Now that we disagree, can we agree?

[tjhammer 10]

OGE, I recognize that you and I disagree on the issue of homosexuality.

 

Nonetheless, I have respect for you, your debate style and your participation in this forum. You have made your points without being sanctimonious, calling names or jumping to conclusions.

 

But your latest argument seems like a slightly hasty conclusion, for you. I imagine many people made the "what next, rank requirement changes?" argument over allowing women Scoutmasters, but I think that (and this) is just too slippery of a slope to expect.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

TJ,

 

Perhaps it would have been just better to say that I believe a national program has to have national standards

 

While I disagree with the homosexual policy I see so much inate good in the program that I dont want to leave.

 

My country also doesnt always follow my values but I am not planning on moving out anytime soon because the amount of time I agree with it far outweighs when I disagree.

 

Its the same with Scouts and me

(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[tjhammer 10]

While I disagree with the homosexual policy I see enough inate good in the program not to want to leave.I couldn't agree more with the sentiment. (And I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth... I though you were in favor of the current policy).

 

It's simply not an option to leave the program despite strongly disagreeing with the national ban on homosexuals.

 

The repeated refrain from cjmiam ("just go start your own organization") isn't a realistic option, nor is it fair to tell the people who have spent years building this organization and now disagree with cjmiam and others to "take a hike".

 

[Dedicated Dad 10]

Does the fact that it was national policy to bar women from being Scoutmasters make those units that ignored the policy wrong? Of course it did, it was against the policy. You seem have some real issues with right and wrong, I guess obeying the rules is just another one of your relativitys. Its easy to see that specious analogy is your forte tj; perhaps you can explain how gender is a parallel to behavior. One is innate and the other is chosen. Can you cite the units that ignored this policy, Id not heard of this before? Or does their setting of a specific policy--conducive with their unit and the parental preferences of that unit--make them right? Making up your own rules goes right along with your Absolute Morality System. I guess if it isnt murder or rape little things like rules are simply choices. Your version of the BSA challenges the ethics of the founders intent, morally and philosophically. We can call it Relatively the Boys Scouts of America. If the parents wanted to be inclusive of incestual and bestial members then thats OK under your version. Show me anywhere Baden-Powell, James West or any of the founders said incest and bestiality wouldnt be welcome. You are a mouthpiece for the gay agenda. Your presence here is a testimony to the kind of subversion they use to seep into the cracks of the foundation of that which is good, right and true.

 

 

[cjmiam 10]

Dittos DD!

 

Tjhammer: You have finally acknowledged my question about starting your own organization. Good for you, but you really didnt answer the question. You claim that starting your own organization isnt a realistic option. Why isn't it a realistic option? I guess Ill have to answer the question for you.

 

Because:

1. You know that if given a choice most kids will choose the BSA.

2. You know that if given a choice most parents will choose the BSA.

3. You know that if given a choice most communities and organizations will choose the BSA.

4. You know that you wont be able to get enough community support or funding.

5. You know that liability insurance will be extremely high.

6. And actually you dont really want your own organization; your real mission is to change the values and beliefs of others.

 

nor is it fair to tell the people who have spent years building this organization and now disagree with cjmiam and others to (take a hike)".

 

Excuse me?!? Now you are trying to say that its not fair to you and those that dont agree with the current policies. Pardon me, but tough luck! How is changing what millions have prescribed to and held dear for 92 years fair for them? Using our country as an example, say some people want the US to become a dictatorship or would rather have a communistic society. If our government doesnt agree to change, that means it not fair to those that disagree? Do I really need to remind you that we live in America? Furthermore, far more people put love, guts, sweat, and tears into this organization that believe in its traditional family values, than those that dont.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

For about a year on America Online, I have been pushing the idea of "local option" on gay leadership. The folks there who favor the current discriminatory policy were never really able to tell me why they opposed this, other than a few weak comments about "sharing a campsite with the 'gay troop' at the camporee." It is interesting to see that the group here is much more animated on the subject, but I find the reasoning just as weak.

