Homosexuals in Scouting

[johndaigler 10]

"As I understand it, units can ban female leaders, can require that all members belong to a particular religion, etc."

 

Hunt's off base isn't he???????? These choices DO NOT exist on the local level, do they???

 

 

BTW, Ed, your praise of the "Flame/tent" comment does nothing to advance the conversation. BSA has a given policy, but the conversation isn't over, and the topic of inclusion/exclusion affects others, so it's too important to mock. BSA policy certainly doesn't condone or support comments of hatred.

 

People are too important to verbally abuse.

 

You need to make up your mind -- do you worry for Phillip and others who "misunderstand", or not?

Do you hate sin, but love the sinner -- or do you hate them both??

 

jd

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Hey John D., Contact your local LDS church and tell them that you a non-LDS type person want to be an Assistant Scoutmaster in their Boy Scout troop and that you would love to have your wife be an ASM as well and see how long it takes for them to hang up on you.

 

 

[LovetoCamp 9]

I sure hope The Shootist is as crisp and clear as Big Jake was. I'm on the hunt now for Rio Bravo and Rio Lobo and She Wore A Yellow Ribbon and The Searchers...Good Stuff. I might have to buy more popcorn!!!

 

typo(This message has been edited by Trail Pounder)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

JD says:

 

"As I understand it, units can ban female leaders, can require that all members belong to a particular religion, etc."

 

Hunt's off base isn't he???????? These choices DO NOT exist on the local level, do they???

 

They absolutely do. OGE gives one example (the only one I am aware of) of a CO that consistently uses both of these options nationwide. There may be other CO's that do so, and I know there are units that in effect exclude female leaders or limit the positions in which they can serve, without having a formal or announced policy, simply by who they choose to appoint to positions. As for members of a certain religion, yes, for example a Catholic church that is a CO may say that you must be Catholic, or even that you must be a member of the specific parish (in other words that you must be a member of the CO to join the troop.) Whether any Catholic churches or any other religious bodies actually do so, I do not know. (There are communities here and there where, literally, everyone is of the same religion, and I would not be surprised if all the members of Scout units in those communities happen to be of that religion.)

 

There are many other characteristics on which units can decide to include or exclude leaders, and I have listed some others in the past. The fact is, local option in selecting leaders is the rule, not the exception. The list of characteristics that may not be used to EXCLUDE a leader is very short, in fact to my knowledge it contains either one item (race) or two (race and ethnicity.) The list of characteristics that REQUIRE exclusion also is very short; the only ones I can think of right now are (1) criminals (including those who have committed crimes against children; and (2) gays. Does anyone know of any others?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

Atheists, of course, NJCubScouter.

 

Oh, and you'd better cross off "criminals" from that list; here's an AP story from last month:

 

http://www.bradenton.com/mld/bradenton/9520769.htm

 

Prisoners Take Boy Scout Oath Behind Bars

 

BRETT BARROUQUERE

Associated Press

 

LA GRANGE, Ky. - Robert Jackson stood with the two dozen other members of Boy Scout Troop 825, raised his right hand in the traditional Boy Scout sign, and took the oath to do his best for God and country.

 

Unlike other scouts, Jackson and members of his troop aren't allowed to earn merit badges through mastering camping and other outdoor skills.

 

That's because they are prison inmates.

 

"We're trying to teach more long-term planning, how to live when they get out," said Mike Pitzer, who serves as adviser and scout master to the troop at the Kentucky State Reformatory.

 

The inmates are part of a rehabilitation program for emotionally and mentally disturbed prisoners serving time for everything from murder to sex crimes.

...

 

[johndaigler 10]

What about . . .

 

"WHEREAS, the national officers reaffirm that, as a national organization whose very reason for existence is to instill and reinforce values in youth, the BSA's values cannot be subject to local option choices, but must be the same in every unit; and ..."

 

 

???????????????????????????????

 

sad, confused and leaning toward angry . . .

