BrentAllen

I'm not going anywhere with it - we agree! I've just been trying to say the same thing you said in your last post. Well, at least we agree on that one issue. Now I've got to finish planning our Pack meeting for next Tuesday. We have a Cherokee Indian coming in to teach their culture, show some hides and skins, play some drums and flutes, and show how to make some jewelry. In addition, I'm finally getting my Wood Badge beads. My father and my Scoutmaster from back in the '70's will be there (both Wood Badgers), along with District Committee members and Council professionals. To say I'm a little nervous about the meeting would be an understatement.

I never said there was any benefit to society from suppressing all heterosexual activity. I said just the opposite. I said the traditional heterosexual-parent family is the bedrock of our society, and should be promoted. Promiscuous heterosexual activity should be discouraged (you know, sexual activity not restricted to one partner?). Do you agree or not? You are correct - discussing teaching moral values to our sons should under no circumstances be discussed by Scout Leaders. Huh??? "The purpose of the Boy Scouts of America is to provide an educational program for boys and young adults to build desirable qualities of character, to train in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and to develop personal fitness." Maybe Scouting in the blue states is different...

Dan, I have. I got married and settled down, started a family. Question: Are you going to teach your sons they should remain abstinent until they get married? That sex is something special that should be reserved until they meet the woman they will commit to for the rest of their lives? That they should not have children out of wedlock? I'm not asking what you think they will do. I'm asking what you are going to teach them is right, what is correct behavior. What values you will instill in your sons. That is what I am doing - which is suppressing certain heterosexual activity. Would you agree, or disagree? I think the Scout Law certainly suppresses a lot of promiscuous behavior - no? Would that list of behaviors be ridiculous?

Dan, You are seeing what you want to see in my post, not what I am saying. The promiscuous behavior, spreading of STD's, etc... I attributed to both homo and hetero groups. The freakish behavior - yes, I did single out the homosexual crowd. When in NYC with my wife years ago, we stumbled upon their Gay Day parade. Maybe the one in Chicago is different, but this one was anything but a family-oriented affair. Freakish is the only way to describe it - multiple "Marilyn Monroe" men flashing the crowd, the uniform of the day for many men appeared to be thongs and chaps, the lovely Dikes on Bikes group. This does not describe the homosexuals I know personally here in Atlanta, but this is what was on display for the Gay Day parade in NYC. I am not bashing gays. I'm explaining why society would want gays to suppress those desires, and choose not to live an alternative lifestyle. Nothing more. Gern, Welcome to the battle! Don't forget the health hazards and accompanying high medical bills from being obese! Shorter life spans, clogged arteries, a triple by-pass in the future! Your body is your temple! Now, repeat after me "A Happy Meal with water, please!"

M-L, I'll check with my father-in-law - Thor. To be honest, I've never heard anyone claim they thought Thor was anything other than a mythical figure. Have you? If so, what exactly did he do on the 5th day that caused his followers to name that day after him? How is life in the blue states? Hitting 70 this afternoon in this red state.

Wow! The Bible is totally fiction - now that is an eye-opener! So you are telling me our entire system of counting time in years is all just a house of cards. That Jesus was just a fictional character, and the BC and AD time notations are based on a fictional character. That is some pretty powerful fiction!

I believe I know enough about homosexuality. I had a good friend, who was gay, who died of AIDS back in 1986. He also dated women occasionally. If he had suppressed those desires, he would probably be alive today. I have a cousin who is openly gay. I work with people who are openly gay. I do not fear them, I do not hate them. As a Christian, I am taught to love the sinner, and hate the sin. I believe what you meant to say was I can continue to hold to my Christian and moral beliefs and be labeled a homophobe by you and others, or I can compromise my religious and moral beliefs to be politically correct. Sorry, but I will choose my religious and moral beliefs.

