Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[SaintCad 10]

"And, yeah, it is interesting that those who think the BSA should allow homosexuals can "get in your face" but they don't want you to "get in their face" about homosexuality! Sounds like a case of "can dish it out but can't take it"."

 

I never said everyone was. The generalization is yours. I write in one language & you read in another.

 

You also never said some did you? The way you wrote the sentence includes everyone in the existential category. Just as my saying, Those from Pennsylvania . . . without a qualifier is understood to include EVERYONE from Pennsylvania. Admittedly this is from a year of symbolic language classes but Im sure a linguist would agree with me. Apparently the language you write in is Nebulous English so that later on I can change what my words meant language.

 

 

 

What is hypocritical is that you don't want BSA promoting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle to YOUR son but it's OK for BSA to demonize homosexuality to MY son.

 

Huh? What's hypocritical about that? It's the same thing!

 

No its not. One viewpoint promotes it (according to you. I dont think acceptance equates to promotion) the other demonizes it by saying it does not represent family values. In fact, the two views are opposite.

 

 

 

Show me one society where homosexuality is considered moral and normal.

Ancient Greece.

 

 

Waiting for a queen on the river!

I actually won a tournament with a queen on the river making a straight to beat out three 10s. Im glad you remembered.

 

 

[evmori 11]

By not promoting & demonizing it (your words SaintCad, not mine) you end up at the same place. You just don't like the tactics. There is no hypocrisy!

 

And the Ancient Greece society is no longer, is it.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Kudu 186]

"Show me one society where homosexuality is considered moral and normal."

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that in the Western World ALL societies except the United States forbid discrimination against Gays in Scouting. This includes not only larger mainstream WOSM Scouting organizations such as the UK's Scouts' Association, but smaller conservative Christian Scouting associations like the British Boy Scouts as well.

 

If the reports that Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the United States are true, and if in the future fundamentalist Muslims were to follow the Mormons' example and adopt Scouting as their youth program, then someday in these forums conservatives will be patiently explaining to us why in addition to the prohibition of the 3 Gs, The Guide to Safe Scouting prohibits women from driving, and men without beards are barred from the BSA because they are inappropriate role models :-/

 

The problem with the BSA is not its fundamentalist "faith-based" policies (if the recent elections are any indication, about half of the voting population is at least comfortable with these red state values). The problem with the BSA is that for too long it has been assumed that the government of "the land of the free" has established religion with an artificial monopoly on Scouting.

 

Freedom for Americans with blue state values may come from the efforts of Gregory Wrenn, who is mounting a significant legal challenge to the BSA's monopoly on Scouting. For details of the case (updated as recently as today, June 27th) see:

 

http://youthscouts.org/news.html

 

Especially: "Youthscout's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings"

 

For example:

 

http://tinyurl.com/mkw52

 

Kudu

 

[evmori 11]

Show me one society where homosexuality is considered moral and normal."

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that in the Western World ALL societies except the United States forbid discrimination against Gays in Scouting.

 

You may be correct but that doesn't mean it's considered moral & normal.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Kudu 186]

It means that no other society in the Western World considers the BSA's fundamentalist religious policies to be moral and normal.

 

The problem is that activist judges have interpreted the BSA's Congressional Charter as establishing religion with an artificial monopoly on Scouting.

 

Americans should have the freedom to create Scouting associations with Scouting values as they are understood in the rest of the Western World.

 

Kudu

 

[jimswainbbmc 10]

 

I meant it only strictly, responding to the (illogical, I thought) statement that "even the least homophobic" individuals fear (or abhor) the risk presented by homosexual leaders.

 

Ohadam -

One does not have to have a phobia about something in order to exercise caution. The fact that a person is concerned about putting a person who is attracted to males into an environment made up by design of impressionable YOUNG MEN is no more illogical then if you were to lock an alcoholic in your wine cellar. In either case, there is a valid reason to have concerns. There is also the possibility that absolutely nothing would happen. As Scouters, we are expected to do our best to ensure the safety of our Scouts. And while it may be true that more heterosexuals abuse Scouts, it is also true that we have no real figures to compare, since BSA frowns on gay leaders. Perhaps they think that placing adults who are sexually attracted to the same sex in a leadership position is akin to inviting a hungry person to a smorgasbord. Perhaps there are other reasons. But ask yourself this: Would you let your 15 year old daughter go into the woods with a bunch of 18 year old boys, even with a couple of adults present? Or are you a 'heterophobic"? Even if you have the utmost respect for the adults, you can't help but think "Something might go wrong". My statements on this topic have been intended to point out that it is normal for people to have concerns. Being wary when exposing your child to the possibility of risk, does not make them PHOBIC... it makes them PARENTS.

[scoutingagain 20]

"But ask yourself this: Would you let your 15 year old daughter go into the woods with a bunch of 18 year old boys, even with a couple of adults present?"

 

Good question. So just how many female members of co-ed Venture crews are there? Are the parents of these young women irresponsible? Or are those that would not allow their daughters to join a Venture crew heterophobic?

 

SA

[Hunt 11]

"But ask yourself this: Would you let your 15 year old daughter go into the woods with a bunch of 18 year old boys, even with a couple of adults present? Or are you a 'heterophobic"? Even if you have the utmost respect for the adults, you can't help but think "Something might go wrong". My statements on this topic have been intended to point out that it is normal for people to have concerns. Being wary when exposing your child to the possibility of risk, does not make them PHOBIC... it makes them PARENTS."

