Zahnada

OGE,

Sorry for the confusion. The behavior is unacceptable no matter who does it. I actually forgot if I had a point in that particular paragraph. In any case, such racial stereotypes like the "black gangsta" are used by multiple races. Does that still mean they're racial stereotypes? Just a thought.

scoutldr,

You said: "When given the choice, I check the box for "native American." I was born in Pennsylvania, so I guess that describes me. It doesn't ask for the nationality of my ancestors. "

I don't agree with this at all. You can rationalize all you want, but you know what race "Native American" implies. You know what people will assume when they read a form from a "Native American." In this sense, you are misrepresenting yourself and therefore you are lying. If you must protest against the ethnicity section of forms, then don't fill it out or write in "Not Applicable" or something. Don't pretend to be something you're not because you know that "Native American" refers to "American Indian."

As to you comments about the boys at the DMV, you know what I find strangely amusing? There's something funny about middle-class, white boys acting out the stereotypes of other races. That's what I see all the time.

It makes you wonder why this is such a widely discussed issue. There's something about it that brings out arguments in people. Maybe because it's an issue that most of us feel strongly about, but we're not willing to compromise. It's too bad that we can't reach some kind of middle-ground. But I think we talk about it because we all know it is a problem that won't go away. BSA's hand will be forced again in the future and we'll all need to stand up and defend what we believe.

I would like to throw one thing on the table before everyone abandons this topic for the next month (at which time it will appear again, as is the cycle). I just want to sum up the position as I see it. Most of us agree with the Supreme Court policy. BSA has the right to choose membership. But we don't agree with the BSA membership policy.

I know that many of you feel that homosexuality is morally wrong. I can't even attempt to influence your morals (I'd lose some respect for you if you abandoned your morals based on any argument I make). I just hope there's a middle ground. I have spoken with many deeply religious people who feel homosexuality is a sin and wrong. They despise it. Yet, they still don't agree with the BSA policy. They feel that a person's sexuality (as long as not a topic of scouting conversation) does not affect the boys in their troops. It doesn't put the boys in harms way and won't influence them and their sexuality (as some people believe homosexuality is like a disease). They choose to leave a person's choice of sexuality between themselves and God. Only there should judgements be made.

This is where I stand on the issue. I can't change how you feel about the morality of homosexuality, but I hope you can see that it does not harm the boys. Anyway, I've said my piece.

There may not be as much overt racism these days, but there're tons of subtle or aversive racism. Basically, it's not socially acceptable to be a racist anymore. Many people speak against it. But these same people have very subtle racist attitudes towards other races. They get very anxious and uncomfortable when around other races so they attempt to avoid such confrontations whenever possible. These people then decry overt racism, but often refuse to see the racism in society. They will say that there is no racism except for the actions of a few individuals. This is all an attempt to maintain the unequal status quo.

So yes there is racism in our society. But it isn't overt anymore.

Bob White,

I definitely do not have as much knowledge as you do about BSA membership rules. But if I interpret you correctly, does this mean that I am breaking the membership rules? I believe I have stated publicly (at least on this forum) that I do not agree with BSA policy. If this is enough to evict me from scouting then I must seriously question if scouting still represents American values. But this all seems so far-fetched that I must have misunderstood your last post.

But even if I am up for removal from BSA, I think I'll add to the reasons for it. Granted that I don't know TJ personally, but from what I have read from him, I would love to have him in my troop. He's knowledgable and dedicated. He would be an asset to any troop and I feel the boys can learn so much from his experience. He seems like a wonderful person who really loves scouting. I would love to get to know him personally as a friend, and I would want to work with him as a scout. It may not mean much, but TJ has my support. In my opinion, he represents some of the great aspects of scouting. And I don't feel he would pose any more harm to the boys than Bob White or DSteele or myself.

"You missed the point. I wasn't comparing gays to criminals. My point is if you let gays in then where does it stop!"

Ed,

I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth. It's a tactic that's used all too often in this forum. But we are in agreement on part of this issue. There does need to be a clear line. Safety always comes first. BSA is not a rehabilitation center and I wouldn't want any members who put the boys at risk.