 

I read here that "local option" will be the end of nationwide standards on everything from leadership criteria, training and advancement to all of the other values that make up the BSA, trustworthy, loyal, etc. Uniforms will no longer be, um, uniform. The BSA will vanish as a national organization. I respond with one word: Ridiculous. Specific standards for leadership (other than age and citizenship) are a local matter now, except for only two criteria of which I am aware: Pedophilia, and avowed homosexuality. And maybe avowed atheism. Except for those (and maybe 1 or 2 others), a local unit can choose whoever it believes has "good character." A prospective leader must provide certain information on the application, and the unit should do a background check, but what that unit does with the information is its own business. If a unit wants a paroled murderer to be Scoutmaster, and nobody in the unit complains, I know of no reason to believe the council will step in. Of course, the likelihood of the unit doing so is virtually non-existant. But there are many other situations that vary from unit to unit.

 

What if the prospective leader puts on the application that he was convicted of possession of marijuana 20 years ago while in college, but a background check confirms his claim that he has been "clean" since then? What if he had an adulterous affair 10 years ago, and it became known in town? What if his drivers' license was suspended for 6 months, 10 years ago? What if he is divorced and living with a woman he plans to marry? What if he is grossly overweight due to overeating, but otherwise has skills of use to to the troop? What if he is known to drink to excess on occasion, but swears he will not drink or be drunk in front of the boys? What, in other words, if he has one or more of these common human failings but the people in the unit think he has something to contribute? On each of these issues, some units will say, no thanks, you are not of "good character," while others will say, welcome aboard (but we'll be watching.) If there is a dispute within the unit, the council may step in and determine for itself whether the person is of good character. But it is not AUTOMATIC as it is for avowed gays, who get a pro forma termination letter when the council learns of their status.

 

So local option exists, with the BSA well aware, on all of these subjects and an infinite variety of others. As someone else pointed out, female unit leaders were once on the "never" list but have now joined almost every other issue as a matter of local option. And the BSA has not collapsed. The uniforms and the training and the advancement requirements have all survived. Mount Phillips and the Tooth of Time still stand.

 

And what about camping trips? I might look around at a district camping trip and say, how can that unit have that guy as a Cubmaster, he must weigh 350 pounds, he's a bad example for the boys. And that den leader from Pack 5, I saw him stumbling out of Kelsey's Bar a week ago. And I heard that that unit commissioner was caught in a drug sweep when she went to college in the 70's. (These are made up except for the fat Cubmaster.) But it's none of my business. That other pack wants him, they've got him, and hopefully he does a good job. My boys have to look to me and my fellow pack leaders for the example. If one of my other-unit examples applied to us, we might accept him or we might not. But it's not up to national or council, it's up to our CO, who will listen to us guys in uniform and will usually agree.

 

So don't you see, the national standard banning avowed gays is an EXCEPTION to the usual rules governing who can be a leader. On almost no other issue will council AUTOMATICALLY issue a termination letter. And those few other exceptions are much different. Avowed atheism specifically prevents one from accepting the Scout Oath and Law in their entirety, so even though I might have mixed feelings, I understand why such a person cannot be a leader. A pedophile is a criminal and someone who hurts children who do not have the capacity to consent to, or refuse, his improper acts. On the other hand, and despite some of the comments I have seen in this forum, I believe that a gay person can be of good character, and some of the gay people I have known have been of exemplary character. Some of you might not want any gay person in your troops or packs. But if one applied to my unit and I and the other leaders and the CO thought it was ok, national or council should not step in and prohibit it. Leave us alone as you do on almost every other leadership issue. So yes, let's have national standards on leadership -- but those standards, in almost every case, leave it up to the local unit to determine whether the standard has been met.

[Pioneer DC 10]

6. And actually you dont really want your own organization; your real mission is to change the values and beliefs of others.

This is, and always has been, the real agenda. The same people who teach tolerance are consistently intolerant of others who do not agree with their viewpoint. Ironic, isn't it.

[Dedicated Dad 10]

 

It is interesting to see that the group here is much more animated on the subject, but I find the reasoning just as weak. Yep, that elusive morally straight thing is pretty weak if you choose to accept the practice of perversion as virtuous behavior. Of course its everyone elses reasoning that is skewed, not yours hmm if you believe people who cant make rational behavioral choices would make good leaders. Your litany of leadership candidates with the former digressions analogy is just that, former. Those who confirm their current status of practicing homosexuality are neither former nor repentant of their wrong behavior. Your analogy is invalid. If a unit wants a paroled murderer to be Scoutmaster, and nobody in the unit complains, I know of no reason to believe the council will step in. I have one word for that too, ridiculous. So don't you see, the national standard banning avowed gays is an EXCEPTION to the usual rules governing who can be a leader. No not really, the difference between repentant wrong behavior and avowed wrong behavior are mutually exclusive.

