Of moral authority

[johndaigler 10]

FScouter,

 

Why do you doubt Trevorum's purpose? He told us exactly why he wears this optional patch.

 

I understand questioning his choice. I'm not sure you need to impune his character.

 

Perhaps you see Trevorum's act as a rebellious statement because you see the patch as a "gay knot"?

 

jd

 

 

[FScouter 24]

I would think that if one's motivation was to help suicide prone teenagers with sexual identity issues, there would be better ways than wearing an unauthorized "gay knot" on the Scout uniform.

 

I'm making no statement as to anyone's character. Wearing a "gay knot" on the Boy Scout uniform appears to me to be much more like a rebellious statement than an effort to help confused boys.

[Trevorum 24]

Oh, I'm such a rebel.

 

Wondering about me and my motivations is just a diversion away from the very real issue that Acco raised. And worrying about "unauthorized" patches is a whole lot easier than worrying about the message that BSA membership policies is giving to our boys.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Acco raises an interesting point and it is one about which the BSA has, with one exception, been curiously silent. That is, how is a Scout to be dealt with if he discloses that he is gay. One might assume that the Scout would be dealt with exactly the same way as a Scouter (an immediate automatic letter of termination from the BSA), but based on the one peice of evidence I have seen, one would be incorrect.

 

At one time (I'd say 2-3 years ago), the BSA published a bunch of materials about the gay issue on its web site. I believe it was in specific response to a particular TV program (on PBS, probably) that was critical of the BSA's policy. One of the items explained what the reaction would be a gay youth. As far as I can recall, it said the youth would be counseled to see if he was serious about violating the Scout Oath and Law, or some other slanted double-speak such as that. If he indicated an understanding and willingness to follow the Oath and Law, everything would be fine. I believe the statement left up to the imagination what would happen otherwise. But the odd thing is that the BSA seemed very reticent to say that it would exclude a gay youth, even though most people would assume that if the counseling did not reveal that the boy was kidding, or if he didn't promise not to say it again, that would be the result.

 

Interestingly, I have searched the BSA web site and this information no longer seems to be present. Even the BSA Legal web site has a FAQ that is clear about the policy regarding gay adults and atheist youth and adults, but nothing about gay youth. I think the BSA is probably counting on adult leaders to tell a boy in that situation, in effect, "Don't tell anybody."

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Trevorum, thanks for the information about the patch. I probably will get it. Whether I wear it or not, I don't know, I have to think about it. Thus far, as I have said before, I have never taken any "action" regarding this issue in "real life" and before doing so I would need to decide whether it would be in the best interests of my son and his troop.

 

Just out of curiosity (and I realize this sort of misses the point), exactly where do you wear it? Where other knots would be worn? Or on the other pocket, on the pocket itself, where temporary patches are worn? Is it the size of a regular knot? I'm just trying to determine how it "looks" and what degree of unauthorizedness we are talking about.

[packsaddle 753]

Spiney Norman, Jesus was a communist at heart.

 

Acco40, nice scenario. Like you've been advised, discretion is the better part - let the boy determine his own fate.

 

TJ, I understand your feelings on this. I must note, however, that few of us are completely consistent in our personal views of the world.

This is not to excuse BSA's inconsistencies or those of any individual. It is merely to suggest that what you seem to seek is an unlikely outcome. As an example I use myself:

There are some in this forum who think I am hypocritical in my disagreement with BSA's policy on gays and atheists and they have suggested that I do not belong here. They are welcome to continue to feel that way.

 

Those individuals should be aware (as I mentioned a while back in a PM to another poster) that I have neighbors who are bigoted and full of hate to an extreme extent toward gays, "mud races", Catholics, Jews, Moslems - I've probably left someone out. These persons ALSO think I'm hypocritical and they fiercely defend BSA because in their view, BSA agrees with THEM, and implicitly supports their bigoted and hateful views. They have told me so. They ALSO think I do not belong here. (and fortunately, they are not BSA leaders..whew!)

 

If I were to be unfair, I would compare my critics here to my critics down the road (some of whom fly the Confederate flag on the same pole as, and ABOVE the American flag.)

I don't make that comparison although I am sometimes tempted. But I feel that I am as unlikely as you are to reconcile their views in my mind (and in this case they AGREE with each other). I will, however, continue to treat them equally...and listen to their prejudiced views as I disregard their shallow and thoughtless advice.

[dsteele 20]

Man! I'm glad I don't live in that neighborhood. Although I'd welcome Packsaddle as a neighbor, I'm not so sure about the others he describes.

 

Unc.

[Trevorum 24]

NJ, I don't want to divert this discussion onto uniforms again (!) and so I'll direct you to the website for more info. Briefly though, the patch is the same size, shape, and appearance as regulation knots and is designed to be worn above the left pocket with other knots. Two of the SAs in our troop wear it there. I wear mine on the right pocket as an optional/temporary patch.

[packsaddle 753]

As you might imagine, the idea of zoning gets rough treatment in these parts. Need to make sure that the cock fighters aren't inconvenienced by the junkyards. Just kidding, most of these guys are OK if everyone has guns in their hands. Guess that doesn't really sell the neighborhood either. (This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Trevorum, thanks for the information, that is what I wanted to know. I did not mean to divert the discussion any more than it is already.

[acco40 95]

Hold on, this gets a little obtuse.

