BubbaBear

Bob White: Point well taken, Actually what I was alluding to is that the Scouting Program is as well rounded as any youth (or even adult) development program that ever has been (kinda like the Dale Carnegie Saleman Course, so to speak).

If the National Office was to recognize the reference I made (to the Scouting principles) as what the program is all about, then they would formulate a "national policy" that gives the decision to the COs. In that way, the COs will face public opinion, not the BSA, and will not be breaking National Standards.

The worst that can happen is it doesn't work, and we go back to the drawing board. If the organizations whom sponsor scout units are secure enough in their own being, then they will not hesitate to feel comfortable about making decisions affecting their own programs.

You said in closing, "If they choose to use scouting they must choose to use all of it". I agree. Maybe we should look at all the COs using the program and eliminate those whom use it differently than outlined by the current national standards.

Maybe I should be relieved from duty because I made a negative statement about women in scouting?

As eisley referenced me in another post, "maybe I just don't get it". It sure is easy to draw conclusions about people when you've known them for about 47 posts!

BSA can reword the policy so as to allow local sentiment. The question is , "do they have the courage to stand up for what is right?"

Be gentle with me, y'all!

Quiote, I give you the United States of America...a national organization comprised of fifty defined sub-organizations known as states.

Each of these states have a supprotive role in the existence of the national organization, form their own local leadership and effectively handle their own internal problems through their own constitutions. Each provides support to each other in time of emergency, but at all times are aware of the necessity of loyalty and adherence to rules made by the parent organization. Some of the states impose capital punishment, some don't. Even still, they hold together as a nation. The strongest one in the world.

In the concluding remarks of the Citizenship in the Nation merit badge book, it states (speaking of the American political system): "This ...system has adapted to our changing society for more than two hundred years. The realities of American life often fall short of the noble ideals set forth in our great national documents, but a good citizen aspires to these goals."

We, as teachers of young men (and women) must not forget that the principles of Scouting are three-fold: Duty to God, Duty to Country and Duty to Self. If any of these three principles are single out as "more important", a biased individual will be formed. ( "a good citizen aspires to these ideals")

OGE, I owe you and all the other keepers of the faith an apology; I vowed that I would not try to quote scripture in my arguments but have obviously done so. Thank you for the quote you sent to me.

I have been stunned by my faith long ago and will never recover from it. I have a firm belief in God

and have faith in Him and Him only. The God I know is not vengeful, nor will he not allow people,whom have not had the opportunity to know him, be held back from heaven. I believe that we are all of the same God, although we know Him by different names.

I'll wager that all of you reading this and my past remarks view me differently.

BSA can create policy that delegates each CO to make their own determination of their membership. I would add that the members not organize against the BSA and its program in the sense of embarrassing activities and activities that undermine the overall policies and priciples of the BSA.

If the United States can do it, so can the BSA and its partners.

Oh God! The Baptists are here! :)

I assume none of you are going to disagree with my assessment of how to resolve this issue? I don't see how you can.

Also, I agree with tj when he says that some of the nicest people I met are Morman, Actually I'ld like to meet Marie Osmond!!

OGE: I couldn't re-write what I said because my wife read it and now I am grounded! Besides, I think my fingers were typing faster than my mind could see the words!

Sctmom: I appreciate that article, I truly did not know any of that. One thing comes to mind though;

why would any man in his right mind want more that one wife? Owwwwwe! Sorry honey! Now I have a lump on the side of my head.

To any LDS members reading my posts: I mean no disrepsect to your religion, I respect your right to practice your faith as you wish. Truly.

Folks, there is a third choice in the abortion scenario.

A person can continue practicing Pro-Life without fear of being removed as a citizen of the U.S.

There is no laws against doing so. In the case being debated here, that clearly isn't applicable.

I think you should avoid using that example, it does'n fit here.

Once again, I have said that I do not believe that our discussion here will be directly responsible for any action on the part of BSA.

I do, however, know that our great country is

founded in compromise, and unwittingly, I think that national has the answer right before it.

Although the program belongs to BSA, it is provided to COs to be used with a group owned by the COs. The CO can use the program any way they want to (as evidenced in part by the LDS).

Clearly (IMHO) the answer is to allow each CO to provide the program as they see fit. In doing so,

the Values can be upheld throughout, with each CO expressing what their individual vales are. Parents can pick and choose (as they do now), the COs can take a stance for their individual sense of morality, BSA doesn't have the headache of membership drop or alienating anyone, but most importantly, THE BOYS DON'T GET HURT, and the purity of the Scouting Movement gains strength.