Kahuna, That section of Boys Life is Bible Heroes, not Bible Stories. Maybe just a small difference, but still a difference. Boys Life is not just marketed to Scouts. In fact, every now and then you will see a letter to Pedro complaining about all the Scouting stuff included. My guess is the editor sees those half-page cartoons as a positive in increasing readership - just a business decision. If 90% + of the crowd they are marketing to practices a religion that recognizes the Old Testament, then why not include it? It's kind of like this Issues and Politics forum - those who don't want to read it just ignore it. Teaching boys about heros has always been pretty popular.

How does suppressing homosexuality benefit society? 1. Society suppresses behaviour the citizens find repulsive, such as spitting in public, picking your nose in public, etc... I would wager a large majority of the population finds homosexual behavior repulsive. BTW, I was not taught that homosexual behavior was repulsive - it must be in my genes that I feel that way. 2. Monogamous heterosexual couples are the bedrock of a stable society (financially, emotionally, raising a family). Suppressing homosexual behavior promotes heterosexual behavior, i.e. gay men who are married and have families. 3. Sexual diseases, including AIDS, are spread much more quickly and widely by those who are not monogamous, both hetero and homosexual. My assumption is that one of the reasons AIDS spread through the homosexual community so quickly was because they did not practice safe sex as much as hetero couples, since pregnancy was not a concern. 4. Society, with the exception of the MTV crowd, generally views sexually promiscuous behaviour (hetero or homo) negatively. Whether religious upbringing or not, we are taught that girls who sleep around are sluts, etc... Right or wrong, we see gay bars as evidence of widespread promiscuous behavior in the homosexual crowd. 5. Similar to #4, society does not care for public displays of freakish behavior. Anyone who has been to a Gay Day parade has seen plenty of this. 6. No telling how many deaths have been caused due to people coming out of the closet; how many hospital visits from gays getting beaten up. In addition, how many discrimination cases have filled our court houses. How much money has been spent on litigation. How this issue has divided the country, and families. I'm not pointing a finger at either side or placing blame - I'm simply listing the costs to society, in lives and dollars, of not suppressing homosexual behavior.

We all come out of the womb "programmed" with desires that we suppress in order to live in a civilized community. We all might want a new Ferrari, but unless we can afford it, most of us will settle for what we can obtain legally. Those who can't usually end up in jail. We might be attracted to young 20-year-old women hanging out on the beach in bikinis, but we suppress those desires because we love our wives. Those who don't end up divorced. IIRC, I heard George Michael say he was heterosexual until he got wasted on night and "tried" homosexuality. If he had not "tried" it, would he consider himself gay now? I hear about men who are supposedly gay, but are married with children. The homosexual community lament that these men can't be true to themselves. I say congratulations for suppressing those desires. So, to me, "programmed" or not, it is still a choice. Serious question: Are rapists or child molestors "programmed" by their genetics? Are they mentally ill, or just criminals?

So what you are saying is those gay leaders and Scouts don't live by the Scout Law - A Scout is Trustworthy. Honesty is part of his Code of Conduct. They know homosexuals are not allowed in as members, but join anyway, deceitfully. Doesn't sound too honest to me, and they don't sound like Scouts and Scouters to me.

Sort of. You follow them when you can. As Scouts, we try to follow the FrontCountry Guidelines, which are a scaled down version of LNT. As you will see when you read them, there is nothing in there which would prohibit fishing - whether catch and release or not. This link will take you to the BSA LNT Guidelines. http://www.scouting.org/nav/enter.jsp?s=xx&c=ds&terms=Leave+No+Trace&x=28&y=12

Well, gee, Dan, let's just fire Roy Williams and make you Chief Scout Executive, and let in all the child molesters, murders, rapists,... After all, they are all God's creation too, and we don't want to be intolerant of them. That would be sinful, right? How can you allow yourself and your son to belong to such a sinful group as the BSA? If I felt as you do about the intolerant sin, I don't think I could continue to associate with the group. You must do some pretty strong rationalizing to justify your continued membership.

LNT are guidelines, not policy. Just about any outdoor activity can be viewed as "violating" LNT.

P-S, Spoken like a true blue-stater. Here in this red state, your sentiments would be 180 degrees out of phase. The super-majority here are absolutely against allowing gays in. A very small minority would be in favor, and a small number would say "so what?" What different worlds we live in.

