tjhammer

BobWhite, I'll leave my credibility up to those reading my posts to decide. I've demonstrated my "credentials" a few times in the past. You're right, though, I have a personal interest in this debate. You should also correctly assume that my knowledge on the topic and BSA's evolution is deeper and broader because of my personal interest. But if you review all of my posts, you can see that I'm not so concerned about the policy's effect on me (I'm gay and very active in Scouting yet have not personally suffered much; the role of "victim" is not one I have ever accepted, and to complai

Bob, your arrogance is amazing, but we've had this discussion several times before. My understanding and experience with Scouting runs to every level. I have even attended meetings held for the National Relationships Committee (when this discussion was not on the agenda). I have a throurough understanding of national structure and how the agenda is set (both in theory and in practice.) You're own knowledge of Scouting is significant, and your ability to quickly refer to point and prose of policies is impressive. But frankly, just because BobWhite says something with certainty, it does not

So Rooster... you think this was all prompted by the vast, external homosexual lobby? And that the BSA didn't "strike" first? Tell that to James Dale (the young Scouter for whom the Supreme Court case evolved). He never sought to "change" the BSA or make an example out of them (he never even knew the BSA had a policy against him). The BSA proactively sought him out because they discovered something about him they didn't like. The external lobby that rallied to his support did just that... they responded to be the BSA's aggression, not vice-versa. It might be nice to think that you (BSA) are th

BobWhite (Rooster? others?)... The question that TwoCubDad (and others) are still waiting on a direct answer to is:why does BSA see a difference between immoral homosexual behavior and immoral heterosexual behavior? In your words, why is homosexuality a "major boundary" and heterosexual behavior open to local variance?

silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.

silver-shark said: The perception of the boys relative to specific individuals is what I believe to be the paramount issue here. Amen.

silver-shark -- Actually, I don't find a whole lot of disagreement with what you have said. I, too, believe that sexuality is not a valid topic in Scouting. And if the BSA simply had a policy that stated that, there wouldn't be much problem. But that's not what their policy states, and it CERTAINLY is not how their policy is (mis)interpreted by many. The BSA takes a MORAL stand on homosexuality specifically. The nuances of the policy (including the important "avowed" criteria, etc) are largely lost on many people, including the parents and public outside of BSA, many parents and leaders i

Bob, see, the biggest difference of opinion we have is that I clearly believe the BSA is compromising its values and going against it's long-stated declarations on how the fitness of members is determined and how all religions are accepted and respected in the program. You think this new policy is just inline with some long standing tradition, and I see that it is contrary (in many ways) to the things Scouting and BSA have stood for since its founding.

BobWhite -- your post is very misleading. Did you even read the entire article on that poll? Of course 75% of Americans support the Boy Scouts (that's what it says... heck I certainly fall into that camp, as does every other member of this forum that has posted AGAINST the BSA policy on gays). The shame is why 25% DON'T support the Boy Scouts (in other words, why doesn't the amazing value and worth of the BSA trump this one bad policy, or whatever other issue these folks may have with the BSA, and garner overall support from Americans, if not complete agreement?). (Of course, in reality

DSSteele -- far from scientific, and barely eligible to be called a "wild guess" (but then, since BSA has never bothered to survey its membership on the issue either, its guess is a little wild too), here's my conjecture: 5% of BSA parents/leaders believe very strongly that the policy is wrong, and would/are trying to see it overturned20% of BSA parents/leaders believe the policy is wrong and would enthusiastically support a change, though stop short of being active/vocal in bringing the change about40% of BSA parents/leaders are either middle of the road, have no specific opinion on the

mk9750 said: In your example, the status quo changed.The status quo also changed in the BSA. This was never an issue when I joined Scouting as a boy, and while it may have been brewing at national levels by the time I became an adult, it certainly was not known to be a real issue outside private circles. The BSA specifically drafted this policy banning gay members in the mid to late 80's. Some may argue it was always a policy and only needed to be articulated in recent times because of external pressures that called the question, but I think that is a leap. In reality, this is an issue of mora

Rooster... in answer to your question about my possible "hype", I'll excerpt from a previous thread I wrote titled "What it is and why it really matters"... I mentioned some of the personal experiences I have had relating to the policy. For the record, I rarely have been one to exaggerate or use hyperbole in this debate... I try to use logic and reason, not passion and presumption (you know I respect you, but you also know that I would put your debate style more toward passion and presumption).Scouting signals to gay youth who are coming to grips with this fact that they are immoral and unwort

BobWhite, alas, it is the 2 : to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame part of the definition that I do not meet. As I have said, I don't feel very courageous by posting anonymously, and I wrestle with the shame not of my sexuality, but of my lack of Bravery. But as I have said before, it was not my intent to "come out" to anyone my revealing this bit of information about myself on the board, and I believe the "cause" is still better served with me working through anonymity for now... that may someday change. The only reason I "declared" anything was so that those anonymous pseudony