 

jd

 

[tjhammer 10]

I haven't posted in a long while. Those new to the forum and curious will find a great deal of thought and background on this subject by reviewing my previous posts. I do still read the forums often, I just ran out of energy having the same circular debate, recognizing that I wasn't out to convert the zealots, and that I was comfortable with the "body of thought" I had previously posted to give those non-zealots some perspective to consider.

I'll only reiterate now:

"Scouting" was the single greatest influence in shaping my life as a young man (a constant presence from 8 years old). As much as my family, a surrogate and supplement for my good parents, more than my church, more than my "peers" and more than the countless activities and orgs in which I participated, Scouting made me the man I am today.

My contribution back to Scouting has been significant, at most levels of the organization, from one-on-one mentoring to international committees. I owe a greater debt to this movement that I could ever repay.

I am a gay man, living and loving the same partner for several years. Our life together is as routine in every way as most married couples I have met, and there's not much different in my household or bedroom than most of you (shocking as that might be for a few of you, it's true).

I consider myself conservative (though admittedly the debate with some folks on this forum over the past two years has made me want to disassociate from that label more than embrace it... I grew up recognizing the extreme left for some of its absurdity, but didn't fully appreciate the same affliction in the extreme right).

I'm certainly flawed and acknowledge my foibles. It took me several years to accept that my sexuality was neither a flaw or a foible. Most who know me would say I have strong character and ethics, and I believe I've demonstrated that in my life far more often than not. Most people who know me probably would not list my sexuality on the "top ten" list of things they would mention when describing me.

I'm not a "gay activist". My participation in this debate on this forum is more because I am a "Scouting activist". I've seen the harm the "policy" causes some kids, and I believe the effect is more negative than positive on our organization. I also believe the simplest solution (local option) could have easily avoided consequential damage, and recognize we're now in a quagmire and only reason and honor will release us.(This message has been edited by tjhammer)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

JD says:

 

What about . . .

 

"WHEREAS, the national officers reaffirm that, as a national organization whose very reason for existence is to instill and reinforce values in youth, the BSA's values cannot be subject to local option choices, but must be the same in every unit; and ..."

 

What about it, JD? They said it. I don't agree with it. I think it's regrettable that they said it, because local option represented a great opportunity for the BSA to get past this issue and go on doing what it does best, without the distractions (losses of funding, lawsuits over use of facilities, etc.) that continue to exist.

 

As for the statement you quote, what it really gets down to is, what are the "BSA's values"? (Man, this must be about the 100th time I have said this, or something similar. That is why it took me awhile to get into this thread once it was revived. It does get tiresome saying the same things. And, along those lines, welcome back, TJ.)

 

Where was I? Oh yeah, the important thing is, what really are the BSA's values? Because if something really is part of the "BSA's values," I agree, there can be no local option. You can't have a Scoutmaster who says to the boys, "it's not important to be trustworthy, and don't worry about your duty to your country, we're going to leave those out when we recite the Law and Oath."

 

But heterosexuality is not a value of the BSA. It is what most of us are. Some in Scouting (probably a majority) DO have a "value" that one must be heterosexual in order to be "moral," but others do not have that belief. It is a value of many in Scouting, but not of Scouting itself. And that is why each CO should be able to decide for itself, just as they can on so many other issues.

[johndaigler 10]

Which training course do I need to take for someone to help me understand this "flexible" use of the "local option" rule??????

 

Where can I find the training manual or handbook that is going to help me understand the history of decision making in our Org.????

 

How do I learn the structure and process I need to know so that I can have an impact on National BSA policy???

[BSA_Bugler 11]

A very small and deviant segment of society demands that we accept them "because" they are deviant. You can spin this any way you want, but homosexuals should continue to be banned from the BSA based on their moral depravity, i.e., "to keep myself......morally straight". So everyone wants to say oh, they are not deviant, they are different. Yea, right! As Scouts we are not required to accept any specific faith. "A Scout is reverent toward God" Remove the faiths and take just the basics. God is a Supreme Being who is responsible for The Natural Order of the Universe, or Natural Law. All things must conform to that Law or become extinct. How many homosexual animals exist as a species, none. They would be unable to reproduce, so the trait of same sex mating deviates from Natural Law, i.e., those who do so are deviants.