The disagreement is that I don't believe that gays do put the boys at risk. I don't think they should be included in the list of "undesirable elements". But then, where do we draw the line?

The arguments of yourself and others is one of a slippery slope. Such arguments say, "If we let in gays, then why not sex offenders, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. Then we'd have real safety concerns on our hands." This is just faulty logic. BSA is a predominantly Christian organization and I'm sure there were objections to letting in Jewish scouts. People probably thought it would open the door to a flood of atheists and scouting morals would be gone. This didn't happen. When BSA allowed women to become leaders, people probably feared that all scouting would become co-ed. It didn't happen.

Letting in gays would not necessarily lead to scouting being overrun by criminals. Letting in gays also does not put the boys at any more risk than they have with a heterosexual leader.

Rooster,

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I can't help but feel there're flaws in the argument. There's a generalization in your last post that gay men engage in same sex activity. Just to clarify, is this the criteria we're using to define who is gay? I would argue that not all gay men, and especially gay boys, necessarily are sexually active. Would you accept a person who had strong feelings toward the same sex but refrained from acting on those urges?

And I would also point out that there are plenty of non-gay people who sexually act out against the Bible. Anyone who engages in premarital sex falls in this category. Anyone who masturbates also. I know that boys masturbate because I hear them talking about it (about 2 seconds before I tell them it's an inappropriate conversation). Should they all be removed from scouting?

In any case, we have vastly different opinions because I do not feel that the average gay man poses any more threat to myself or a youth than the average straight man.

Ed,

We definitely take different stances toward the morality of homosexuality. Your last comment draws parallels between gays and criminals. No matter what our stance on the issue, I don't want to see gays compared to sex offenders. I would not want a sex offender around boys because they are a danger to the boys and safety always comes first.

If you honestly believe that having your son around a gay man puts him in danger, then I'll let your comment stand. However, I'm afraid it will affect my opinion of you. If I simply read too deeply into your comment, then I apologize.

Ed,

You raise a central point to this issue. BSA is a private organization and should have the right to choose it's membership. Then why is BSA being held to different standards than other organizations? I really don't know. I can only offer one real reason.

Sexuality is vague. There is not much argument about the religious policy because that's pretty cut and dry. You're atheist or you're not. Same with BSA not allowing girls. There's a clear definition of what is a girl and what is a boy. But what is "avowed" and what is "gay"? Is a gay person someone who engages in sexual activity with the same sex? Or is he someone who simply finds the same sex attractive? Where do bisexuals fit in? What about gay people who suppress their desires? Other topics have dealt with the problems with the word "avowed". It's a problematic policy.

Bob, comparisons between the BSA's origins and any new group are faulty. Over nearly a century, things change. And the circumstances are much different. If nobody's taking initiative, why don't you start up an organization for them?

Some people are fighting for social acceptance and are using BSA as an example. Others want to help the boys. Scouting is a great organization and it cannot simply be replaced in a few years.

But here's an honest question I have. What if the Supreme Court overturned the decision and made BSA accept gays. Would the people in this forum who are against such a policy leave scouting? Would you start your own scouting-like program? I'm trying to gauge the reaction to such a decision.

Bob White,

I think resources are a major problem to other groups forming their alternative scouting programs. Gays are a huge minority in this country and while a large portion of the population will defend them verbally, few will support them financially (which is the case for many groups). Also, how can you develop a program that rivals BSA? Scouting has some of the best land in the country and despite budget cuts, we still have plenty of financial backing. There may actually be plans to start up alternative groups, but it will take an enormous amount of resources to bring it to the national level. But who knows what the future holds. In the end, it's cheaper to argue about the BSA's stance than to start up a new program. And we probably all agree that there is no replacement for scouting.

Advisor Jim,

I don't want to enter into a debate with you, but there are a couple loopholes to your argument. You say, "It just isn't right to make your own rules because of money not morals!!!" Many people feel that it is immoral to exclude groups based on sexuality. Let's not argue about the legitimacy BSA has to do that as a private organization. You just have to understand that many people in this nation do not feel homosexuality is immoral and they believe that particular council is doing the moral thing.

