Questions about homosexuality in BSA

[SaintCad 10]

Clearly, Boy Scouts promise to follow Gods law (Im assuming the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God) and as such we exclude homosexuals (Lev 18:22). My question is why do we allow other violations of Gods Laws such as:

Allowing people with tattoos as Scouters (Lev 19:28)

Eating hot dogs with pork at campouts (Lev 11:7)

Allowing menstruating women into the Scout House (Lev 15:19)

 

Sarcasm aside, what is the current rationale for eliminating homosexuals from BSA. If it is a violation of a moral code, then why is that violation in particular being singled out and why now? Who sets the policy at the national level? Is there discussion about a "don't ask. don't tell" policy as a compromise?

 

Secondly, what about people of other faiths that do not have a ban on homosexuality? For example, would a homosexual Shintoist or Zoroasterianist be allow to be in BSA since they are not violating their Divine Laws?

 

[Bobanon 10]

SaintCad I enjoyed the sarcasm! Here's some more.

 

(EDITED BY EAMONN -DUE TO A REFERENCE TO KILLING BOY SCOUTS. - Totally unneeded.)

 

 

What I see as the sad fact of the matter is the literal interpretation of the bible. At best the Christian bible is allegory and in no way should it be taken as literal truth. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Trevorum 24]

SaintCad,

Your premise is faulty. "BSA does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion" (BSA position statement, 6/2000). Thus, "God" is NOT defined as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. Any god is acceptable. Indeed, even faiths without a supreme deity (as Buddhism) are just fine. Therefore, the remainder of your thought experiment is invalid, since the Bible has no special place in BSA.

 

(ps. welCome to the forums!)

[Novice_Cubmaster 10]

Dear Trevorum,

So, if the bible has no special place in the BSA, whose moral standards/religious laws ARE the basis for excluding homosexuals? Perhaps those pesky Zoroastrians are to blame...

 

NC

[scoutldr 732]

Welcome to the campfire, SaintCad. As we say, pull up a log and set a spell.

 

There are several theories about the BSA position against homosexuality. The official party line is that the BSA believes that homosexuals cannot provide a good, tradtional family values role model for impressionable young men. Another theory is that several large mainline religious denominations who use the Scouting program in their youth ministries are holding the BSA hostage if they should alter their policy, potentially removing thousands of members and millions in financial support.

 

There are many Scouters who disagree with the policy and believe that the BSA should end the dichotomy presented by the mixed messages (be friendly, courteous and kind, but kick out the homos). On the other hand, there are many Scouters who think that the discrimination is justified and that all gays should be shunned because they are going to burn in hell. As more and more denominations (e.g., Episcopal) begin to accept homosexuality the BSA is presented with a dilemma. Do they revoke the charters of those units attached to organizations which do not support the BSA stance, or do they just look the other way to preserve membership numbers?

 

There are surely many gay scouts and scouters, but it should also be noted that the BSA has not (to my knowledge) engaged in any "witch hunts". But, if a member should openly "avow" a gay lifestyle, their membership is quickly and quietly revoked without recourse. In some councils, it has been reported that memberships are revoked based purely on rumor and hearsay.

 

Among experienced Scouters, it is generally accepted that discussions of their sexual orientation, whether gay or hetero, simply have no place in the scouting environment. Boys just want to camp, have fun and learn cool stuff.

 

My personal opinion is that the BSA will evolve over time. When I first started in Scouting some 44 years ago, women could hold no positions in a Cub Pack except Den Mother. There were no women Scoutmasters and certainly no "Arrow-women", and there were separate units for blacks. I was a member of an Explorer Post in 1969 when the Exporing program (precursor to Venturing)first went co-ed. Now I hear there are all-female Venture Crews. Who woulda thunk it? Times change, and the BSA will have to continue to change too if they want to remain relevant to society.(This message has been edited by scoutldr)

[LongHaul 10]

          And then there are those who support the BSAs right to exclude gays without agreeing with the policy. When I was a scout our troop was all Roman Catholic period. We didnt accept non Roman Catholics period. There was a troop on every corner in every school and every church and we all camped together at district and council events and nobody looked down on anybody, but individual troops were individual according to the sponsoring organization, ours was a Holy Name Society. We didnt have problems with exclusionary policies. In the mid sixties it became fashionable to impose yourself where you were not welcome just because you could. Some of that had to do with the fact that a lot of people were excluded from certain places unjustly. No Niggers NO Jews NO Dogs was a sign on a prominent country club in Chicago into the seventies. If you prefer to not associate with narrow minded bigots then that should be your choice, it should also be the choice of the narrow minded bigots to associate with each other. Again there are those who do not consider themselves to be narrow minded bigots but do support the protection and exercise of their Constitutional rights to assemble.

