Trevorum

tj, I'm certainly not an expert, but I respectfully disagree. I am convinced that homosexuality is "genetic" in the same sense that having red hair is genetic. Both are statistically unusual but neither are "defects". It's not a perfect analogy because homosexuality is clearly present in every human population and is not geographically restricted. Because any "gene" that affects reproduction will be tightly bound to overall species success, I am further convinced that a specified level of homosexuality in evolving human populations must have been adaptive and increased the overall survival rate ("fitness") of the band. In other words, the groups that survived tended to have some non-reproducing "gay" males. This is of course just a hypothesis, but it makes a lot of evolutionary sense.

Well, you're right about that of course. (Some)kids are cruel and always will be. Interesting to hear the anecdote about the 1920s - we have such an idealized mental image of that golden era, that we don't think to realize that Scouts probably were teased just like we were and our sons are. I guess it goes with the territory. No matter. As my SM minute on this topic concludes, "I'm glad to be part of that brotherhood!"

Gern, I have a very, very hard time accepting the proposition that something as critical to the success of a species as sex could be an "anomaly" or a "defect". It is much more reasonable to suspect that a "gene" for same-gender orientation conferred some type of adaptive advantage, roughly similar to the way that the gene for sickle cell anemia is adaptive.

Bob, excellent point! Maybe its not less conformity in dress, but less formality? Even here at my work, my field is known to be uniformily informal. (and for the record, I am the boss.) But that just reinforces my earlier thought that it's not necessarily wearing a uniform that our fellows object to, but wearing the current uniform, which is widely percieved as dorky. Interestingly, this is not an issue at all in the Venturing Crew, where they got to choose their own uniform.

As I posted above, mathematical models have proven that "allowing" individuals to choose their own sexual orientation would result in the entire species going extinct within short order (geologically speaking). Sooner or later, randomness or short-term clustering (ie., "fashion") would cause group fecundity to drop below critical levels. However, when sexual orientation is pre-set, extinction is easily avoided. Indeed, same-sex orientation has been postulated as an actual adaptive advantage for hunter-gather hominids (comprising 99% of human history) in that a certain number of adult males would contribute to the food supply for their neices and nephews but would not increase population pressure within the foraging band. And this is completely separate from the ongoing biochemical, hormonal, and genetic research.

oooh, Terry! The delicious irony! Yes, I fully agree with you that banning someone from your private organization just because you don't agree with their beliefs would be very unscoutlike. It's too bad that the good folks in Irving don't agree.

Have any of you read about (or seen on TV) the fellow who is hiking from San Diego to New York City? He started in April, weighing in at 400 lbs, and is now in the Arizona high desert at 350 lbs. He's going much slower than ge originally thought, but now expects to be on the Atlantic by Thanksgiving. I'll have to think about working this one into a good SM minute for the troop!

Rooster, your analogy fails also. You'll find no such links on www.scouting.org, on www.scoutstuff.org, or on other official BSA sites. However, this is not an official BSA site. Instead, it is a forum to encourage the open exchange of information and viewpoints among Scouts and Scouters (IMHO). I rather suspect that if Terry wanted to squelch all opinions other than the BSA party line, he would have banned Merlyn (and many others) long ago.

Kahuna, alas, I fear you are right. Rather than doing the right thing, the moral thing, BSA has chosen to do the economic thing, the corporate thing. I remember my father telling me that when he was growing up back in the 1920s and 30s everyone "knew" that certain ethnic groups were inferior because, well, because everyone just knew that! Today, there are still racists amnongst us but, by and large, society has progressed beyond that point. I remember my grandmother telling me about the times when women were not allowed to vote in our country, much less hold important jobs like lawyers and bank presidents. There is still a glass ceiling in many professions, but by and large, society has progressed beyond that point. My sons will one day tell my gransons about the time when sexual orientation was a big issue in Scouting. Of course by then, people will have some other minority to fear and loathe - maybe it will be clones, or the genetically engineered ...