Basically, I don't think any of us know the situation in that council. Is it pressure politically? Money? Does the majority of the council really consider the BSA stance wrong? I'm hesitant to judge them as greedy people who gave in to the vocal minority. Just my opinion.

Rooster,

I don't like politicians either. So I agree with you completely that we don't need spokesmen who beat around the bush trying not to make anyone mad.

However, I think a forceful point can be made without an angry tone. The "fence sitters" are the exact people who we need to win back.

This letter and its tone receives great support in the scouting community, but we already knew much of the truth. We also already agree that BSA is a wonderful organization that does so much for boys. We don't need to be persuaded of that fact anymore.

We need to appeal to the fence sitters because they're the only ones who aren't for us or against us. It's just like an election. The winners aren't decided by the hardcore Republicans or the hardcore Democrats. It's the people in the middle who make the difference. We need to win them back to our side.

In another post I advocated that the BSA needs to defend themselves against attacks. This letter does just that. If the letter is accurate then the United Way is definitely at fault. I wouldn't hold it against an organization to stop donations to BSA, but breaking contracts is wrong. This is the type of defense of BSA that we need. And it didn't simply repeat the rhetoric of "moral role model."

With all that being said, the tone was much too strong. The point of such a letter is to win back people who may not know too much about scouting. Such a harshly toned letter would simply turn off such people.

So if anyone wants my advice, if you're going to write such a letter, try to sound more objective. Remember that the target audience of such a letter is not necessarily scouts.

A lot of this goes back to the what is "cool" argument. A lot of boys just don't think scouting or the uniform is cool. I don't like the current uniform. It is uncomfortable and the old shorts were much too short for the current times.

However, I personally think that a scout shirt looks stupid with jeans. The uniform is something that only looks good when it is complete. I don't know how to inform boys that when they wear an incomplete uniform, or don't tuck in their shirt, that they don't look cool. They just look like they don't know what they want or what they're doing.

Certain groups and individuals have targeted BSA as the battle field for equal rights protests. No amount of PR could change their views. But Bob White has made a point that very effectively supports what I previously said. "Keep in mind that many of the things listed are misconceptions deliberately started and spread by individuals and groups with specific political agendas."

Most certainly! And where do these misconceptions spread to? To MILLIONS of uninformed Americans. The liberal side of this country has been fed these misconceptions and have begun to use them as the mental base of what they think of scouting. Then these people who don't have a political agenda lean on groups like the United Way because "I'm not supporting discriminating homophobes!" The United Way needs public support and even if their officials know the truth about BSA, they must give in to their members.

Bob, I'm afraid you're classifying the country as "us" vs "them." Which can easily turn into a battle of conservatives vs liberals or republicans vs democrats. But there are millions out there who are liberal and have no ill will towards scouting. Take me for example. Look at several other people on this forum. I don't agree with the policy at all. I've met too many gay men who were great humans and some who are amazing Eagle Scouts. But I still love scouting. However, if I wasn't raised into scouting, I would be biased against it by now. When the only news about BSA is bad PR, then it doesn't matter what the troops at the local level do. "Gee, it's nice of the scouts to clean up this park. Too bad they hate gays." The public image out there is one that if I hadn't been connected to scouts, I wouldn't allow my son to join.

BSA has not articulated its policy very well. The country still does not know what scouting is all about. Fortunately, it is still strong and still has strong support. I just hate to see that alternative view of scouting floating around the community. Of course I probably live in a more liberal area than you.

In regards to United Way's donation cuts, I feel BSA is largely responsible. I'm not talking about the actual controversial policy. I think BSA has done a poor job of explaining that policy to the public.

There are differing views of Boy Scouts in the country these days. A powerful view is one of scouts being involved in the community, strong moral characters, and good leaders. Another view (held more by teenagers) is of scouts being the "dorks" in uniforms doing arts and crafts. But a new view is emerging and is definitely becoming powerful in liberal areas like where I live. This is a view of scouts as homophobic, conservative, Christian fundamentalists. This opinion is picking up steam mostly because people don't understand the BSA's policy.