An example, Muslims can sponsor (and I believe they do) a Boy Scout Unit. I am Christian, and Christians believe that you cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless you profess Christ as your savior. Their beliefs conflict with mine but I respect their right to sponsor a unit. Anyone not wishing to be exposed to their teachings clearly will take their boy to another unit. No problem.

As a tangent,and on a very neutral basis, this is why I personally believe that the Scouting program can be better provided by unbiased units (read my thesis).

And so, if your CO stands for the immorality of homosexuality, then anyone seeking to associate with non-homosexuals will flock to your unit. Should there be 1% homosexual leaders and youth thinking they are, they will flock (can 1% flock?) to those that welcome them.

I think you all were alluding to this kind of compromise right along. I cannot see how anyone can disagree with the logic of it because it is a win-win situation for all.

Rooster:

Early on in this sub-forum, you stated that there comes a point in time when we need to educate our children before someone else does.

Unless we control every moment of our children's contact with anyone else, how can we prevent them from learning from others? If we trust that the day care center we leave our children to is protecting our child while we are not there, and one of the "teachers" provides an immoral lesson, how can we stop that from happening? What if that day care center is a ministry of the very chuch that we were raised and married in?

Another very good point can be made out of all of this; we are ovelooking the children's ability to teach other children. If we do our upmost to shelter our children from what we view as immoral, what is to say that they will not learn it from other youth that we do not defend against?

OK, OGE...I'll buy that.

Maybe you know (I don't), when the LDS Church banned polygamy, was it because of moral reasons or political (i.e. was it mandated through law or did church members decide it wasn't right)?

You didn't comment on my explaination about the women subject...was it explanatory enough? I don't expect anyone to agree with my reasoning, however it is my own and I stick by it.

I guess the relevant point there is that although I disagree with BSA's policy of letting women be leaders, I am compromising (in my mind) until that "glacier comes again".

I would like to offer something to you all.

Recently, I completed my Doctorate of Scouting Arts (Phd for you educated which translates to "Piled Higher and Deeper"). The subject of my thesis is: "The Need for Unbiased Chartering Organizations in Delivering Scouting's Promise", or "An Impartial Investment in Tomorrow's Leaders".

I think you will find it interesting. If you would like a copy, send me a letter with $1 postage to:

Jake Lekan

32240 Washington Loop Road

Punta Gorda, Florida 33982

Be sure to include your mailing address, don't be alarmed, I have given you mine.

1) Anything that benefits the boys is good

2) Anything that does not, is bad

3) When in doubt refer to #1

In the Spirit of Scouting,

Jake "BubbaBear" Lekan

I am not aware of all the details of this debate as obviously some of you are. I am curious about one thing though; was it the Morman Church that threatened to pull out of scouting over this morality issue? Isn't polygamy immoral because it "conflicts with generally or traditionally held moral principles"?

The Catholic Church, which I am a non-practicing member of (at least at the church we been attending) currently teaches that "we love and accept homosexuals but not approve of the practice of homosexual relations".

Now let me share this with you (Rooster,perk up),

while my two oldest were attending the local Catholic school, the church sponsored a workshop for the kids on "Sex Education". As a parent, I volunteered to be a coach in the workshop. The head instructor was the church's religious education director.

The workshop went well and was well attended. At the vary end of the program, however, the director said that she was going to discuss the topic of "oral sex" with the kids. I protested in rage.

Within two weeks, she (and the school pricipal, a nun whom I later learned was her "mate") were gone from the local church. It was not the result of my protest and appeared to be a move on their own.

All organizations have improprieties amongst their own.

As is the case with American foreign policy, should we take care of our own before trying to dictate to everyone else?

Although I am not in favor of homosexuals being in Scouting (for the reasons I have already spelled out), I am equally against any groups who wish to dictate policy when they need to look at their own morality as well.(This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

Bravo, Bob White. I take back anything snide I've ever said about you fowel!

NJCubScouter,

Let's just say that by your morse code reference, we are close in age (although sometimes I can't remember that far back)!

I drew that conclusion by reading your profile and seeing that most of your scouting references are of the "youth type" and that you have been an ASM (which is typical of youth moving into adulthood). Guess I was wrong but as you said that is irrelevant.

TJ,

Thanks for your assessment of my being, it is in fact true, I can disassociate myself to be able to view both sides. I really do not wish to debate this anymore. I have said my peace and further discussion of this issue in these forums will neither persuade or dissuade a policy change. I prefer to let nature take its course, whatever that may be. As I have said numerous times, "show me the benefit to the boys of allowing homosexuals to be leaders in scouting".

Rooster,

Please correct me if I am wrong; didn't you say somewhere that you were raised a Catholic? If so, you were taught to "judge not lest ye be judged".

