Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

So they passed a treaty saying the United States was not a Christian GOVERNMENT, which is true - it does not dispel the fact that the country was formed as a Christian NATION.

 

So, was this country also formed as a white nation?

[Beavah 205]

When the Scots-Irish immigration started in the late 1730's - 1740's there were several colonies they avoided. ... they avoided the New England colonies because of a dislike for the Puritans.

 

Hence the large Irish population in Boston, eh?

 

 

[evmori 11]

But as you are the one making the implied assertion that homosexuals cannot represent "family values", what exactly is it that they cannot do?

 

Homosexuals can't procreate.

 

My definition of family values centers around God being the center of the family. Other than that, my definition is about the same as DanKroh's.

 

Actually, Bobanon, I'm glad to see you don't have a problem with public schools chartering BSA units. Sorta inconsistent with your other views, but nice to see none the less.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Bobanon 10]

Thank you Ed. Schools are the perfect Chartering Organization. The BSA is a good organization and and in my opinion the single best youth organization there is. I don't even see a close second. I use things I learned as a Scout everyday. However I don't see any inconsistency. Where we differ is on the subject of religion. I don't care what others believe as long as they don't proselytize. To me religion should be a private thing. Of course this is where I get cross ways with the Great Commission, and that is the fly in the ointment so to speak.

[Bobanon 10]

Beavah the large Irish population in Boston are the offspring of 19th Century immigrants and are Roman Catholic. The Scots Irish are, or were Presbyterian.

[Trevorum 24]

I fully agree with Bobanon. Schools, public or private, are the perfect CO for Scout units. It's a darn shame that they can't serve in this role any longer, as they successfully did for decades until BSA painted itself into a corner with the Dale case.

 

I gotta believe that the high paid BSA executives and lawyers who weighed, behind closed doors, the strategy of pursuing the Dale case did not fully appreciate all the consequences of their actions. Public funding drying up, membership sliding, losing schools as COs, possibly losing Ft AP Hill for the Jamboree, not to mention the general erosion of public support as BSA is increasingly percieved as an organ of social conservatives. In my mind's eye, I see the representatives of various conservative religious bodies thundering to the executive committee, threatening to withdraw en masse thousands of COs and their units if BSA did not once and for all take a stand against "the sin of homosexuality". I see the BSA demographers and accountants crunching the numbers, coldly calculating the lesser of two evils.

 

Well, what's done is done. I have no doubt that BSA will eventually follow mainstream American values, as opposed to dogmatically conservative ones, and become more inclusive. That will probably take decades. In the meantime, I try to make every scout and every adult feel welcome in our unit because I strongly feel that every boy should be respected for who he is and deserves the opportunity to be a scout.

 

 

[Bobanon 10]

Well said Trevorum.

 

"I try to make every scout and every adult feel welcome in our unit because I strongly feel that every boy should be respected for who he is and deserves the opportunity to be a scout." That is all we can do, and it is what we should be doing.

 

Eventually Scouting will mellow on its current policy towards gays, and non-theist. Right now the powers that be are operating from a position of ignorance and intolerance. Eventually that will change, and hope of hopes the organization will regain its proper place of honor in society.

 

[BrentAllen 10]

So, would that be the same mainstream America described in the following AP article, after the gay-marriage votes last election?

 

"(AP) In a resounding, coast-to-coast rejection of same-sex marriage, voters in 11 states approved constitutional amendments Tuesday limiting marriage to one man and one woman.

 

The amendments won, often by huge margins, in Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Ohio, Utah and Oregon the one state where gay-rights activists hoped to prevail. The bans won by a 3-to-1 margin in Kentucky and Georgia, 3-to-2 in Ohio, and 6-to-1 in Mississippi.

 

"'This issue does not deeply divide America,' said conservative activist Gary Bauer. 'The country overwhelmingly rejects same-sex marriage, and our hope is that both politicians and activist judges will read these results and take them to heart.'"

[DanKroh 11]

Ed writes: "Homosexuals can't procreate."