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

DedicatedDad opines:

 

Yep, that elusive morally straight thing is pretty weak if you choose to accept the practice of perversion as virtuous behavior.

 

As I assume you have figured out by now, I do not agree that homosexuality is intrinsically immoral. Therefore, a gay person can promise to be "morally straight" without being dishonest. I don't think the meaning of "straight" as "heterosexual" was even dreamed of when the words "morally straight" were made part of the oath. "Morally straight" means to be of good character, an upstanding person, honest, a good egg, a mensch, etc. I believe a gay person can be those things, or not, just as a straight person can be those things, or not. You apparently do not agree that a gay person can be morally straight, and it seems rather unlikely that anyone will change your mind. OK. We're both part of the same organization. So how about you don't have any gay leaders in your unit, and if my unit wants to admit one or more, let us. Can't we all just get along? (Well, I know, we probably can't, not on this subject.)

 

As for "perversion as virtuous behavior," I accept neither the perversion part or the virtuous part. It is just behavior. Well, actually I think that sexual orientation is genetically influenced, but I understand that this has not been conclusively proven scientifically, and my opinion that it is not immoral does not depend on the ultimate scientific outcome.

 

Your litany of leadership candidates with the former digressions analogy is just that, former. Those who confirm their current status of practicing homosexuality are neither former nor repentant of their wrong behavior. Your analogy is invalid.

 

That is incorrect. First of all, I believe 2 of my examples were of CURRENT, not former behavior -- the person living with a woman to whom he is not married, and the man who is morbidly obese because he eats too much. (The latter may not be a great example of what I am talking about... if a unit rejects him it is because he sets a bad example for the boys, not because they necessarily believe he is of poor character. But the first example involves morality, straight down the line. I would expect that about 75 percent of units would reject the cohabitant but 25 would not, assuming that he is otherwise qualified and has no other problems.)

 

Second of all, on my examples of past indiscretions, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. The unit that rejects the guy who smoked pot 20 years ago does so NOT because they think he had poor character 20 years ago, but because they think his past acts are evidence of poor character NOW. Let's say it wasn't 20 years ago. It was 10 years ago, or 5, or 2 or 6 months ago, or last week. And let's say it wasn't just possession of pot, it was that he sold a small quantity. Or a large quantity. Or he sold cocaine on a playground. And then take each example forward from 20 years to last week. As the offense gets more serious, and as the time gets closer, more and more units (and eventually all units) are going to reject the person because they feel his proven past acts are evidence of bad character NOW. But somewhere on the spectrum, there will be units that accept him and units that don't -- all because they are reaching a conclusion as to what he is like NOW -- not just in the past. And if you don't like the drug example, consider driving offenses. Speeding ticket, reckless driving, drunk driving, hit and run, and they happened 20 years ago, all the way down to last week. For each of the infinite points along the seriousness/time continuum, the percentage of units accepting the guy will change -- all based on their judgment of his character now, as evidenced by his past behavior.

 

So the analogy is a good one. You are saying that the fact that a person is gay shows bad character, though you phrase it more colorfully than that. I say, let the unit decide whether he may be of good or bad character -- the same decision the unit makes when faced with the petty drug offender or the errant driver. Or the fat Cubmaster or the living-together Scoutmaster.

 

(I said)If a unit wants a paroled murderer to be Scoutmaster, and nobody in the unit complains, I know of no reason to believe the council will step in.

 

I have one word for that too, ridiculous.

 

An extreme example, I admit. I'd be interested though, to see if there is an actual written document that says that a paroled murderer can NEVER be a leader, if a unit is aware of the offense and chooses him anyway. What if he is not on parole but has served his sentence? What if it is manslaughter instead of murder? Or robbery? It is still extremely unlikely that any unit would approve the application in any of those cases, but as we get further down the seriousness scale, some unit is going to say yes, and we get into the same issues discussed above. And again, I know of no written policy that says where the line is in these cases. It is left up to the unit.