Try not to get confused by "open minded people" causing so much discord. Many of them have provided us with medical miracles, wonderous inventions, and even the Declaration of Independence. As far as the individuals whom choose to subvert society by utilizing the mass media or other methods, I hold them in disdain as well.

TO ALL: We have much more serious issues at hand right now, such as an impending world war, please keep that in the back of your heads.

OGE,

Praise be! I finally got someone to talk about something other that the gay issue!

I am not a misogynist (thank you for teaching me a new word). I genuinely like women as a matter of fact.

I just believe that cooking meals for the boys while on a camping trip, driving into town two or three times for supplies, teaching the boys college beer drinking songs or playing grab-ass with the kids during a meeting are not some of the things I would like to include in my active portrayal of Boy Scouting. (I have experienced this)

Getting back to the origional topic of "Childhood"

(you folks remember that?), I believe that men and women have specific duties in rearing children. I have the upmost respect for my mother (God rest her soul). She provided me with the nurturing that allowed me to form the tolerance for people of different opinions. Dad had the strength of being to provide for us all and worked relentlessly toward that pursuit.

So (just as some other people would argue),would you like me to put aside those values I learned as a child and life long learning experiences to accomodate political correctness? Sorry, I don't think so.

If a woman can do the job, by all means...DO IT!

If they are there for the fun of it, please try to remember that "scouting is a game with a purpose".

There is, as you know, a distictive transition between Cubbies and Boy Scouts. In Cubs the adults make all the decisions for the kids. In Boy Scouts we are trying to teach the boys to stand on their own two feet. This is the time to take them away from the protectiveness of mom.

I firmly believe that women can (I am sorry but I do not know how to emphasize on this confounded thing) and are positive role models for the boys, in a female sense. I do not care for them as

competitors with my male role model figure. Of course, it is not my decision to make, is it?

Thanks for branding me "hateful", I thought that I had been portraying myself otherwise all this time.

TJ,

You bring up an interesting point; how do I or you or anyone involved with these posts know whether we are speaking to an adult or child? For instance, if you pull up my profile, you will see a very clear statement about me and scouting. On the other hand, who are you? NJCubScouter, appears to be a young male adult...

During the course of our conversation, I asked my Eagle Scout son, "How would you feel about having a gay scoutmaster? Son, how would you feel about having a gay boy in your troop or crew?" He replied (as I would have expected), "I don't know."

It seems to me that if what you are saying about the BSA is true, then my son (having been in Scouting since Tiger Cubs) would have a definite negative attitude towards gays. He doesn't.

In regards to the "glacier", I disagree; it is a long time coming. As I said, forcing it will only create havoc. It has to arrive in due course, or not at all.

Here's a surprise for you (and if BSA is listening, I admit to saying it); I was never, and am more now, not in favor of women being Boy Scout leaders. I believe that women fit in very well with the concept of Cub Scouting, and I do not oppose them in committee positions, but feel strongly about them being "hands-on leaders".

I would be grateful if when you counter my statements, that you please try to counter the entire statement all at once. I think you may have lost my meaning, you should re-read my last post and read each paragraph as a whole statement.

Thank you for talking on a level field. Although you and I disagree, it is nice to know that we can walk away from the table with respect for each other.

At this point, I think I have stated my point of view and will retire from the public debate of this issue. Best wishes to all.

I'm sorry, T.J., as I understand the issue, it is over an avowed adult homosexual being a Scout leader, however, I see the inference you are making.

You have posed some very good questions. I will try to answer them without rhetoric, but first let me say some more.

"Immoral" is defined by Webster as "conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles". Now I did not make these general or traditional morals, they were made over time. Until time changes what is moral then homosexuality will be viewed as "immoral".

A salesman is walking through Maine. He comes accross a farmer rocking on his front porch and says to him, "Boy, you sure have a lot of rocks in your field!"

The farmer replies, "Yep".

"How'd you get them", the salesman asks.

"Glacier brought them" was his answer.

"How are ya gonna get rid of them", the salesman

questions.

"Guess I'm gonna wait for the next glacier to come along."

I don't know when social glaciers come along, T.J.

They are what changes tradition and "generally held principles".

I do know this: forcing a glacier to come along can cause a lot more damage than clearing its path.

Will a fourteen-year old boy be getting the message that they are immoral because they are having homosexual feelings? Yes. But as was stated earlier; they learn that in general population too. Am I OK with that? Not as an IN YOUR FACE statement. I am OK with that, however, as it upholds "general and traditional morals". We all learn what is considered right and wrong sometime.

I am not OK with the blanket policy you speak of, as you speak of it. I believe it should be extended to all behaviors which are deemed innapropriate to "general and traditional principles", and spelled out as such.

