NJ - This one is for you. Gay debate rages on...

[packsaddle 753]

ProudEagle, I think you make good arguments for more clarity. If you read around the other topics you will read similar pleas for clarity in other BSA policies. For this issue, you have identified an interesting gray area but it is, as far as I know, merely a hypothetical. Does anyone know of a specific definition of 'avow' that is being employed by BSA?

[dsteele 20]

Whew! I almost got sucked into this thread.

 

Have fun debating. I'm outta here.

 

DS

[Proud Eagle 13]

I am not really very concerned with the term "avowed" at the moment. I think the definition of that is clear enough. Besides, "avowed" is merely describing the far more critical "homosexual". The term avowed is not something that would really seem to be a point of great contention. However, the term "homosexual" is. A large part of the debate over weather or not homosexuals should be allowed in the BSA or weather or not homosexuality is immoral, is possibly due to a disagreement over what "homosexual" means.

 

One person might say that someone who has some sort of predisposition to be attracted to men, but manages to avoid ever acting on that attraction, and lives a normal life, perhaps even having a happy marriage and raising a family, is still a homosexual because of some sort of unidentified predisposition.

 

Others would say that the definition is entirely actions based. They would argue that a person could be attracted to those of the same sex and repulsed by those of the opposite and not be homosexual unless they acted on those feelings.

 

Also, the cause of homosexuality is clearly a point of contention that, while not necessarily part of the defintion, very well could be in some people's minds.

 

Someone might say that homosexuality is the purely determined by some thus far unknown homosexuality gene.

 

A second person might say homosexuality is caused by the way a person is raised and is hard coded into their brain by age 5.

 

A third person might say that homosexuality is purely a personal choice always under the control of the individual.

 

Yet a fourth person may say that there are examples of homosexuality caused by all three.

 

The fifth and final person in this example may think it doens't matter what causes homosexuals to be homosexuals and so he doesn't care.

 

It is critically important that "homosexuality" and/or "homosexual" be defined in order to have a solid basis in language for this debate. Right now (no pun intended by this) everyone is arguing over the price of fruit but no one has defined if it is apples or oranges that we are arguing over. Some people assume it is apples, some oranges, other tangerines or bananas. Until we arrive at some undeniably true definition of "homosexual" it would be a good idea for those debating the issue to provide a basic definition of the term as they see and understand it. This doens't have to be in every post, but it should be in at least every couple of threads to remind people of what their term is.

[silver-shark 10]

"I am not really very concerned with the term "avowed" at the moment. I think the definition of that is clear enough."

 

Hi Proud Eagle,

 

You've peaked my curiosity, because I find the word avowed to be of the utmost importance.

 

I'll pose this question to you and anyone else that would care to enlighten me.

 

When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?

 

Should it be only at campouts?

 

How about only at Troop Meetings...

or only at COHs...

or only at Patrol Meetings...

or only before the Scout Oath and Law are recited at the beginning of a meeting?

 

Is there any time that would be even better or the absolute best time for this?

 

Just curious...

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Silver-shark "asks":

 

I'll pose this question to you and anyone else that would care to enlighten me.

 

When is the best time to avow anything of a sexual nature to 11 to 18 year old boys, be it heterosexual, or homosexual, or a combination of them?

 

Should it be only at campouts?

 

How about only at Troop Meetings...

or only at COHs...

or only at Patrol Meetings...

or only before the Scout Oath and Law are recited at the beginning of a meeting?

 

Is there any time that would be even better or the absolute best time for this?

 

I get the distinct impression, from the way you have asked the "question," that you asked it to make a point rather than to get an answer. But I'll answer it anyway. The answer is, of course: Never. It is not appropriate for Scouters to discuss their "private" lives with the Scouts.

 

Which has nothing to do with the "gay issue." Gay people have been terminated from the BSA without ever having discussed their sexuality with Scouts. James Dale, to cite the most famous example, never did so, but he was expelled anyway.

[Proud Eagle 13]

Yes, it is quite clear that you are trying to make a point. However, your point is not related to the argument that I am making.

 

You seem to me to be suggesting that BSA has a problem with people avowing their sexuality. That is true in the absolute sense. However, I don't think BSA would kick someone out for being an avowed faithful spouse or some such thing.

 

Besides, your statements/questions make no argument against my statement that "avowed" has a relatively well excepted defintion. Even if it did not the priority must first be on defining "homosexual". "Avowed" simply tells you what kind of "homosexaul" is banned. Note the policy does not prohibit "avowing" anything.

 

Oh, and I do agree with NJ. There is no good time to discuss sex or sexuality in Scouting. (particularly not between youth and adults) Though it is possible for such a topic to come up without it requiring anyone be removed. I really don't see how you could have gottent the idea that there was some appropriate place or time to "avow" anything related to sex within the Scouting context.