 

It seems to me that the line between phobia and rational parenting is crossed when risks are irrationally overestimated. From what I've read, the risk that your male child would be molested by an openly gay male leader in a unit practicing two-deep leadership is extremely remote. If you make decisions based on extremely remote risks, then you should never let your child ride in a car, because the risks are probably higher. If the fear of molestation was the only reason for barring gay leaders, it would be irrational to allow male leaders in co-ed venturing crews, or female leaders in troops and packs.

As to your question, I just let my 14-year-old son go to Philmont with a co-ed crew with one female and one male advisor. I have some concerns about his safety at Philmont, but I have no concern at all about molestation.

[jimswainbbmc 10]

 

Perhaps I am not communicating my point clearly enough. It seems that most here that are for allowing gays in Scouting are of the opinion that those who are opposed to it are "homophobic". My point is not that parents are wrong to allow their daughter into a co-ed program, nor is it that gays in Scouting is wrong. My position is that many people have SAFETY CONCERNS, regardless of their feelings about gays. I am far from being a homophobe, but I can question the wisdom and safety of putting a group of boys in the care of someone who is attracted to males, just as I can question the safety of letting a 14 year old climb a mountain without proper training or equipment. One can assess a risk without being SCARED OF or AGAINST the source of the risk. For example, I am not anti-knife, or a "knifeophobe" to coin a term, but I can assess the risks of using a knife in a certain way, for example as a toothpick.

 

I think their are probably a lot more people who feel the way they do about gays in Scouting more because of perceived risk than for any other reason. Does this make them homophobes? Not in my eyes. Many policies of the BSA are set to eliminate risk, or at least control it to a degree. The way I see it, the BSA's stand on gays is one of these. I am not saying gays could not be good leaders. I am simply saying that the BSA most likely is using a 'risk avoidance' strategy here, rather than a 'morally straight' argument, even though some have pointed out that this has been the BSA's statement in the past.

 

This topic has come up for me before with parents. I took the approach of an open discussion, since we were not in the presence of the Scouts at the time. The number one reason for parents having a problem with gays in Scouting in that discussion was that it added an element of risk to the program that these parents were not comfortable with. As one Wolf dad put it, "You don't go bear hunting covered in honey". I'm sure that there are gay leaders in all levels of Scouting, and I'm sure that there are many that do an excellent job. But not to take the risks into consideration is doing a disservice to our Scouts. I am not thrilled with the BSA's 'official' position on gays in Scouting - the whole 'morally straight' thing rings a bit hollow to me - and I personally wish that National could come up with a better answer that doesn't make the BSA seem so stodgy, or find a way to allow gays to participate. Unfortunately, the participation of gays would lead to one of two outcomes as I see it - either we go backwards to the days of 'segregated troops', as in the day of all-black troops, or we allow integration into Scouting and deal with the fallout that creates. Its sad that it has to be that way, but such is our society. I welcome a time when Scouting is for ALL boys, but I don't think we're there yet as a society.

[jimswainbbmc 10]

Hunt -

How many parents truly have the understanding of the Scouting program that we as volunteers have? Or even as active parents of Scouts? Parents just being exposed to Scouting for the first time do not have the understanding of the program us 'old pros' have. They don't understand 'two deep leadership' when they come to a Roundup. They don't know about proper accomodations or any of the other stuff we learn in YP. They know what they hear on the news, and they have opinions of gays, right or wrong. So to those parents, gays in Scouts is a risk they have concerns about. Perhaps if BSA did a Public Service series through the media explaining the methods taught in YP to the general public, it would go a long way toward making people more comfortable with the idea of gays in the BSA.

 

 

[Jeffrey H 25]

Show me one society where homosexuality is considered moral and normal.

Its been around since the beginning of time, throughout various points of history, and has been considered normal and natural in various cultures including ancient Rome, ancient Greece, and todays Western Europe.  But what is often considered normal and natural is not really natural.  Even if we put aside the moral arguments, the act of homosexuality is not natural.  I dont think I need to go into detail of why its not natural.  The descriptions would not be appropriate for this forum.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Since homosexual behavior is observed in nature, it's "natural". Arguing against homosexuality on the basis that it's "unnatural" is simply ignoring reality.

 

Please note that "natural" does not imply inherent goodness or badness, as lots of good & bad things occur in nature, so stating that something is "unnatural" does nothing for a moral argument, even if true. I'm just pointing out that stating that "homosexuality is unnatural" is contradicted by what is actually observed in nature.

[packsaddle 753]

The question of 'natural' versus 'unnatural' is very troubling but Merlyn beat me to the punch on this one. There is no clear distinction between the two. I can make a credible argument from one view that anything that exists is natural. Alternatively, using a different view, I could argue equally well that there is nothing 'natural' about any aspect of our society, perhaps nothing 'natural' about any people on earth.

 

To me (being a 'natural' scientist) the better (easier) distinction is between 'natural' and 'supernatural', the former being capable of objective examination and the latter not. This makes concepts like gender or sexual preference perfectly 'natural' regardless of their manifestation.

[Trevorum 24]

Jefferey,

Agreeing with packsaddle, let me also point out that there is a school of thought among evolutionary anthropologists in which human homosexuality is very "natural" indeed. This idea supposes that a genetic basis for homosexuality would confer a survival advantage upon any breeding population in which the gene was present at a specified, low frequency. When expressed, the gene would result in additional food security for the social group.

[packsaddle 753]

Interesting. And seems to make sense too. Do these arguments suggest the social mechanisms that would make such genetic expression advantageous?