 

A few weeks ago I took my daughter, a junior girl scout, to an all day event. Being "politically correct" the GS labeled the event "Me and My Guy" - mostly a father daughter event but a few grandfathers, uncles, mom's boyfriend, etc. were present too. Anyway, we had a great time - she enjoys fishing (I tolerate it) and after a dozen or so fish were caught and released, kites made, lunch eaten, games played, etc. we called it a day. I picked up my daughter's patch (I still don't understand the Girl Scouts advancement) and went home. I guess I forgot mine because later in the week, I received my own patch in the mail. Because I have a little rebellion in me, I think I'm going to wear it as a temporary patch (right pocket). My daughter, who get dragged to many a Scout meeting, will be thrilled. So no, I won't be wearing a "rainbow" knot, but I will have a patch with "Me & My Guy" embroidered on it with a picture of two frogs, holding hands.

[acco40 95]

And to stir the pot a little more with respect to the "is it genetic" question comes this humorous take a a recent scientific finding -

 

Fruit Flies Prove Homosexuality Caused by Scientists

by Scott Ott

 

(2005-06-03) -- Experiments on fruit flies have revealed conclusive evidence that homosexuality is caused by scientists, according a report in the journal Cell.

 

The startling findings, by a team of researchers at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna, proved that when scientists alter a single gene in the female drosophila (fruit fly) it abandons natural relations with males and begins courting other females.

 

"For years we've wondered whether homosexuality was genetic, environmental or just a choice," said an unnamed scientist from the research team. "Now we can definitively state that it is a choice. In 100 percent of our tests, the determining factor in homosexual orientation was the choice of a scientist to activate or disable individual genes."

 

The report received almost universal praise in the scientific community, because the difficulty in converting an insect to homosexuality indicates that laboratories will likely have an abundant supply of fruit flies for years to come.

________________________________________________

And now (this is acco typing) come a politicized account from the Daily Kos:

________________________________________________

In what may be one of the most important studies to examine the genetic base of homosexual behavior, the New York Times reports that researchers have, by manipulating a single gene in a fruit fly, made genetically female fruit flies mimic male fruit fly mating behavior and vice versa.

 

When the genetically altered fruit fly was released into the observation chamber, it did what these breeders par excellence tend to do. It pursued a waiting virgin female. It gently tapped the girl with its leg, played her a song (using wings as instruments) and, only then, dared to lick her - all part of standard fruit fly seduction.

 

The observing scientist looked with disbelief at the show, for the suitor in this case was not a male, but a female that researchers had artificially endowed with a single male-type gene.

 

That one gene, the researchers are announcing today in the journal Cell, is apparently by itself enough to create patterns of sexual behavior - a kind of master sexual gene that normally exists in two distinct male and female variants.

 

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that females given the male variant of the gene acted exactly like males in courtship, madly pursuing other females. Males that were artificially given the female version of the gene became more passive and turned their sexual attention to other males.

 

"We have shown that a single gene in the fruit fly is sufficient to determine all aspects of the flies' sexual orientation and behavior," said the paper's lead author, Dr. Barry Dickson, senior scientist at the Institute of Molecular Biotechnology at the Austrian Academy of Sciences in Vienna. "It's very surprising.

 

"What it tells us is that instinctive behaviors can be specified by genetic programs, just like the morphologic development of an organ or a nose."

 

This is almost definitive proof that homosexuality is significantly, if not totally, a genetic trait. Homosexuals and homosexuality, in other words, are no more "unnatural" than someone who has red hair or someone who is exceptional bright. Homosexuals and homosexuality are, in fact, an integral part of mankinds natural, god-given if you will, diversity.

 

Why is this finding so powerful?

 

Experimentation.

 

Most studies of homosexual behavior in the animal world are, so far as I'm aware of, observational studies. Even studies of human twins, perhaps the best observational method one can use to examine the role gentics play in human behavior, struggle against the natural limitations of observational studies. Direct manipulation through controlled experiments is the gold-standard in science, and these scientists have clearly shown that with the flip of a switch they can turn fruit flies "gay".

 

Is this hype? Consider the response of some scientists:

 

The results are certain to prove influential in debates about whether genes or environment determine who we are, how we act and, especially, our sexual orientation, although it is not clear now if there is a similar master sexual gene for humans.

 

Still, experts said they were both awed and shocked by the findings. "The results are so clean and compelling, the whole field of the genetic roots of behavior is moved forward tremendously by this work," said Dr. Michael Weiss, chairman of the department of biochemistry at Case Western Reserve University. "Hopefully this will take the discussion about sexual preferences out of the realm of morality and put it in the realm of science."

 

This is why the right hates science. It uses rational logic and rigorous empiricism to investigate and understand issues of importance. The right relies on emotion and myth, not rationality.

________________________________________________

Again, the Daily Kos article is a mix of reports and opinion. If you want to see the article with better formatting see: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/3/03328/99670

[FScouter 24]

Caused by scientists, eh? That is too funny. Hey, this might make a good paper for the Journal of Irreproducible Results.

[packsaddle 753]

Nice, Acco40. I sometimes wonder why we are surprised if a genetic basis for behavior is discovered...why should this be so unexpected given the evolutionary development of the species?

And yet I think it is too easy to criticize the so-called 'right' with characteristics that actually are simply anti-intellectual. There are plenty among the 'right' that embrace science and there are some among the so-called 'left' that reject science.

Those who reject science seem to think that it conflicts with their faiths and beliefs. And out of fear they reject science in a vain attempt to make it go away. Sad. Everyone's loss.

[Fuzzy Bear 12]

To fully demonstrate the validity of the genetic mechanism would be to reverse the process. This would enhance debate over laws to make all flies mate or extinct. If we decide that flies are an unnecessary part of the food chain and only a nuisance, then we could conceivably become fly free. Of course, if we find that flies are basic to survival of all else, then we may have engineered ourselves into oblivion by a click of a genetic switch. Relating this to human behavior might mean that somehow we are interrelated and necessary to each other in some basic way. It could mean that we need each other and all of our differences to have meaning as humans.

 

FB