Gern, Yes, Cubs can tent together. Nearly all of ours tent with their parents, but it is possible to allow the Cubs in one tent, and the dads in another. From the Cub Leader book: "Male and female youth participants must not share the same sleeping facility. When tents are used, no youth will stay in the tent of an adult other than his or her parent or guardian. If a parent cannot attend, the boy's family must make arrangements for one of the other parents attending, or for another adult relative or friend, to be a substitute at the overnighter." In that last situation, if the boy is under the supervision of another dad, he cannot sleep in the tent with that dad. He either sleeps in another tent by himself, or the boys share a tent, and the dad tents alone.

DanKroh, Your profile says you are a Den Leader. I'm curious - have you been to any training? You may not be aware there are policies in place about who can and cannot share a tent. Heterosexual couples in Venturing cannot, by policy. There is no policy that prevents boys from sharing a tent. I'd like to hear the wording you would suggest for a policy preventing gay Scouts from sharing a tent, if they were ever allowed in. Yes, I police the behaviour of the Cub Scouts in my Pack - outside the tents. I don't go around entering tents uninvited to check behaviour, nor do I sneak around late at night, listening for whispered conversations. This whole debate comes down to where do you draw the line. I consider homosexual behavior a sin - that is where I draw the line. You draw the line somewhere farther to the left, but to the right of NAMBLA. I could use your language to say "...I don't give a hoot if someone from NAMBLA (gay groups) thinks I'm ageist (homophobic) or any kind of "phobe"; I'm not obsessed with the members of that organization." and I will promptly be labeled a homophobe, and will be derided by the gay and PC crowds. The bottom line - who gets to decide where the line is drawn. Mass. wants to allow same-sex marriages, Georgia wants to amend the state constitution to prevent it. You think you are right, I think I am right, NAMBLA thinks they are right. Luckily for me, my beliefs fall in line with BSA policy, which will hopefully never change on this issue. If it does ever change, you can be sure NAMBLA will become very interested in the Scouting program.

I guess it depends on your dictionary. pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object. Webster child (legal definition): (1) A son or daughter of any age, sometimes including biological offspring, unborn children, adopted children, stepchildren, foster children and children born outside of marriage. (2) A person under an age specified by law, often 14 or 16. For example, state law may require a person to be over the age of 14 to make a valid will, or may define the crime of statutory rape as sex with a person under the age of 16. In this sense, a child can be distinguished from a minor, who is a person under the age of 18 in most states. A person below the specified legal age who is married is often considered an adult rather than a child. See also emancipation. Nolo.com Not really that important to the issue, I admit. Trevorum - thanks for helping BP out with something that was obviously over his head. I think the real BP would have been able to figure that one out. :-) Brent Allen Georgia Tech, 1989 I used to be a Fox, a good ol' Fox too...

I'll take PETA seriously when they go to Africa and protest the cheetahs, leopards and lions. Once they convince those animals it is wrong to kill other animals, I'll join their ranks. Why pick on me, and not them? They kill more animals in a week than I will in a lifetime!

This one is real simple. The BSA has policies against an adult sharing a tent with any Scout other than his son. There are similar policies against Venture Scouts of different sexes sharing a tent. Now let's assume we allow gays into the BSA, and a 17 year old and a 14 year old in the same Patrol develop a "relationship." Are you going to let them share a tent on campouts? Are you going to police their behaviour, after lights out? Are you going to let your son share a tent with another gay scout in his patrol? What if he ends up on a campout where he has no choice but to share a tent with them? Now let's move forward a year - the 17 year old is now 18, and still in the "relationship" with the now 15 year old Scout. The Scouter is now a pedophile, by definition, isn't he? Are you going to let him stay in your unit? I wonder what type of phobia the NAMBLA members call DanKroh and BadenP. I mean, come on, those consent ages in the law aren't based on anything scientific, right? Probably just a bunch of religious fanatics came up with those ages to make everyone follow their straight-laced lifestyles, right? If 2 people really love each other, regardless of their age, shouldn't they be allowed to share their feelings with each other? What are y'all so afraid of? Who are they hurting? Y'all are just a bunch of _______phobes! I'm sure there are some boys out there in this very position, and they would appreciate some Scout creating an alliance for them, so they can have a safe place to go, where no one will judge them - to paraphrase.