 

I am Catholic, the problems in The Church have been caused by nonconformity to Divine Teaching. We dumbed down our "understanding" of homosexuality and became more inclusive. This wasn't a matter of "Doctrine", we just kind of got liberal "unofficially", i.e., those with power did what they wanted, and let in who they wanted, and covered up what they wanted. If you doubt for one-second that admitting homosexuals into the BSA is a bad ideal I invite to learn from the Catholic Church's experience with this matter.

 

The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States

A Research Study Conducted by the

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

 

www.jjay.cuny.edu/churchstudy/main.asp

 

The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States

A Research Study Conducted by the

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

 

www.usccb.org/nrb/johnjaystudy/

 

A good summary of the results of the study can be found at:

 

www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=22733

 

Here are some pertinent excerpts:

 

[The report also broke down the facts regarding the victims and this is revealing. Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78% were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14.

 

In other words, most of the abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called homosexuality, not pedophilia.

 

Regarding the first question, the Board concluded that two main factors contributed to the existence of these abusers in the Church: one, dioceses and orders didn't screen priestly candidates properly (and so sexually and emotionally immature men were admitted to the priesthood).

 

The other main factor was poor seminary formation, where seminarians were not properly prepared for the rigors of celibacy in a hypersexualized world and in the all-male environment of the seminary. Bennett pointed out that many seminaries lost their way in the 1970s, and that this surely contributed to the problem.

 

This data now proves what we've long suspected: the sex abuse scandal has more to do with homosexuality than with pedophilia. The report points out that, "given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the reality of the culture today, and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching enquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry. For those bishops who choose to ordain homosexuals, there appears to be a need for additional scrutiny...."]

 

The liberal elite/homosexual deviants want us (BSA, USA, whole World) to conform to them. If someone wants to be homosexual that is their business, but I should not be forced to associate with them, or have my son exposed to them, or have them in a position to expose themselves to my son! They can do their thing somewhere else. Exactly where will we draw the line? Bestiality maybe? Necrophelia? I think the "Divine Line" was clearly drawn at Sodom and Gomorra, and the Boy Scouts should not issue tour permits to that place!

 

My point really is: if one in morally depraved enough to commit avowed homosexual acts, what in his "moral code" would keep him from having sex with a minor of the same sex. Nothing, because the avowed homosexual has abandoned the "moral code" of Natural Law. If you let them in, or turn a blind eye, don't be surprized when they rape (pc term-molest) your children!

 

+Jim

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

All things must conform to that Law or become extinct. How many homosexual animals exist as a species, none. They would be unable to reproduce, so the trait of same sex mating deviates from Natural Law, i.e., those who do so are deviants.

 

Looks like nature and the American Museum of Natural History disagrees with you:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Unisexual_Whiptail_Lizards/lizards.html?50

 

And the National Academy of Sciences notes that females still go through similar mating rituals (with another female):

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=387177

 

[BSA_Bugler 11]

Merlyn_LeRoy:

 

Cute, a little lesbian "snake with legs." "the New Mexico Whiptail, as well as several other all-female species of whiptail lizard, does reproduce, and all of its offspring are female."* I'm not sure I need to stand corrected on this one. The Whiptail "reproduces by parthenogenesis -- its eggs require no fertilization, and its offspring are exact and complete genetic duplicates of the mother."*. So, Natural Law may allow them to deviate, or maybe not as "Scientists understand only partially how this reproductive mode developed."* They may be equipped with male and female physiological properties. Try parthenogenesis on primate! I still may be right just give these little deviants time, "Since there is no genetic variation except that which occurs through mutation, the New Mexico Whiptail cannot evolve as other species do."* They are probably on the way out evolutionarily speaking, as their recreation method does not seem to be a big hit in the Natural Order!