For more info on the BSA's policy against Zahnada and other's who believe as he does, refer back to a old thread on the subject titled "Scouting's REAL Gay Policy". And since it's been mentioned a few times for new forum participants to refer to old threads, let me highlight a few of my old threads on the subject:Scouting's REAL Gay Policy -- which starts by observing that the BSA would like to stifle all of those that oppose their view, and at the same time have a defacto "don't ask, don't tell" policy 3 million children -- which starts by observing that about 3 million kids are now

BobWhite, I stand by what I have already said on the measure of "avowing"... you can make up your own definitions, but the truth is they are only your interpretation, and have no basis on an official, definitive declaration from BSA Inc. One area in which we do agree, however, is "You just have to publicly disagree with scouting's membership rules to have your membership revoked.". I must admit, without looking back through the posts, I really recall you disagreeing when I first made this point, but nonetheless, you're right! Reading the text of the argument before the Supreme Court (t

dsteele, first, let me sincerely thank you for your regular contribution to this forum and the dedication to Scouting that you've demonstrated through so many of your posts. I know that I am not alone in my appreciation of your participation, passion and experience. Youre an uncommon professional that is willing to spend even their limited "off the clock" time by contributing to a resource like this web site. However, I have to acknowledge that on this issue your knowledge of the BSA policy is fundamentally flawed. I am not, by any admission, an "avowed" homosexual to Scouting. The B

mk9750, thank you for your honest words. I respect your difference of opinion, and the question that you pose. Allow me to extend your analogy a bit. The analogy of the locker room won't fit, because the space and rules of such a small accommodation are clear and not comparable to the "space and rules" of the largest youth organization in the United States. How about instead of a locker room, let's say I live in a neighborhood? I've lived in this neighborhood my whole life... I've grown up in it, served my neighbors admirably, and was even elected to represent and lead my neigh

You are asked if you accept the ideals of the Oath and Law, that is a moral decision. You are told to be a member you must accept the religious obligation of scouting, that is a moral decision. Your use of drugs and alcohol as well as your ability to set a good example is considered, that is a moral decision.Bob, my point stands... I said that this ban is the ONLY special or specific policy that defines morality and takes a stand from a limited and specific point of view. In the case of homosexual members, Scouting has adopted a specific point of view driven by specific religious beliefs (and

"A decent, ethical gay leader" is an oxymoron. Present company excluded, right? TRUTH is, you have no idea whether I am a "decent, ethical leader" without knowing me, and to know me you would need to be around me. Those in Scouting that do know me well, some who also know that I am a gay man, can all testify to my decency and ethics. Which is the best argument for local control on the matter of membership eligibility... those closest to the boys (parents, unit leaders, charter partners) should be able to determine the "fitness" of any member (boy or adult). Those people that I work wi

BobWhite --- I assure you, Bill Hillcourt NEVER said anything of the sort... I defy you to back that claim up. Hillcourt often said that Scouting was out of step from the "norm", but he never suggested that kids were disposable or beyond our reach. You should retract that statement immediately, for it is ridiculously attributed.

That's an excellent question BobWhite. I think we may all agree on the true answer.

Rosa Parks took responsibility for her actions. She didn't try to hide from anyone. She did practice civil disobedience, but she did so nobly - out in the light, not in the dark. Ignoring BSA policy while pretending that you are not, is something other than civil disobedience. It's cowardly and dishonest. If you say the Scout Oath, add hypercritical to that list.You've discovered the one area for which I do agree with you and I don't feel very Scoutlike... while I have said I feel my "Trustworthiness" is fully in check, I don't feel very Brave. That bothers me a great deal more than you

NJCub, you are absolutely right about the psychological dance concealing sexual identity can sometimes be. I can assure you, coming to understand and reconcile my own homosexuality has been a lifelong struggle. Concealing it from those around you is one thing, trying to conceal it (or deny it) from yourself is quite a bit more complicated still. In my own case (and I admit, I am not "typical" of all gay men), my sexuality is not a major aspect of my life; at least it has not been. I am confident, strong and very outgoing. I run multiple businesses; have an active professional and social

NJCub, I would be surprised if this thread runs on and on (though not disappointed either way). I think that the context of the debate has been changed in some peoples minds (which is why I waited a year to reveal this, and only do so now because I, too, felt that I had said everything I could say on the subject, and would only start repeating myself from here on)... Suddenly, we're not discussing theories, but a real example... a real example from a known (as best as one can be known on this board) associate, who's still standing in the room. I fear some people might withhold their opinions a

I'm unlikely to ever "prove to you that homosexuality is not immoral"; that's determined by your opinion, your religion, your relationship with God and your reality. There's just nothing in BSA that says I have to accept "your opinion", "your religion", "your relationship with God" or "your reality" on this subject. The fact that I (and many, many others) am gay and still very active in Scouting seems to not have affected you or your Scouting one bit. And my continued involvement will have no effect on you either. So why not solve this matter right now by encouraging the BSA to ret