The only explanation I've heard is that, "A gay man cannot provide a good moral example for our children." That works for people within the scouting community who are stereotypically conservative anyway. That's why membership hasn't taken a huge hit. BSA was able to keep most of their members happy with their stance.

But places who donate, like the United Way and other major corporations, need to appeal to the masses. They rely on both liberals and conservatives for their survival.

The explanation of "moral example" is just too vague. The basics of the policy are just too vague. Who here has been caught in a debate over the policy with someone who opposed it? Who found out that the main reason for opposition was that the person simply did not know what the policy was? Boy Scouts needs to work the public relations department better. Here are some misunderstandings about the policy that naturally turn liberals away:

-BSA is involved in a "witch hunt" to find the sexuality of its members.

-BSA thinks that gays are more likely to molest children.

-Scouting is for white Christians.

-BSA teaches boys that homosexuality is wrong.

-BSA is controlled by the Mormon church.

-Scouting is a religious organization (I know it is, but the idea is that it's more of a church camp with bible reading and preaching than simply teaching morals by example)

I've heard more. Basically, there is much confusion about what scouting means. It is not clear to the public. I don't know how to solve the PR problem, but this is the way I see it. It's not just the United Way giving in to public pressure. They survive on public support and many within the public are misinformed.

Bob White says, "We are not talking about calling parents up and saying "do you know what Billy said?". We are talking about a leader, Ed in this case, who said if a parent asked him directly about his discussion during a Scoutmaster conference, would tell the parent that "it was confidential" and would not discuss it."

I'm starting to agree with this more, but not entirely. I don't think we need to be tattle-tails. If a parent asks directly about their then the process becomes more black and white. But the grey area is when the son says something important about his life, and the parents never ask directly. Looking back on the hypotheticals, I wouldn't initiate a conversation to tell the parents. Is it a secret if they don't ask? Thin line. But I think we need to be more clear one where we stand on this issue because many people sound like they would rush to the phone and tell the parents. Is that really what you're advocating?

As for the "secret meetings", are we talking about confidentiality or the fact that adults and youth can't meet one-on-one?

I'm still not sure where I come down on this issue, but allow me to play a little "Devil's Advocate."

With all this talk about full disclosure with parents, where is the line? There are big things and there are small things. Both can seem huge in the eyes of a boy. I don't like working with hypotheticals, but I can't think of a better way to make my point.

Let's say you're in an SM conference and it comes out that the boy (aged 13-15) is losing faith in his religion. He wants to go experiment around with other faiths but doesn't want his parents to know for fear that they will prevent his research. This is a big issue, but the boy has some logic behind his reasons.

Now let's say you're in an SM conference and it comes out that the boy currently has a D in social studies. He has already decided to work hard, but doesn't want his parents to know because they'll be really mad and punish him.

Finally, I don't know how it came into the conversation, but let's say the boy is curious about sexuality. He knows that gays aren't allowed in scouts but he noticed that he doesn't connect well with girls and he has many close male friends. He's doesn't really understand sexuality, thinks he may be gay. You see that most likely (nothing is definite) he is just confused about what it means to be gay. But he knows his family may shun him if such a thing is even mentioned. To even be confused is enough to envoke awkwardness between him and his parents.

Once again, I'm sorry to deal in hypotheticals, but I hope you can see each of these situations actually occuring. I have to wonder if telling the parent may do more harm than good.

I'd also like to appologize for starting this topic up. My original intent was to have more people post in the "Issue and Politics" section instead of moving the debate to the Open Discussion.

I felt that it was important for everyone to consider what their reactions would be to secrecy and confidentiality as a scout leader. I thought that these are situations we might be thrown into without suspecting it and it would be good to get some discussion.

There is a very interesting debate going on in the "Here we go again..." topic of the Issues and Politics forum. I know that many of you avoid that forum (which makes you a smarter person than I) but I thought you might have some good things to say. It starts around page 3 of the topic. Go past Bob White and myself ranting back and forth.