 

 

[dsteele 20]

Sorry to interrupt the debate. I do so only to make a correction.

 

NJCubscouter stated the following:

 

"Gay people have been terminated from the BSA without ever having discussed their sexuality with Scouts. James Dale, to cite the most famous example, never did so, but he was expelled anyway."

 

While NJ's statement may be true. James Dale may never have discussed his sexuality with Scouts, but he did publicly avow it. The clip below comes from www.bsa-discrimination.org which isn't particularly friendly to the BSA:

 

"In 1988, James turned 18 and continued in Scouting, serving as an Assistant Scoutmaster to troop 73, sponsored by the Matawan First United Methodist Church. Meanwhile, James enrolled at Rutgers University, where he became co-president of the school's Lesbian and Gay Alliance. A newspaper report in 1990 on the Alliance's activities mentioned James. Shortly after that, the 19-year-old Scouter received a letter (available as a PDF) from the Scout Executive for the Monmouth Council, revoking his registration with the BSA and terminating his position, on grounds that "the standards for leadership established by the Boy Scouts of America . . . specifically forbid membership to homosexuals."

 

end quote.

 

Afer that Mr. Dale began showing up to rallies dressed in a BSA uniform he was no longer authorized to wear. In fact, Mr. Dale's involvement in Scouting was brought to the attention of the media because he wore the uniform to a rally while still a registered member of the BSA. He forced the issue and then wanted to make hay with the consequences.

 

DS

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

This is a "correction"?

 

First, you agree with NJ that Dale did not discuss his sexuality with Scouts, so there's no "correction" there. Then you make this contradictory statement:

 

Afer that Mr. Dale began showing up to rallies dressed in a BSA uniform he was no longer authorized to wear. In fact, Mr. Dale's involvement in Scouting was brought to the attention of the media because he wore the uniform to a rally while still a registered member of the BSA. He forced the issue and then wanted to make hay with the consequences.

 

As your own earlier quotes show, Dale was thrown out of the BSA just days after a newspaper article appeared that identified him as a gay man; but above, you're stating that he wore his uniform to a rally while still a registered member of the BSA. But this is false; all the rallies he appeared at were after the BSA had thrown him out. The Rutgers article about the Lesbian and Gay Alliance didn't mention his membership in the BSA, and he did not appear in uniform. Dale in no way "forced" the issue, the BSA simply threw him out when they found out he was gay.

[acco40 95]

A couple of observations, first one may join many collegiate Lesbian and Gay Alliances as a heterosexual. Same goes for such organizations as the Triangle Foundation. {One of my fondest wishes is for the local Triangle Foundation to support our local fund raising for our council camps by "adopting" a set percentage of the new buildings that are being planned and erected on camps. I think it would lower the rancor between the two organizations.)

 

Second, is a question for Rooster (or others). You have stated that "The act itself, and/or the embracing of those desires, is immoral. It isn't a generalization to say a group is immoral when they openly embrace and defend the immoral act." What about a gay individual who felt in his heart that yes he was gay, yes it was immoral, and had remained celibate. When asked point blank if he was a homosexual he was truthful and replied yes. Should he be banned from membership in the BSA?

 

Heck, Jimmy Carter, a former SM, admitted to "lusting in his heart" an act of thought that many religions view as immoral. Why not ban his membership?

 

[dsteele 20]

Merlyn:

 

 

You aren't worth the dignity it would cost me to reply.

 

DS!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

Well, the only dignity it would cost you would be to admit you were wrong. The Dale decision has a short synopsis of what lead to his dismissal:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html

...

Dale applied for adult membership in the Boy Scouts in 1989. The Boy Scouts approved his application for the position of assistant scoutmaster of Troop 73. Around the same time, Dale left home to attend Rutgers University. After arriving at Rutgers, Dale first acknowledged to himself and others that he is gay. He quickly became involved with, and eventually became the copresident of, the Rutgers University Lesbian/Gay Alliance. In 1990, Dale attended a seminar addressing the psychological and health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers. A newspaper covering the event interviewed Dale about his advocacy of homosexual teenagers need for gay role models. In early July 1990, the newspaper published the interview and Dales photograph over a caption identifying him as the copresident of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance.

 

Later that month, Dale received a letter from Monmouth Council Executive James Kay revoking his adult membership. Dale wrote to Kay requesting the reason for Monmouth Councils decision. Kay responded by letter that the Boy Scouts specifically forbid membership to homosexuals. App. 137.

...

 

[Rooster7 11]

acco40,

 

You are a cruel, cruel, cruel man. You must know I cant pass up bait like this:

 

What about a gay individual who felt in his heart that yes he was gay, yes it was immoral, and had remained celibate. When asked point blank if he was a homosexual he was truthful and replied yes. Should he be banned from membership in the BSA?

 

I cant speak for the BSA, but in my mind, there is a HUGE difference between the individual described above and the so-called avowed homosexual.

