toutletodd

It looks like a fun forumn. This debate surges on. Men of good conscience must debate these contoversies. (Women too). I tend to be more pragmatic in my approach to this issue.

First the facts.

1. There are many homosexual adults that would do fine as mentors to boys.

2. Almost all pedofiles are not gay. It is an issue of power and perversion.

3. When a youth of today begins to believe he might be gay (which is rare), in scouting environments he is most likely to be supported by caring adults than shunned. Now he may or may not stay in scouting but the love and support of our Scouting family generally rises above this controversy.

4. This issue in the political arena is really not about children, it is about social and societal legitimacy. There are too many activities for kids these days to get bent out of shape over one or the other.

5. The BSA always waits for societal change to be nearly complete before instigating organizational change. I think about the big controversy of allowing women to be Scoutmasters in the 80's.

6. The BSA wants to affect the most amount of families it can. They also need to maintain and increase funding. Organizationally, these really are the main factors in determining organizational policies, values come at a distant third.

7. The majority of families would prefer a heterosexual values set to be included in the values education of their children. At the same time they are far more comfortable with the homosexual community than in recent years.

8. After what happend in Canada with allowing gays, the BSA will not be changing its view on this issue any time soon.

So in synopsis.

I don't think the homosexual community is ready to be included in the BSA. The BSA should not be part of the battlefield for the fight for legitamcy. As an organization we need to focus on what is important for the youth and keep this issue out of our playing field.

I believe that leadership will be solely based on ones abilities, and character. This should be determined by the chartered organization with major infractions policed by parents and the council.

Finally, I believe that homosexuality has a genetic component. That really does not change the issue. Regardless, Genetic prediliction or choice it still represents behaviors that require a value choice on behalf of people exposed to those behaviors. I look at people I know who are gay. I still have affection, compassion, and respect for them even though they have behaviors that are objectionable to me.

Much like emotions I have with special needs Scouts.

Well there is my dollar.

I know this is an old topic but thought I would respond.

First of all, It is always hard to talk about a council's budget in terms of revenue tracking against a certain set of costs. The reality is that the budget looks like a giant pot. All moneys go in it and many spouts at the bottom from wich the money is released to do work in the best interests of scouting. The other part that is tough is that Non Profits do not act like most private businesses because they have what is called fund accounting. The annual opperating costs come out of one fund. There are other non opperating fund for maintenance, camperships, etc. No back to the original question. Camps are a huge asset that require a large amount of resources. When you go to camp and eat a pancake you paid for that pancake. However you also paid for the staff that was there, the program materials, the general season camp maintenance and some of the off season maintenance including ranger/cartaker salaries and expenses. You also paid for promotion by district and council staff, part of the council operations center to answer questions, send information. In addition, someone had to take your payments, send out information, track the camps registration, hire the staff, etc. Our council has a camp operations budget of almost 3 million dollars. One year I tracked all the costs and revenues associated with properties and found that out of 3 million dollars I could count for all but about 50 thousand. Which is .001 percent of the total cost.

So I guess the answer in the Cascade Pacific Council would be yes Camp paid for itself at a one to one ratio.