Questions about homosexuality in BSA

[SaintCad 10]

"SaintCad, its hard to compose a thoughtful and complete answer to someone who asks a quesition about a policy and then in the midst of the question starts to demean, ridicule and otherwise berate the policy. I already know you don't really want an answer you just want to pick a fight with forum members who agree with the policy."

 

I never demeaned, ridiculed, or berated the policy. I did use sarcasm at the beginning to show how homosexuality seems to be singled out as particularly odious to scouting. I thought this was hypocrasy based on favoring one religion's beliefs over another's despite the BSA's claim that it does not support a certain religions ideals in particular. Obviously I was confusing BSA rationale with those of the chartering bodies and I acknowledged this in my previous post.

 

Others have explained that the rationale as put forward by BSA policy is that homosexuals do not represent "family values" according to BSA determination. OK, so I YET AGAIN retract the charge of hypocrasy. My question is: do divorce or children out of wedlock also violate BSA's interpretation of family values? It is not an idle question - one reason I decided not to become a minister after my divorce was that same reason viz. many churches would not accept a pastor that had been divorced even though I had broken no church law.

 

The only time I "picked an argument" was when you claimed:

"If the BSA wants to adopt their own policies and stick by them, good for them."

My question to you was is this really a justification if the same argument could be used to exclude ANY group (black, white, non-Christian, Gentile, etc.)

 

So far, I think ohadam has given the best analysis. I personally disagree with the NATIONAL policy for this reason: any rationale for the ban on homosexuals could be applied to other groups but is not. Thus this "rationale" is merely used to give validity to single out homosexuals in accordance with the demands of some chartering organizations. Notice I said NATIONAL policy. I completely agree with bans at the Troop/Pack level, but don't think the LDS/Catholic Church should be setting policy for EVERYONE, just their scouts.

 

On a further note, I now have the info I asked for - why the policy and who sets it. As a scouter, I must respect it but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

OK, blast away.

 

[DanKroh 11]

No apology needed at all. The explanation you gave of the pressures facing those who try to stay in the closet was an excellent one.

 

I'm just a little surprised that the BSA would value the leadership of someone who, in my experience, was trying to live a false life over someone who was honest and open (in a psychological view) about their sexuality.

 

That's why I was asking if it truly was the case that someone who denied their sexuality (i.e. was not avowed) in this way would be an acceptable leader.

[Lisabob 13]

SaintCad writes: On a further note, I now have the info I asked for - why the policy and who sets it. As a scouter, I must respect it but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

 

 

Well generally I wouldn't give unsolicited advice and I can't see much point in getting into a "debate" about homosexuality and the BSA (nothing is going to get solved here) but this is bugging me. SaintCad, you mentioned in a different thread that you are a brand new den leader. I'm so glad that you have decided to take the plunge! I'm sure you'll have great experiences with your son and the other families in the den and pack.

 

That said...the issues that tend to come up in the "issues and politics" forum are almost never the issues that scouters deal with at the operational level. After 5 years of being involved in scouting as a Scouter I can count on one hand, with fingers to spare, the number of times this issue has come up in a scouting context in "real" life - ie, not on this board.

 

So here's that unsolicited advice: please enjoy being a den leader. Please don't politicize your den by trying to introduce these issues to the parents, unless they themselves have a burning need to bring these things up (and even then, some controversial issues are better handled in one-on-one discussions rather than public pronouncements). Please focus the vast majority of your dedication and energy on the actual program and all those energetic, fun-loving, boys (and their families) whom you have chosen to serve.

 

Do what you want with it.

 

Lisa'bob

[fgoodwin 23]

Its true that these issues don't have an impact on the majority of a den's day to day operations, but even dens can be impacted.

 

I was with my son's Wolf den selling popcorn in front of a grocery store shortly after the Dale decision, and one of my boys (not my own son) asked a shopper if he'd like to buy some popcorn.

 

Rather than a simple "no thanks", the guy launches into the kid about not wanting to support some "Nazi" organization. More recently of course, all of the local Packs sponsored by schools had to find new sponsorship and in some cases, that meant new meeting places for dens.

 

So while its true that one can carry out a den program and remain blissfully ignorant of the issues surrounding BSA, I think its important that even den leaders be aware of what's going on, if for no other reason than parents will read about these things in the papers and ask questions.

 

"Be prepared" and all that . . .

[SaintCad 10]

"So here's that unsolicited advice: please enjoy being a den leader. Please don't politicize your den by trying to introduce these issues to the parents, unless they themselves have a burning need to bring these things up (and even then, some controversial issues are better handled in one-on-one discussions rather than public pronouncements). Please focus the vast majority of your dedication and energy on the actual program and all those energetic, fun-loving, boys (and their families) whom you have chosen to serve."

 

I would never politicalize in front of my students (and I consider my Cubbies as students). I was using this opportunity to get an insider view of BSA policy on homosexuality for my own knowledge.(This message has been edited by SaintCad)

[evmori 11]

Today's flavor is maple swirl with chopped nuts!

 

Hot fudge available upon request!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[campcrafter 10]

OK - I said I usually don't participate in these conversations - but this time it does seem to be a bit more civil and intelligent, no?

avow One entry found for avow.

Main Entry: avow Pronunciation: &-'vau Function: transitive verb Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French avouer, from Latin advocare

1 : to declare assuredly

2 : to declare openly, bluntly, and without shame synonym see ACKNOWLEDGE, ASSERT - avower /-'vau(-&)r/ noun

Based on this definition a "closet" homosexual should be acceptable to the BSA.