 

(I said) So don't you see, the national standard banning avowed gays is an EXCEPTION to the usual rules governing who can be a leader.

 

No not really, the difference between repentant wrong behavior and avowed wrong behavior are mutually exclusive.

 

As I say above, I am not necessarily dealing with "repentent wrong behavior." I am dealing with what the person's character is NOW, in the view of the unit. And gay orientation fits perfectly into that, because some will see that as automatic proof of bad character while others will not. And since an avowed gay orientation is not necessarily "avowed wrong behavior," my analogy remains valid.

 

A unit should get to choose. As long as nobody is getting hurt or coerced (as in pedophilia, adult-to-child incest and, your apparent favorite example, bestiality), the unit should get to choose. (By the way, I suspect that bestiality may also violate the Outdoor Code. )

 

By the way, if local option WERE allowed, I suspect a large majority of units would choose your way, and at the same time I might stop hearing from some of work colleagues that I have enrolled my son and myself in a "hate group," and I could stop worrying that our pack might not be able to meet in the public school anymore if the wrong politician chooses this as his pet issue, and the United Way would give us some of our money back. That would be best for Scouting and for the boys, and it would allow you to preserve your morality and for me to preserve mine. This sounds better and better the more I talk about it.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Hey, I see I am a "Junior Forum Member" now. Thanks, scouter.com, it has been a long, LONG time since I was called a junior anything. Though I know that with the passage of time, this honor will be yanked away as well.

[cjmiam 10]

Mmmm, lets read that again.

 

Whatever feeble attempt you tried to make for an argument has already been done before, so Im not even going to read that. Ill just refer you to all my other posts.

 

Instead Im going to sing

 

My country, 'tis of thee,

sweet land of liberty,

of thee I sing;

land where my fathers died,

land of the pilgrim's pride,

from every mountainside

let freedom ring.

 

There, that should give you the motivation to go and start your own organization. Im sure youll have hundreds of parents and Scouts knocking on your door to join.

 

Animatedly, cjmiam

 

[k9gold-scout 10]

In my early years as a scout I learned to respect the rights of others even their sexual choice, but just as important I realized respect must be demanded of others. If someone dose not like the boy scouts stand on any issue they are free to join another group, say camp fire. They do not have the right to make the scouts accept their views.

[Dedicated Dad 10]

 