People don't choose sexual orientation any more than they choose hair color. They can hide it, disguise it, deny it, but it's there and they were born with it. The chief difference is that people get hair quite quickly, but sexual orientation is largely hidden until puberty. Biological research is increasingly demonstrating the genetic and hormonal underpinnings of gender preference. Evolutionary anthropology has shown how non-reproducing males would be evolutionarily adaptive in foraging human bands, thus selecting for balanced frequencies of a particular "gene". Finally, mathematical models have shown that any species that "allowed" sexual orientation to be chosen by the individual organism would go extinct quite rapidly.

I much appreciate the absence of party line here. Even Merlyn's perspective, while monotonous, is welcome.

I believe that Mike may have hit on one explanation for the loss of enthusiasm for the uniform among today's Scouts. In our society, clothing simply does not carry the symbolic weight that it used to. I'm not certain of the reasons for this, but he has certainly listed some good examples. In recent decades, our society has placed more emphasis on individuality of appearance rather than conformity of appearance, and in increasingly formal contexts, including church, court, and the workplace. For example, at my place of work I am a senior professional but most of the time I wear jeans and a knit shirt to work. Sometimes shorts and sandals. A generation ago, my office would have been populated by coat-and-tie uniformed clones. In my work, I suppose we have eliminated the appearance of an employee as a criterion and replaced it with actual performance. I am sure you can think of other examples of this phenomenon. After some thought, I think that this shift in attitude in our larger society may account for some of the distain for uniform we see, especially among the 14-16 year olds.

Personally, I chose to be a white male. I just didn't see the angle with anything else. I figured I didn't need people discriminating against me if I was female or some other race. So far, it's worked out pretty well. I'm not so sure about my choice to have O+ blood type though ...

How about a parent who adamantly denies they are "homosexual" but openly admits to being "bisexual". Would this person qualify for BSA membership? Is being labeled by a 3rd party enough to deny membership?

When I was CM, if the DL said someone had dropped, I'd call up the parents and just ask why. It was usually a schedule conflict (little league, etc.). Sometimes there were family issues (custody, etc.). Sometimes there were leadership issues in the Den or personality conflicts among adults. These I'd probe a little deeper. Occasionally a youngster just lost interest in Cubs. These worried me the most and I'd ask questions of the parent trying to find out exactly why. Was it boring? Was he harrassed by other kids? Whatever the answer, I always came away feeling as though I had lost; I always asked myself what I could have done differently. My wife finally realized how much this bothered me and told me not to blame myself, that not all of the seeds one plants in a garden take root.

This thread and Bob's post reminds me of a SM minute about the uniform I shared with Scouts-L a while back. I've posted it here under the SM Minutes forum if anyone is interested. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

The best SM minutes are true stories. I shared this minute with my troop a while ago and also posted it on Scouts-L. --- The Uniform This Scoutmaster Minute is for those of you guys who sometimes feel "conspicuous" when you wear your uniform out in public. Last Thursday evening I had a Court of Honor to attend for a Scoutmaster friend of mine who was receiving a special award. His troop is way south of the river and I knew that I wouldn't have enough time after I got off work that evening to drive home, get dressed and then drive all the way back, so I brought my Class A uniform to work with me that day on a hanger. After work, I got dressed and then, since I still had a little time before the Court of Honor and because I was a little hungry, I decided to grab a bite to eat. I went into the McDonalds and stood in line. It was pretty crowded and I noticed a table of high school guys, maybe 16 or 17 years old, behind me and to the left. As I stood in line, looking up at the menu and deciding whether I wanted combo meal #1 or #3, I heard one of these guys snicker and say, "Hey! Look at the Boy Scout!" There was a split second of embarrassed silence. Then, as I was turning around to say something, one of the other guys at the table said loudly, "Yo! Dude! Chill out! I'm a Scout!" Our eyes locked for an instant, and even though we had never met before, we shared a bond of comradeship, this 17 year old and me. Then, without skipping a beat, the fellow in line in front of me, about my age, who hadn't seen me enter the restaurant, turned around and said "Me, too!" and he grinned and gave me an OA handshake. Unbelievably, one of the guys in the kitchen who was wrapping up burgers called out over the counter, "Hey, me too!" And then, not to be left out, I heard an 8-year old voice pipe up from one of the tables, "I'm a Cub Scout!" Well, after I had paid for my burger and left, I was feeling pretty good. You see, there are a lot more Scouts out there that we realize. We may not be in uniform all the time, but we are all Scouts just the same. We all follow the Scout Oath and the 12 points of the Scout Law. I'm very glad to be part of that brotherhood.