 

Actually, they can. Just not with each other if they are a couple. But then again, neither can a certain percentage of heterosexual couples where one or both of the individuals are infertile. But they can adopt, or they can use IVF and surrogates, just like many heterosexual couples do. So are families with heterosexual parents that became families by adoption or various fertility options unable to represent "family values"? I think my pastor, his wife, and their adopted daughter would take issue with that.

 

"My definition of family values centers around God being the center of the family."

 

Well, for at least two of the several families I know from church where the parents happen to be of the same gender, I would say they consider God an important factor in their family (possibly even the center of the family), since they are very devoutly religious people.

 

So which of those family values can homosexuals not represent that heterosexuals can?

[evmori 11]

Actually, homosexual couples can't procreate with each other the same way most traditional married couples can. And procreating outside of the family is, well, having an affair!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt 11]

So Ed, do you think all COs should be required to exclude all adults from unit leadership if they have had an affair? And would you also kick out heterosexual couples who are infertile and used a sperm or egg donor? The problem here is that people don't agree on what "family values" are, but BSA has made a declaration on one issue without making it clear what the basis is. Why listen to the churches who say that gay people can't be good leaders, but not those who say that divorced people are just as bad?

 

Trevorum, don't confuse the gay issue and the religion issue. The Dale case was about the gay issue, and really has nothing to do with school sponsorship of units--that's the religion issue. I suppose the Dale case may have sparked more attention to both issues, but if BSA only excluded gay leaders, it wouldn't be unconstitutional for schools to sponsor units, because sexual orientation is not a protected class under the federal Constitution.

[DanKroh 11]

Ed says: "Actually, homosexual couples can't procreate with each other the same way most traditional married couples can."

 

Yeah, well, that's kind of integral to being a homosexual couple, isn't it? However, it is also totally irrelevant. Infertile heterosexual couples also can't procreate with each other the same way most traditional married couples can.

 

Ed says: "And procreating outside of the family is, well, having an affair!"

 

Actually, no. Having an intimate relationship (usually sexual) outside of the family is having an affair. Fertility treatments that allow couples who cannot procreate together rarely involve sex. In-vitro fertilization, surrogacy, etc. do not involve having sex. They involve a medical procedure.

 

There may be couples who choose to address their inability to procreate with each other by a sexual relationship with someone else, but I don't see how that kind of decision would be limited to homosexual couples. A heterosexual couple could well make the same decision. And if the *couple* decides to do this, then whether or not it qualifies as an "affair" is really up to them.

 

You also still haven't answered the original question.

[SaintCad 10]

Ed,

While reviewing the thread, I noticed you asked me a question that I missed before, i.e. how homosexuals represent family values. Let's see:

Be in a monogomous relationship.

Support a child physically and emotionally.

Help children grow spiritually.

Support the child's education in school and teach the child through life experiences.

etc.

In fact, I can't think of one thing a homosexual can't do with their "spouse" or (adopted) children that heterosexual couples can except procreate, but that is also true for people UNABLE TO HAVE CHILDREN!

 

So again I challenge you to give a rationale for excluding homosexuals from BSA in the name of "family values" meeting the 3 criteria:

1) Not using the Bible since BSA does not prefer one spiritual system over another.

2) It cannot apply to any other group such as (in your case) infertile people, divorced people, etc.

3) If you claim that a family MUST contain a mother and a father, then can you account for divorced, widowed, single parents AND homosexuals that are/were married and have children?

 

 

2 Sam 1:26

[BrentAllen 10]

I guess I missed the press release where Ed was assigned the task to make or define policy for the BSA.

 

BSA policy is that homosexual behaviour is not morally straight, and is not in accordance with traditional, American family values. I suggest contacting BSA National for any further explanation.

 

 

[DanKroh 11]

Brent, no one is suggesting that it is up to Ed to make policy for the BSA.

 

However, given that he has rather vehemently stated that he supports that policy, I do not think it is unreasonable to ask him to why he supports it, and to try to present a rational argument for such support.

 

It has long been my belief that if you cannot present a rationale to support a certain viewpoint, then perhaps it is time to re-examine that viewpoint.