The discussion is this:

What do you do when a boy wants to tell you something but asks that you not tell his parents?

This is a valuable conversation for every scout leader and I hope you jump in with your views.

I don't know which side I'm on with this issue, so I'll play a little bit of Devil's advocate.

What do you say when a boy comes up to you and says, "I have something very important to tell you. Promise not to tell my parents."?

This is very tricky. Most times, it will be something small. But the boy obviously feels he cannot turn to his parents at this moment. It is a cry for help. But should we grant that help at the expense of the parents? This is tough.

How do you handle that situation?

Bob White,

I'm afraid we just aren't communicating. I'll make one last attempt to clear up my views for you. This will be my final word on the matter. If you want to discuss it further, we can use private messages instead of forcing everyone to read the same arguments over, and over.

"We are not their parent, We Are not their confessor, We are not their psychologist or caseworker. It is inappropriate for a scout leader to act as any of those things."

Absolutely correct. I have said nothing that would point to the contrary. However, we ARE their friend. We ARE role models. And we ARE mentors. I think those jobs require us to act a certain way. Once again you make it sound like I'm trying to psychoanalyze a boy or give him medication, or force him into certain clubs. Most certainly not. As I have said, I only want to give a boy options. When we make scouting no longer an option, we should be prepared to present the boy with other opportunities. Simply saying, "I'm sorry you can't be a scout, but if you like _______, then go to ______. If you need someone to talk to, you can reach any number of teen counselling services at _____." would be a help. I don't see how this is outside our bounds as a scout leader. And if the boundaries of scout leadership are as confining as you describe, then the program has major flaws.

"Then be sad that they behave that way, that I can accept. But why in world would you sadden yourself because the BSA does not open the doors to those people. I would think you would be relieved that we do not knowingly expose children to their behaviors"

This statement is a complete misrepresentation of what I said. Anyone who read my posts hopefully understands that I am not sad that boys are not surrounded by such people. Safety always comes first in my book. I expect that you will be more vigilant when quoting and arguing in the future instead of putting words in my mouth to make a point that I wasn't even arguing against.

""And I do not consider gays automatically undesirable based solely on their sexual orientation."

Niether does the BSA. They consider homosexuals as well as a number of other social behaviors as ineligible for membership because of their inapropriateness as role models or their inability to support the mission or scouting."

Sorry, Bob. If scouting dubs a person as "inappropriate as a role model" then they've been dubbed as people you wouldn't want your children around. In my mind, that means a label of "undesirable" has wrongfully been cast on these people. That is my view of the situation. I feel any other interpretation is simply rationalization to make the actions more publicly accepted.

Anyway, Bob, I fear that the board has grown tired of the same debate. We've managed to post nearly identical messages for half a week. Let's move on.

Bob,

Your counterarguments misrepresent some of the arguments explained here. So let's take this step-by-step.

1. A scout is found to be gay.

2. By the rules, if he is sure of his sexuality and "avowed" (this is a really vague rule that I will probably have issue with in another thread) then he cannot be a scout.

3. As adult leaders, it is our job to inform him of this decision.

4. Offer alternative programs to him.

5. If his sexualiy seems to be a major controversy in his life, offer resources that may help him cope.

You imply that I want to sit down and give the boy ink-blot tests, and word associations, and analyze his childhood. Maybe you assume that I will send him to a gay community. I will do neither. I will tell him that if he needs help, there are those out there who can give it to him.

I find your arguments discouraging because you take the stance that, "It's not my problem." "I'm not trained to help so I won't." I can't honestly believe you would deny to help such a child. If all scouts had that attitude, then the "mission" of scouting that we hold so highly would be baseless.

Once again, to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I am not fighting to keep gays in scouts. That's not the topic here (I'll fight for that at another time). I'm not pretending to be a psychiatrist. I am giving a boy options.