           On the homosexual front a lot of the problem IMO lies with the feeling that it is a choice and if it is not a choice then it should be suppressed by the individual. I always felt that homosexuality was abnormal, which if you look at it statistically it is, but if you look at it from a sexual or psychological view point one has to admit that they really dont know. I knew at a very early age that I liked girls, a lot, more than my parents would have wanted, I liked girls. What would I have done if that same desire had surfaced toward my fellow swim team members when I was in grade school? I never decided I liked girls, I just did. What would have happened if that same passion was ignited by my fellow males? My fault? Would I have been less of a Scout? Would I necessarily have been less of a MAN? I cant answer these questions because until very recently I never actually thought about any of them. I always looked upon homosexuality as being wrong, abnormal, and while growing up, illegal. Today I just dont really know what to think about homosexuality. I do know what I think about individuals and groups being able to exercise their Constitutional rights. I support the BSAs right to exclude gays.

 LongHaul

[ohadam 10]

I've been thinking lately that sometimes a nonsensical stance only seems nonsensical because you don't know all the facts.

 

On its face, BSA's gay policy is nonsensical: We gratuitously take a moral stance not mandated by our religious beliefs (which are universalist, nonsectarian), the basis of which is our unsubstantiated and unsupportable secular rationale that a certain group of people cannot be morally straight.

 

No explanation has ever been given. (Look at the BSA legal website--Why do you discriminate against gays? We have the constitutional right to do so.) (The "they can't be morally straight" argument is patently a post-facto fabrication.) The position makes no sense . . . until you know more.

 

The "more," I think, is that BSA, like any proselytizing, membership-driven organization, sacrifices values at the organizational level in order to maintain membership and serve the greater good. I think we've pretty well accepted in these forums that a professional scouter's motives aren't a volunteer's, and that while we all say it's about the kids first and last, for the professional scouter it just ain't true no matter how many posters you see in the scout office.

 

For them, they serve the program first and the kids second. This not an unreasonable thing to do--it's reasonable to think that the greater good the program provides is worth a little hypocrisy and a few lost kids.

 

How would the program suffer if we got rid of the hypocrisy? Massive membership loss. Soon as we admit gays, all the conservative Christian groups will drop out.

 

After receiving lots of letters from councils and districts and units indicating the policy should change, BSA studied these problems, concluding in 2002 that policies did not need to change. I might've done the same, were I in charge.

 

My 2 cents.

[eaglescout901 10]

As one poster read on a previous thread I read, here or on a different website, "there is no place for sexuality in scouting." I cannot believe this topic is still being discussed.

 

If the BSA wants to adopt their own policies and stick by them, good for them. They should be free to say that one cannot advance their sexuality and serve in a leadership role because it is their policy and they are a private organization.

 

If someone discusses they are gay to another in private, should they be punished if the recipient of that information knew and said nothing to other leadership? or should the BSA adopt the "don't ask, don't tell" policy just like the military? Where is the logic in a "don't ask, don't tell" policy if it still lets a person "in the closet" access to the kids? If there are hidden sex offenders lurking, how would this make things better for the scouts?

 

 

 

 

What I see as the sad fact of the matter is the literal interpretation of the bible. At best the Christian bible is allegory and in no way should it be taken as literal truth."

 

A literal interpretation of the Bible is not always the best thing, taking things like this would mean we should follow all the laws in the old testament about stoning people and other punishments. I think it is best to follow the basic premise of "the law" of the bible but it is also open to interpretation and stoning people nowadays would not go very well.

 

However, such commandments as thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, thou shall not lie i believe must be taken literally. (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[SaintCad 10]

"As one poster read on a previous thread I read, here or on a different website, "there is no place for sexuality in scouting." I cannot believe this topic is still being discussed.

If the BSA wants to adopt their own policies and stick by them, good for them. They should be free to say that one cannot advance their sexuality and serve in a leadership role because it is their policy and they are a private organization."

 

 

If there is no place for sexuality in scouting, then why does BSA make it an issue?

 

No one is disputing that BSA can ban whoever they want from scouting, but just because they can do something doesn't mean it's right. What if BSA wants to ban Blacks? Would you still say "If the BSA wants to adopt their own policies and stick by them, good for them."?

 

What I want to know is the "why" of it. I don't think the family values argument holds water because we allow divorced parents, single parents, and unmarried people without children to all be scouters. Also, who exactly sets the policy? One person, a committee, a vote of the members?

