendums were about extending the institution of marriage to homosexuals, which people opposed for a number of reasons (including "morality and religious concerns", as well as legal concerns, etc. As you may recall, I have been in a committed relationship for more than five years, and our routine daily life is just about identical to most married life. I thought the push to extend marriage was too much, too fast, and there was some backlash because of it. I thought the religious conservatives did a magnificent job rallying their base

Many other aspects of this discussion have already been debated in different threads, so I would like to keep the topic on the specific question regarding trends toward acceptance of homosexuality and how that has/will impact the future of Scouting. We can argue the statistics, I've already opened the possibility that surveys can be skewed (in both directions). But is there any argument of a definite trend? http://people-press.org/reports/images/197-23.gif http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=764 There's no denying that the country's opinion on this matter is s

Unc, come on, you're better than that. (BTW, I do meet the membership requirements.)

Bob, "obtuse" was one of the options, and your response seems to reflect which camp you choose to join. I gave you "facts"... 60% of those under 25... 54% of the "GenX" generation.... by just about any definition or interpretation, that's "a plurality of young parents with kids just entering Scouting age oppose the BSA's prejudicial policies". >If that does not bother the BSA then why let it bother you Because I am the BSA, every bit as much as you (and apparently more so than the top executives on the payroll). And I'm not in favor of this prejudice, nor in seeing my organ

Data? Well, I imagine we could find "stats" to say just about anything, huh? But you would have to be either very out of touch or very obtuse to not realize the attitudes toward homosexuality are different between generations, and there is a definite trend. If you want some stats, a quick Google search gave me this (though frankly I have no opinion of the reality of this study, I would say it's not at all unexpected): Researchers at George Mason University, Rutgers University, and DePaul University have completed a study entitled The Civic and Political Health of the Nation: A Gener

SnakeEater - the author of that article http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/040812 is trying to tie Scouts Canada's great decline in membership to their accepting gays is drawing his on conclusions based on no real fact, actually (and has been

They are driven by morals, not by the "changing views of society". If they happen to coincide, so be it, but morality is not a function of popular opinion. Fortunately, the BSA recognizes this. Fortunately/unfortunately (thus my confliction), they don't necessarily agree with you. As discussed before, it is about the membership numbers. These rare public remarks were made shortly after the Supreme Court decision, and I suspect that this kind of candor has not been uttered much in public since. Roy Williams, the Chief Scout Executive: The "single most important person" in this controversy is

I haven't posted in a long while. Those new to the forum and curious will find a great deal of thought and background on this subject by reviewing my previous posts. I do still read the forums often, I just ran out of energy having the same circular debate, recognizing that I wasn't out to convert the zealots, and that I was comfortable with the "body of thought" I had previously posted to give those non-zealots some perspective to consider. I'll only reiterate now: "Scouting" was the single greatest influence in shaping my life as a young man (a constant presence from 8 years old). As muc

And in just which sect NJ do you claim the BSA trains its members. Obviously one which does not include some of the Episcopalians, Methodist, Reformed Jews, Universalist, Wiccans or members of several others churches.

Bob, you're mixing your arguments and avoiding the point. Of course the only reason those churches can't charter a BSA unit is because they won't succumb to this one new BSA policy. That's not the point of my last post, and your indignation is just misleading. The salient point is this: a boy who sits in the Episcopalian congregation of Bishop Gene Robinson, or who has a parent that is gay, or is himself gay, must subjugate the teachings and beliefs of his family and church to the BSA's position that "an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model". In order for this boy to get t

My point was the poster suggested that UUA, Wiccans and others could not be members. That is not true, the BSA restricts a few organizatins as COs for their refussal to abide by BSA policies but that does not restrict individuals of those organizations from joining. True. All these boys from any of those churches can join, just so long as they are willing to subjugate the teachings and beliefs of their religious leaders and families to the policies of the BSA. "Absolutely non-sectarian."

But you hide in a program where you disagree with their values and whisper your disagreement in anonymity. Regrettably, I don't see much honor in that either... on that, we agree and I've previously acknowledged. And it's not the "organizations values" I disagree with... it's one policy that I see as inconsistent with Scouting's real values and that is also inconsistent with the organization's stated declarations. And since my own sexuality is completely irrelevant to my lifelong role in Scouting, my overwhelming passion for the movement, and the good that I do for the organization and bo

It's not like there is a mass of homosexuals who fell that they HAVE to be scout leaders. It's that there is a political agenda among social activists who are using the image of scouting to validate their lifestyle choices. They have no concern about the ideals or goals of the program, only to see their cause "socially cleansed" through the acceptance of the BSA. Certainly doesn't apply to me, or ANY other member of the BSA I have ever met, gay or straight. BobWhite, there is no denying that activist have rallied to tear the BSA in both directions on this issue. But what you refuse to ackn

Society and the law have already answered that question in all fifty states, with age of consent laws. Found this handy chart on the Google: http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

we all believe in you and support each and every Scout of Cradle of Liberty CouncilExcept, of course, the gay one.

TP -- no denying your scenario, present day. It certainly mirrors my own troop experiences of recent years. But that's not what my post pointed to... I'm looking ahead a few years, as the generation (my generation) of today's young parents bring kids toward the program, and as a growing gay family demographic becomes a significant percentage of the TAY. No doomsday looming, but more and more families will be dealing with the this issue, not less and less.

Phil, alas, you're not alone. There are more than 3 million kids being raised in gay and lesbian homes today, and the number is sky rocketing. I, myself, will one day sit and make the decision you have had to make, and it will be especially poignant for me, as Scouting has been such a fundamental part of my life, and played the single most significant role in making me the person I am today. I will so desperately want my child to have the same opportunity. I honestly don't know what I will do, when faced with that decision. When you consider the huge number of kids and families that fall

Vigil Honor Member

Rooster -- your strictly utilitarian view of sex is no less surprising than your consistent rhetoric. You suggest that sex is either for procreation or for selfish pleasure (the first practiced by you, and the latter practiced by me, in your not-so-humble opinion). The absurdity of your view is that it ignores the most common role of sex: Sex is an expression of love. Sex is one of the highest ways that we become intimate and close to one another. Sex is about respect. Sex is selfless, not selfish. Sex need not be utilitarian nor debasing... that's true in my relationship (and most)... p

I think the point that many in this forum contend, acco40, is that homosexuality, much like an 8-month pregnant unwed mother, is a "condition" ultimately impossible to conceal. Of course, those that stand and make proclamations are one example, but I think it is the belief of some folks here that being gay (at least anything but a heaviliy closeted gay) would just be too obvious to the boys and an automatic disruption.