By the way, I want to clarify another point with you, Bob. I do hate to see ANYONE turned away from scouts. Yes, I hate to see pedophiles, rapists, sex-offenders, drug-addicts, and any other undesirable turned away from scouts. I hate it because these people live an unscoutlike lifestyle. That's why it saddens me. I'm sad that the world is not made up of Boy Scouts. And so "No" I do not want to staff my troop with those types of people. (And I do not consider gays automatically undesirable based solely on their sexual orientation. That is why I don't like this chain of arguments. It associates two different things in my mind. Just my opinion. It's off topic again)

Joni4TA,

You addressed the issue I was concerned about with my posts. I was worried that my arguments may be read as equating homosexuality to a disease. I really did not want to give the impression that I see gays as wearing a huge "HELP ME!!" sign and that I would be their savior. I don't believe that homosexuality is a disease. And I don't believe that people need to rush in and involve themselves in other people's lives and personal problems all the time.

However, as adults that deal with youth, we need to recognize that homosexuality can have some consequences for the boy. Many go through a period where they come to terms with their sexuality. They also realize that a good portion of society does not accept who they are and will judge them negatively based on that. For a respectable organization like BSA to turn them away can be very difficult. This can lead to feelings of alienation, isolation, depression and perhaps suicide.

Naturally, we don't want any human to experience such feelings. As scout leaders, we need to know that this situation may be troublesome for a youth.

I don't buy into the argument that "It's not our job!" It's our job to be vigilant to the needs and attitudes of the youth in our program. It's also our job to help others. If I found out that any scout was feeling depressed, I'd try to make sure he got the help he needed.

Sorry for the confusion.

Bob,

Very well worded post. I apologize if I confused you with my beliefs about the importance of leadership in scouting. I see leadership as the "tool" that scouting offers and that no other group can really match.

Your statement about the "mission" of scouting is well taken. As well as the connection between the mission and membership. However, that is not the point we have been debating. This has not been a discussion about whether gays should or should not be allowed in scouting.

How we carry out that mission is more important than the fact that it exists. What is the mission? You say, "Where I think the uniqueness of scouting comes from is in our ethics driven mission. The "Why we do" of scouting." It is unethical to cast a gay boy to the wolves without helping him. It is unethical to not help your fellowman. This is where we disagree. Those ethical lessons we teach our youth include "A scout is helpful".

For you to deem a boy unworthy of aid because he is gay does not fulfill the mission of scouting. This is moral exclusion. I hope the boys in scouting learn that there is only one judge and we are not Him. I hope scouts learn that it is ethical to help a person who needs it.

This is how I interpret the "mission" of scouting.

Bob,

Unfortunately no program is a replacement for Boy Scouts. That is why it saddens me when boys cannot or do not take advantage of all that BSA has to offer. Boy Scouts has the whole package.

However, there are other organizations that have some similarities to scouting. Mostly it is local. I suggest you look into some of the youth programs in your area. It will help you understand what I am talking about and it will provide valuable resources for your troop.

If the boy enjoys camping, there are several outdoor organizations in my area. Some specialize in backpacking, some in rock climbing, some in aquatics, etc. The specialization of the groups can be a plus and a minus because it's not very broad, but it's very deep.

If the boy enjoys community service he can find any number of groups that work in that field. He could volunteer for the local park service or at libraries or at the hospitals. Community service is no problem.

If the boy wants more of a moral guidance program then he can consult his church youth group. Naturally the homosexual issue comes into play here too, but some churches are very accepting.

Leadership is the one area where most programs fall far short of BSA. However, all the groups I described have some opportunity to advance and lead others. It just isn't a focus like it is in scouting and that is too bad.

I haven't even mentioned rec league sports teams, school leadership councils, and other school activities. Depending on the boy's interest, there are several directions to point him towards if he must leave scouting. It is always a good idea to remind him that life always has options (and say that old quote about windows and doors).

Naturally to answer your question I haven't mentioned the counselling of psychological difficulties that come with "coming out of the closet." I hope you don't mind, but it wasn't relevant to your question.

In any case, I advise you and other members of this forum to research and know what groups exist in your communities. While I love Boy Scouting and feel it is the best organization for boys, I realize that other options exist. It may be advantageous to know about these groups because (as I mentioned) they may become powerful resources for your own troop and program. I hope this answers your question, Bob.