As I assume you have figured out by now, I do not agree that homosexuality is intrinsically immoral. How can it be moral? Therefore, a gay person can promise to be "morally straight" without being dishonest. Your use of the word therefore would presume you based your conclusion on some grounds or reason, what would that be? Why, just because you think so? What criteria have you used to establish the sound logic and reasoning behind your opinion? I don't think the meaning of "straight" as "heterosexual" was even dreamed of when the words "morally straight" were made part of the oath. And indeed it wasnt because in 1916 there would be no need to modify the word morally to exclude the practice of perversion, it surely wouldnt have been considered to be moral anywhere at that time, I think we can all agree on that cant we? "Morally straight" means to be of good character, an upstanding person, honest, a good egg, a mensch, etc. Agreed but still it cannot include those who practice perversion. I believe a gay person can be those things, or not, just as a straight person can be those things, or not. People believe lots of wrong things, it seems silly you dont base it on anything tangible other than because you think so. We're both part of the same organization. Not if the organization recognizes perversion as moral, nope, myself and most of the others wont be part of that same organization. So how about you don't have any gay leaders in your unit, and if my unit wants to admit one or more, let us. Can't we all just get along? (Well, I know, we probably can't, not on this subject.) No Rodney, we cant. You want the BSA that means whatever to whomever, I want the original that stands for the unwavering traditional values of Baden-Powell and James West. As for "perversion as virtuous behavior," I accept neither the perversion part or the virtuous part. You know what, youre welcome to make up your own definitions and believe what ever you want, its a free country, but that wont change how perversion is defined. It is just behavior. Well, actually I think that sexual orientation is genetically influenced, but I understand that this has not been conclusively proven scientifically Specifically what genetics are you referring to that you base your opinion on, heredity, hormonal influences, etc. Do you have a favorite study or research scientist you follow? and my opinion that it is not immoral does not depend on the ultimate scientific outcome. So if it is a choice why is it ethical and moral? Ill need to revisit that concept sometime, no time now. That is incorrect. First of all, I believe 2 of my examples were of CURRENT, not former behavior -- the person living with a woman to whom he is not married, Do you think this person is an acceptable role model for scouts, be honest? I dont, and like your pro-perversion amigo tj, just because there is no rule to prohibit such doesnt mean it acceptable or moral. In fact, there are no specific rules prohibiting those who practice necrophilia, pornography, prostitution or any myriad of unknown illegal activities, by your logic I guess we should let each troop choose if these are acceptable under the moniker of the Boy Scouts of America. If there is no specific rule its all OK, like your absurd example of a paroled murderer/rapist/et al, its ridiculous and again your analogy is invalid. and the man who is morbidly obese because he eats too much. This is just a tad erroneous dont you think? First, how could he pass the physical, he couldnt. Second, how could he lead any troop on a hike, canoe trip etc, he couldnt physically. Lastly, if he could do all that, he deserves the position and judging someone on their physical appearance is not the scouts I know and love, shame on you and your sophistical analogy. I would expect that about 75 percent of units would reject the cohabitant but 25 would not, assuming that he is otherwise qualified and has no other problems. Do these statistics have any basis in fact or do we chalk these up to the because you think so reasoning? Youve made this up out of whole cloth. As the offense gets more serious, and as the time gets closer, more and more units (and eventually all units) are going to reject the person because they feel his proven past acts are evidence of bad character NOW. For each of the infinite points along the seriousness/time continuum, the percentage of units accepting the guy will change -- all based on their judgment of his character now, as evidenced by his past behavior. So the analogy is a good one. Not really, Im kind of confused how any past digressions become an absolute future digression. I can understand how one unit may feel a past digression hasnt had enough time pass to be considered repented but how on earth do you leap to an avowed future digression as being the same, it makes absolutely no sense! Your analogy remains the same, invalid, but that was some absolutely amazing Word Aikido you just preformed, nice try. I say, let the unit decide whether he may be of good or bad character -- the same decision the unit makes when faced with the petty drug offender or the errant driver. Or the fat Cubmaster or the living-together Scoutmaster. Or the nechrophiliac, pornographer, prostitute and your favorite and mine the incestual and bestial. No thanks; one BSA with one standard is all we need. The standard of right and wrong. And since an avowed gay orientation is not necessarily "avowed wrong behavior," my analogy remains valid. A unit should get to choose. Umm, you still havent established it isnt wrong behavior and since there is NO difference morally to incest and bestiality Im surprised you waited this long to try and establish any difference. Surprise, surprise! As long as nobody is getting hurt or coerced (as in pedophilia, adult-to-child incest and, your apparent favorite example, bestiality), the unit should get to choose. (By the way, I suspect that bestiality may also violate the Outdoor Code. Nice try, well not really, you introduced two completely different immoralities which Ive not made any parallel to, pedophilia and incestual pedophilia. What were talking about here is private consensual monogamous loving adult incest and bestiality relationship, and youve proffered no harm of coercion to its relation. Make your case unless its going to be another because I think so. Incest and bestiality are morally equal to homosexuality period. I have enrolled my son and myself in a "hate group," Im glad you dont think so, love the sinner, hate the sin, right? Some people can be so short sighted.

 

 

[Rooster7 11]

NJCubScouter,

 

Bottom Line - BSA has created and established itself a reputation over the last 92 years (good or bad, it matters not). It embraces a very specific set of ideas and goals. They should not allow others to feed off its name and infrastructure when those individuals do not stand with them, but against them.

 

BSA is a national organization, with a wholesome reputation, from coast to coast. They, and many of their supporters, like it this way. There are no legal or moral reasons compelling them to change. If others disagree, then those individuals are free to create their own organization with their own ideas and goals.

 

This stance is not narrow-minded or bigoted, as some would have you believe. It is a stand based on principle and inspired by one's beliefs in a free countrythis country. No one asked these "non-believers" to join. If they are as honorable as they say, they should resign and pursue their own organizationas opposed to trying to dismantle and/or re-invent an organization that was never created with them in mind.

 

[Weekender 10]

R7,

 

You're a good man...God Bless you.