Beav, Yes, I know what you mean. But I see it as a positive feedback loop, a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we insist on a geeky uniform, we'll tend to be less successful in recruiting non-geeks. Of course I am doing my part to demonstrate that the uniform can be proudly worn by dashing and ruggedly handsome men, too ...

I agree with Ed - American style hot dogs and frankfurters are for weenies! Give me bratwurst oder knackwurst!

We've flogged this issue before, but let me ask this: Who wears uniforms? Uniforms were originally developed by the armies of antiquity to assist with instant ID in the heat of battle. You didn't want to be killed by your own guys. That still holds true to some degree, but these days mostly it's an esprit de corps thing, accompanied by a need for standardized quality and reliability of mission-supporting gear. The military model was borrowed by garrisons. Today, police and other civil servants who wear uniforms for instant recognition by the public. They need to have their orders followed with no questions. There's also an element of identity and "us vs. them" involved. As microcosms of warfare, sports teams wear uniforms for both reasons: instant ID in the heat of a scrimmage (or other action) as well as team spirit. Some schools wear uniforms to eliminate distractions from the learning evironment and to promote school spirit. Marching bands and D&B Corps wear uniforms singularly to promote esprit de corps. IMHO, this is the primary reason behind our using uniforming as a method of Scouting: to to promote group identity, spirit, and a sense of team. Uniforms allow a young person to belong to a super-organic (and the feeling of "belonging" is very important to very nearly all young people). Uniforms also supports the advancement method, by providing a venue to DISPLAY advancements. This to say, I fully support uniforming as a method of Scouting. HOWEVER, the current uniform is counterproductive for many, many scouts and is actually a joining dis-incentive for countless more. I firmly believe that our objectives in using the uniforming method would be enhanced if it weren't so dorky and unfashionable. Don't get me wrong, I love my uniform and I wear it with pride, but I see my 14 y.o. son cringe every time he has to put it on. When I ask him if his friends, who like camping, etc. would like to join the troop with him, he answers honestly, "No, they would never wear the uniform". Not "a" uniform, but "the" uniform. I certainly don't have any grand solution, but I do believe that if our use of the uniforming method was brought back to BASICS, we would have a greater opportunity to achieve the aims of Scouting. Our current uniform has slowly evolved from functional outdoor gear into something resembling Panamanian Generals. I think BP would have snorted and called us "parlour Scouts".

At the National meetings last May, I was introduced to two Scouters wearing purple (or maybe maroon) epaulettes. They were with the Armenian committee on Scouting I believe, but I did not get a chance to speak to them personally. These were the only purple epulettes I've ever seen.

Fuzzy, no offense intended! The turn of phrase just struck my funny bone, as if sexual orientation was a creed we can choose to profess or not like Judaism or Islam!

"profess gaiety" ???

My understanding of this matter is that BSA is a "religious organization" in the same sense that it is an educational organization. That is, while it certainly has these elements, it's purpose is not singularly religious nor educational. (In fact, the argument could be made that BSA is far more educational than religious in that education on a variety of secular topics is far more central to its purpose than is guidance on religious issues.) I agree with Gern that BSA's wordsmithing on this issue has backfired (and will continue to get worse) and I also agree with Madkins that a bona fide religious organization would not be so casual about the sprituality of its members. In my opinion, BSA claims to be a "religious organization" for the sole purpose (and a political one it is, make no mistake about that) of excluding godless heathens - while still allowing "god" to be defined so broadly as to be able to include everyone except those who baldly use the word "atheist" in conjunction with their belief system.

Acco - good point! You are right.