As far as an ambiguous message; I think it is a very clear message, one that supports "general and traditional moral principles".

The message wasn't brought into the limelight by the BSA, that is the BSA didn't spotlight the subject. I think it is the responsibility of those trying to "break that glacier loose".

I am no more a fool than you are, my friend. Paraphrasing comments is convenient, however I reiterate; Show me the benefit to the boys.

At 9 and 10 children are talking about sex, and what is worse, experiencing it. Adolescent youth struggling with their sexuality is not something to take lightly. May I remind you that BSA Youth Protection policy directs us to refer issues of professional nature onto those qualified to handle such things. I know of no Scoutmasters qualified as Psychiatrists or Psychologists, although I am sure that there are some. Should we spawn a new forum involving these policies?

You may be aware that up until (I believe the seventies), homosexuality was viewed as a mental illness by the professional community. It is not considered as such now, except in cases where the adult struggles with acceptance.

As a Scoutmaster, I would go to any length I could to help the boys. To speak with them about such personal topics one-on-one breaks those rules which were developed to protect those same boys (and ourselves). I am intelligent enough, however, to know that if I attempt to woek with a boy in my charge with a difficult issue as that, I could not only be indicted for some sexual abuse, but more importantly, live with the fact that my cousel may have led to the boy's demise. I do not like it, but those are the cold hard facts.

You will take issue with a couple of my comments.

I tried to edit because some of the logic is twisted but it did not work.

N.J., it is interesting how you naturally assume that I was making reference to physical harm toward gays. Your argument leads me to believe that gays could not direct physical harm towards heterosexuals. However, either side of the coin can show up.

This issue is not about the boys. All else being equal, there would be no benefit in what the boys experience in Scouting if gays were accepted. So adding gay leaders will not provide a direct benefit to the program, but will be a victory (and benefit) for the gay community.

I believe that more harm could be done by undermining a system that has been rooted for some time. The changing of policy in any such system only leads to a Pandora effect. Before too long, Republicans will want to be scouters.

Your refence to blacks,Jews,tall and rich people, while well taken is not the point of this argument. I appreciate your knighting the homosexual issue (one of simple acceptance)but the argument here is of sexual preference.

Sex IMHO means reproduction, survival of the species. Homosexuals can not reproduce without giving into the concept of heterosexual donations.Above and beyond that, the act is one of physical and emotional gratification.

In that regard, I do not feel a homosexual can be a good moral role model for a child of a heterosexual family because, as you posted earlier, morals should be left up to the family.I just don't know that homosexual families are in the majority within any troop or pack, but more to the point; within BSA as a whole.

As far as you statement about the boys being affected by BSA's stance and fund cutting, one of the two seems to be retalitory.

Before you take me for a hardliner, I have several gay friends, two of whom are fraternity brothers. One died from AIDS. Another (not a fraternity brother) was a groomsman at our wedding. They know (or knew) of my disagreement with their lifestyle, but they also know that I respect them regardless.(This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

No, I mean some physical stunt like Columbine.

Do you care to address my last question, N.J.?

Oh, one more thing...under that premise, shouldn't any questionable person be allowed under the same

approval and insurance policy?

OGE, the only thing I can see is that the program still belongs to the BSA and therefore the BSA would still be liable in a chain of law suits.

Thank you all for your responses, and once again I respect them all.

I am not suggesting anything in particular, except that I believe that we have to be careful as to how zealous we get on either side of an issue.

Although you all may be able to debate this topic

with some restraint, I assure you that there is at least one person from either side (somewhere reading these postings) getting worked up to the point where he/she becomes willing to do something desperate in order make a point.

I don't know about you, but I have personally heard about enough of these kinds of incidences.

The one thing that puzzles me in this debate is this (and please don't anyone take offense, I only intend thought): How do the boys benefit by homosexuals being allowed to be scouters? Is this issue about the boys at all?

(This message has been edited by BubbaBear)

No appolgies needed...Thanks for the clarification!

Your comments are well taken. I suppose that each individual case has to be examined in order to determine efficiency. How many scouters do you know whom are refusing to relinquish a job to someone who really wants one? I know a few.

On the matter of policy and my own accuracy, I have attempted to get access to a copy of the BSA Policies and Procedures but am not having any success. The local Scout Shop said that they used to sell them but can not find them in the inventory booklet any longer...they are checking for me. In the interim, if any of you have a relatively current copy, hows about sending me a copy? I will reimburse you for the trouble.

sctmom, I'm sorry, as concise as your reply was I am having difficulty understanding your meaning.

You say that "you've never heard these topics discussed locally... but have witnessed it"?