Regarding Dan and Trev's discussion on being in the "closet". Dan mentioned he helps people overcome the problems that rise from suppressing thing about ourselves. I think I would much rather have as leaders people who were openly gay and led a balanced life than the "closet" child molester, who probably isn't by definition homosexual. ( of course they all are - no openly "avowed" molesters I have heard of, except maybe after they are caught and imprisoned)

Dan, please let me know I am off track here.

Ed - can you put extra maple syruop and whipped cream on mine please? Congrats on your milestone post

pax, cc

[Jeffrey H 25]

Quote by SaintCad (post #1):

Sarcasm aside, what is the current rationale for eliminating homosexuals from BSA?

 

Quote by Babanon (post #2):

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.

 

Bobanon,

 

So, your opinion on the Bible is correct?  Many scouters, such as myself, regard the Bible as the Word of God and consider it fully reliable in matters of faith and practice.  It should be interpreted either symbolically or literally, depending on the historical context. 

 

The matter of homosexuality, fornication, and adultery are condemned in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.  It is still part of Gods moral law and not something that has passed away into antiquity.  I would even go far to say that a Scoutmaster who is actively engaged in adultery against his wife is no longer fit to be an SM.  An SM who cheats on his wife does not set the example of one who is Trustworthy and Loyal and other points of the Scout Law.  So, you see, sexual morality goes way beyond just same-sex issues.  

 

 

SaintCad and Babanon,

 

I respect your views and beliefs, but keep in mind that the BSAs policy against avowed homosexual leaders and members is not an arbitrary position, but grounded in the Judeo-Christian beliefs held by many of its members.  Granted, not all members are Jews and Christians, but even those that are not accept this as a good moral position to take. 

 

[AkelaT 10]

Man, talk about beating a dead horse. This topic has been hashed and rehashed so many times in here and nothing new ever surfaces, some of you should read the past threads on this topic before you drag it out again. The bottom line is that those who think homosexuals in the BSA is wrong will never change their minds just as the pro homosexuals will not change their positions.

 

What is humorous though are the so called Bible experts proseltyzing their own intolerance hiding behind biblical quotations being interpreted out of context of the time and culture in which it was written. Using their own argument when the Bible says an eye for an eye or if your hand offends cut it off, in a literal interpretation we would be hacking off body parts right and left. You can't have it both ways and thats where their argument falls flat on its face. So give it a rest.

[MarkS 11]

Jeffrey H

 

"...keep in mind that the BSAs policy against avowed homosexual leaders and members is not an arbitrary position, but grounded in the Judeo-Christian beliefs held by many of its members..."

 

Different Christian churches don't even agree on this. The Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches ban gays from membership, the United Church of Christ accepts gays, and while the Southern Baptists don't accept gay membership, the official position of their church is that they can live moral lives if they remain celibate.

 

I see inconsistancies in BSA policies accepting diverse religious beliefs while banning gays. I concur with scoutldr, this policy will change over time. Only I believe change will happen in the near term.

[tominrichmond 10]

The reply to the original question "why no homosexuals in boy scouts?" is simple: no sane parent would entrust his child to a group that allowed people sexually attracted to him to be in close quarters with him.

 

If, as has been suggested here, the scouts change this policy, expect to see a flight from the organization. No, I am not saying that all homosexuals are going to act on their attractions. I am saying that the BSA policy is rooted in common sense and understanding human nature.

 

Aside from this very practical reason, homosexuality is not morally straight conduct. Regardless of what some religion or other may say about acting charitable towards homosexuals as people, homosexuality is literally abnormal-- only one percent of the male population self-identify as homosexual. It is therefore by definition not normative behavior for men. Even denominations that support homosexual "rights" usually do not approve of homosexuality in the abstract.

 

[fgoodwin 23]

tominrichmond: welcome to the Forums.

 

All I can say is, you picked quite a topic for your initial post.

 

I hope you have your flame-proof suit on!

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

So, glad to see some things don't change. Before I had to go away for awhile, we were debating these same things; Guess I haven't missed much :-).

 

tominrichmond,

Welcome (and I guess, welcome back to me). This is certainly an interesting topic, but I don't know that you'd get everyone to agree that it's just plain "common sense" that BSA wouldn't allow gays. The fault in your argument is accepting as fact the idea that gays are natually attracted to young boys. There's no evidence of this, any more than there is evidence that just because I happen to like women, I'd be attracted to 12 year old girls.

 

The real problem, as I see it, is that BSA has taken a political stance on an issue on which there is no clear consensus. The country is split almost evenly on the gay rights issue. Many religions and even factions within religions don't agree on this. I continue to believe that BSA has unfortunately allowed itself to become a pawn in a political game being played between right and left wing extremists. When the game has been played out, BSA will be left to deal with the aftermath. The rumor has been for some time that if the BSA allowed gays to enter, the LDS units would walk, along with their money. That's a powerful political weight for the BSA to overcome on its own, and would require more courage than I suspect they have at this time. Just my opinion, of course.

 

What was the question, again? :-)

[Trevorum 24]

tom,

 

There are many Scouters who agree with your thinking.

And then there are many of us who don't.

 

Welcome to the forums!

 

[msnowman 10]

There is a (imho) a bit of flawed logic behind the not letting in gay men because they would be attracted to the boys in their charge. If that is true, than perhaps women shouldn't be allowed to be leaders either, since (in theory) they are straight they would be attracted to males, which would include the boys they are leading. I'm not debating if gays should or shouldn't be in Scouts. That is a horse long since beaten to death. I'm simply addressing that one bit of logic.

 

Okay - leaving the horse and tossing some fresh flowers on a very old grave.

 

YiS

Michelle