DanKroh, Oh, really? Are you in favor of letting gays in the BSA? If so, you must be talking about boys under the age of 18 - certainly not the adults you mentioned. So by your definition, it would be ok for two 18 year old men to have a loving relationship. Would it be ok for two 17 year old boys to have a loving relationship? Depending on your answer to that question, both of those relationships could be ok, but a relationship between a 17 year old and an 18 year old would be pedophilia. Please explain how that can be so.

And while you're at it, maybe you could find a way to help the members of NAMBLA. I'm sure they "might be able to recognize better what are real moral values and what could be seen as contrivances to appease particular religious groups." I'm sure they will tell you they were born with these tendencies, and can't help themselves. They are just misunderstood. All the homophobes in this country should cast away their fears, and try to understand the world as the members of NAMBLA do. Heck, BSA should go directly to them and recruit our leaders! I would think the BSA would be a perfect fit for this group. All we need are a couple of Scouts working on their Eagle projects and their enlightened leaders/parents to lead the way! They will probably want to change some of the tenting requirements, regarding Scouts and adults, but that's not a big deal, is it??

The only problem I have with the uniform is the pants. I can go to REI and buy a pair of outdoor pants, made by Columbia, with zip-off legs and ton of features CHEAPER than I can buy uniform pants at the Scout Shop. The color is fine. As far as economy, these pants are 2-in-1 - shorts and long pants. It would be so simple to either contract the pants out to Columbia or someone similar, or just copy the universal design. I wouldn't mind seeing other options offered in correct materials - poly or fleece. There is no reason Scouts can't be using/wearing the latest in camping equipment and uniforms - why are we 20 - 25 years behind?

I'll try to answer the questions that have been posed to my as briefly as possible. I'm Baptist, pretty mainstream. A degree from Georgia Tech, but didn't study biology there. I don't disagree with evolution, in most cases. Where I do agree, I see it as the WAY God created everything on this planet. It is simply more evidence of God's presence - an explanation of HOW He did it. I do not want to force that view on anyone, I simply want it offered as a possibility. Right now, little Johnny is told species evolved through gene mutations, recombinations, etc... When Johnny asks his teacher what CAUSED these changes, his teacher will say "We don't know exactly what caused the changes - that is not a question science needs to answer. The one thing I can tell you is, the change was NOT caused by any type of Intelligent Design, or by God. We can't prove that God or ID didn't have a hand in it, but we can't acknowledge that as a possibility" That is where I have a problem. I do find it amusing that scientist can't agree on global warming, with the evidence (for or against) right before their very eyes, but yet we can teach when and how the universe was formed (without ever mentioning ID). I just wish those brilliant people would reveal the truth behind Stonehenge and the cure for the common cold - I'm sure they know! Yes, billion, not million. Was that on a Monday or a Tuesday? :-)

This is probably overly simplistic and repetitive, but the problem us "believers" have is their is no room in science for a religious explanation, which directly conflicts with our religious beliefs. Christian students are asked, in effect, to study and believe material which goes against their religious beliefs. We are not asking that science teach religion, we only ask that science acknowledge religion, so that we don't feel we are being asked to choose between the two. firstpusk states: "The random part of evolution is the variation of genes within a population." My question is - what caused those variations? Can you prove what caused them? Maybe it was God tinkering with the species? Can you rule out the possibility that ID caused this variation? Those models used to calculate the formation of the universe 13 million years ago - are they the same ones currently being used to predict global warming? Are they the same ones used to predict the weather 24 hours from now, and do so with such high precision? All you evolutionists want proof of ID. I consider myself living, breathing proof of ID. Do evolutionists celebrate Thanksgiving? If so, who do they pray to, giving thanks? To the particular gene mutation or variation that caused them to be created? I would like a copy of that prayer, please, so I can be scientifically correct next Thanksgiving.