 

1) The above individual recognizes the immorality of the act and/or those desires.

2) The above individual has made a vow to himself, not to embrace homosexuality.

 

You create a paradox concerning this persons status and the BSA policy when you hypothetically state: When asked point blank if he was a homosexual he was truthful and replied yes.

 

In short, I dont think the man in your example is a homosexual. I think that man struggles with thoughts of homosexuality. But that by itself, doesnt make him a homosexual. Hes not embracing those thoughts.

 

Let me ask you a couple of questions:

 

You are married. You find yourself constantly distracted by young beautiful women. On occasion you catch yourself daydreaming about these women. You recognize that this behavior is wrong and will ultimately cause you to cheat on your wife. Its a struggle, but you make a vow to yourself to fight these thoughts and to think about nobler things. Are you an adulterer? Is that the truthful answer?

 

Or - as a young man, you engaged in the art of embellishing. To hear some of your high school friends speak about you, one would think that you were John Wayne, Elvis, and Johnny Unitis, all rolled into one person. Now, when you look back to those days, you are embarrassed by your dishonesty. In fact, because of this shame, today you make a point to always tell the truth. Does your past over shadow your present Are you a liar? Is that the truthful answer?

 

If the man in your example is a homosexual, then I say by definition 95% of men are adulterers. There is a difference between being tempted and being seduced. When one gives into temptation and embraces immoral thought or behavior, then the seduction is complete and one must live with the consequences You become a product of that temptation by yielding to it. On the other hand, if you are able to resist temptation, then I believe God rejoices over your victory. You are not a product of that temptation Youre a product of Gods grace.

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

DS,

 

I am aware that James Dale "publicly" avowed his sexual orientation. (Although, based on the published facts, one might argue about the word "publicly." That is probably best saved for a separate thread. I think the more important thing is to try to arrive at a common understanding of what happened in the Dale case, as some people (like me) rely on it fairly often as "the" example of the BSA policy in action.)

 

However, I was responding to what silver-shark said, which did not deal with what "people in general" may know, but with what a Scouter discusses with Scouts. I think that the two are different issues. The limitations on what a Scouter should be discussing with Scouts do not depend on whether the Scouter himself/herself is involved in the conduct in question.

 

But what I really want to get to, DS, is this:

 

In fact, Mr. Dale's involvement in Scouting was brought to the attention of the media because he wore the uniform to a rally while still a registered member of the BSA.

 

Are you saying that he wore a BSA uniform to a "gay rights" rally BEFORE he ever received a letter of termination from the BSA? I ask it that way because it was my understanding that once he received the letter, he was terminated and no longer registered. If you are saying that he did this before he was terminated, I would like to know the source of this information. It is contrary to everything that I have read about this case, and what I mean by that is primarily the published court decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court and the opposing decisions of the majority and minority of the U.S. Supreme Court. I have read each of them several times, often to make sure that I was giving correct information when posting in this forum (and the Scouting-related forum that I was involved in before this one.) I believe they are a good source for the facts because, together, they reach two different conclusions about the case, and therefore one would expect to find both sides of the story -- and in reality there really weren't a lot of significantly disputed facts in the Dale case anyway.

 

The point is, never in any of my reading have I ever seen it suggested that Dale expressed any public opposition to the BSA BEFORE he was terminated. The decisions say that he attended a seminar at college (which is not located in his home community) dealing with the problems faced by gay youth, and that a newspaper published a story quoting his views on the subject and identifying him as an officer of the college's gay rights group. I believe there also was a picture -- not of him in a dress as some have suggested in this forum, and not in a BSA uniform, just in regular college-guy clothes.

 

And that was it. He got a letter from the SE saying he was out. There were, based on the published facts, no other incidents in between the seminar and the letter of termination. No rallies, no protests, no misuse of the uniform, nothing.

 

Is that incorrect? And if so, do you have a source?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

" Are you an adulterer? Is that the truthful answer? "

 

If we accept the teachings of J.C. (Jesus Christ or Jimmy Carter), yes.

[Rooster7 11]

FOG,

 

Please read my words closely -

 

You are married. You find yourself constantly distracted by young beautiful women. On occasion you catch yourself daydreaming about these women. You recognize that this behavior is wrong and will ultimately cause you to cheat on your wife. Its a struggle, but you make a vow to yourself to fight these thoughts and to think about nobler things. Are you an adulterer? Is that the truthful answer?

 

Jesus did NOT teach that one is an adulterer for simply being tempted. Satan tempted Jesus in the desert. But, just as He teaches, Jesus resisted those temptations. Jesus said if you entertain wicked thoughts - if you embraced those thoughts - then - yes, you would be guilty of that sin - such as adultery. But if you REJECT those thoughts...if you resist them and think of nobler things, you would NOT be guilty of that sin.