 

This obscure example does not justify homosexuality to me.

 

*http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Unisexual_Whiptail_Lizards/lizards.html?50

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

BSA Bugler says:

 

God is a Supreme Being who is responsible for The Natural Order of the Universe, or Natural Law. All things must conform to that Law or become extinct. How many homosexual animals exist as a species, none. They would be unable to reproduce, so the trait of same sex mating deviates from Natural Law, i.e., those who do so are deviants.

 

I think this is faulty logic. The term "natural law" is a tricky thing and I have seen it used to justify or to try to prohibit all kinds of things. Here you are trying to take the natural drive of our species to reproduce and calling it a "law," and then saying that if you engage in conduct that does not lead to reproduction, you are "breaking the law" and therefore being a deviant and therefore immoral. I don't buy it.

 

There is no doubt that we are "designed" to reproduce and that male-female activity is how it gets done. As a species, we seem to do a very good job at reproducing, unhindered by the fact that the population always contains some small percentage (say 5 percent) of gay people. So the presence of gay people does NOT prevent our species from doing what it needs to do to perpetuate itself. But it goes beyond that, because not all heterosexuals reproduce, either. Some can't. Some don't want to. Their "lines" will die out, but the species goes on just fine. If people in these categories nevertheless engage in sexual activity, are they "deviants" as well? Or is that term just reserved for gays?

 

And the point really is, there is no consensus in our society that homosexuality is immoral, as there used to be. The immorality of homosexuality is a religious belief of some, but not of others. The BSA has taken sides on a matter of religious doctrine, contrary to its own principles.

[packsaddle 753]

Hey tjhammer, nice to hear from you again. I hope you are well.

 

What was that? Did I read the 'e-word' in one of these posts? Yep, there it is all mixed in with religion and some other things. FYI, if all life on earth is considered (either total numbers of individuals or numbers of species) most reproduction is done asexually. I nod to the lizards and mention also gazillions (scientific term ) of invertebrate animals, not to mention greater numbers of plants and microbes.

Sex, as wonderful as it is, is still being argued among scientists to determine its benefits (also some interesting speculations on origins).

Remember, even given all the apparent variation in human populations, the best evidence is that as long as just a few members of some tribe in equatorial Africa remained, everyone else on earth could be wiped out and nearly every genetic component important to our species would remain intact and ready to start it all over again.

But this is unimportant to the argument except to note the irrelevance of so-called evolutionary mandates. If anyone wants to promote their particular prejudice, I would appreciate it if they would articulate their arguments in their own honest terms, and not try to use science (or their ignorance thereof) as a crutch.

[BSA_Bugler 11]

"If anyone wants to promote their particular prejudice, I would appreciate it if they would articulate their arguments in their own honest terms, and not try to use science (or their ignorance thereof) as a crutch."

 

I am not "promoting a particular prejudice", I was responding to BPwannabe@137's oringinal post. Therefore my remarks were solicited. "Promoting" to my ignorant mind would be unsolicted.

If someone wants to deviate sexually they can do so. However, I do not want them in a position to instruct, or be a role model for, my son in a private organization. They can start their own organization. Some seem ready to attack my "science" so I will confine my Natural Law remarks to mammals, but I will not retract that I believe, that avowed homosexuality in homo sapiens is disordered and deviant. You can call that ignorance, I call it enlightenment. I have been enlighten by the happenings in the Catholic Church!

 

Why don't ya'll take a drag at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research Study? Start trying to refute that instead of defending microbes. "Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78% were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14. In other words, most of the abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called homosexuality, not pedophilia."

 

Do you think it's not relevant because it deals with the Catholic Church. The position of a Scout Leader in relation to a youth, is not that dissimilar from a Priest.

 

Would you let your son go on a camping trip with a male who could be aroused by him? Or, would you want the gay Scoutmaster explaining his "lifestyle" to you son in detail? A lifestyle that is diametrically opposed to the core beliefs you, and the organizations your family joins, hold dear?

 

Is there anyone we can exclude?