 

[Bobanon 10]

EagleScout901 welcome. My post about stoning was meant to be taken as humor. While I am not a Christian I do fully believe that the 10 Commandments are a good set of rules and guides for life. In fact they're somewhat universal, much in the way the so many different cultures have what Western Civilization sees as the Golden Rule.

 

The issue on homosexuality is quite a difficult problem. On one hand its discrimination, yet if gay people are openly allowed a certain signifigant percentage of those supporting Scouting will leave. How much has this already cost the BSA in lawsuits and how much more will have to be spent. Plus I hate the fact that the BSA is becoming more and more criticized for its practices. How in the world can we ever come up with a solution that will be acceptable to all?

 

I have always been under the impression that the BSA policy towards homosexuality was based on a fear of child molestation.

 

Scoutldr is correct in that the organization will evolve over time. I have been in Scouts for nearly as long as Scoutldr and have seen some pretty dramatic changes over the years. I never thought there would be women Scoutmasters of female Vigils.

 

It is my sincerest hope that a solution will arrive that is acceptable to all for as Scoutldr said in his post, "Boys just want to camp, have fun and learn cool stuff." Boys learning while having fun is what is most important. That is my .02 on th subject.

 

 

[evmori 11]

Sounds like someone wants to pick a fight! I ain't gonna pick back! Ya won't get anywhere cause this poster has an agenda & nothing else!

 

 

Anyone want ice cream?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SemperParatus 1]

Ed,

 

Ice cream! Now your talking.

 

This thread has certainly hit a patch of rocky road. While I certainly don't conedone hijacking a thread, sometimes posters can get a little nuts and a bit saucey. This topic has been milked to death on this forum, so I doubt anyone will have a big new scoop on this topic. Just more swirl of the same old.

 

Even though its not Sundae, its a sherbet that I would have a bowl with you this morning.

 

My favorite flavors...this week...

 

Pistachio

Dutch Chocolate Almond

Strawberry

 

[Hunt 11]

"How would the program suffer if we got rid of the hypocrisy? Massive membership loss. Soon as we admit gays, all the conservative Christian groups will drop out."

 

Maybe, but I doubt it. Those who are against a change in the policy always seem to imagine that the new policy would require that all units allow gay leaders and scouts. That is highly unlikely. Rather, a change in the policy would more likely allow Charter Organizations to make the decision on whether the units they own will allow gay leaders and scouts--just as they already do with other membership requirements. COs can already restrict membership to members of a particular religion, can decline to have female leaders, and can essentially set whatever membership requirements they like (although I don't think they can exclude on the basis of race). If BSA relaxed this restriction, only a small subset of COs would allow gay leaders and scouts. Would the large COs really torpedo the who program over that? I also tend to think there would not be a stampede of gay folks joining units, so the impact on probably 99% of actual scouts and leaders would be zilch.

[Eagledad 2779]

>>I have always been under the impression that the BSA policy towards homosexuality was based on a fear of child molestation.

[Eamonn 61]

I'm not sure if I'm qualified to answer these questions -But my opinion on the subject.

"Clearly, Boy Scouts promise to follow Gods law (Im assuming the Judeo-Christian-Muslim God)"

I for one don't see it that clearly!!

As a practicing Roman Catholic, who was born and raised a Roman Catholic, I think we don't follow a literal interpretation of the Bible. Talking with friends in other religions they seem to put a lot more or read a lot more into "The Word" than we do or at least I do.

I'm in agreement with Trevorum, when he states:

"Thus, "God" is NOT defined as the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity. Any god is acceptable. Indeed, even faiths without a supreme deity (as Buddhism) are just fine. Therefore, the remainder of your thought experiment is invalid, since the Bible has no special place in BSA.

 

"Who sets the policy at the national level?"

National Policy is set by the National Council.

The National Council is made up of volunteers.

All over the country there are volunteers from different walks of life who advise the National Council. The Relationships Division of the BSA works very closely with representatives from different Chartering Organizations.

I think we shouldn't be surprised when these representatives present arguments that are in line with the thinking of the organizations they represent.

When we look at the list of organizations that Charter BSA units, we see that a good many of them do not condone homosexuality.

One might argue that if you want to change the policy of the BSA you need to work on the organizations that charter the units. The BSA is following the wishes of the majority.

I'm not so sure that the homosexual ruling has as much to do with "Divine Laws" As it has to do with:

"Serve Americas communities and families with its quality, values-based program."

At this time I'm not sure if the Gay or homosexual family is the example we want to set for the youth who belong to our program.

As I say this is just my take on this.

I'm happy with it.

My big problem is trying to get the Sea Scouts to Baltimore next week for a piloting course.

I can walk and chew gum, but anything more than that is a challenge.

Eamonn.