DOES OUR CONCEPT OF MANILINESS MATTER?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Pappy, left-handedness is "abnormal" using your metric, and some people though left-handed people were "sinister" (which is where the word comes from). People also caused a lot of harm by trying to force kids into writing with the "proper" hand. So maybe the BSA should exclude southpaws next.

[packsaddle 753]

I guess Pappy and I were typing at the same time. I'll answer.

I would like to see BSA open to all boys as scouts. Period.

And to all adults who would make good leaders for the boys, including gays and atheists.

The point about DADT was appropriate. That approach allows pretty much all of the above already as long as BSA turns a blind eye to units exercising a local option approach...as you are doing, Pappy. It's called sauce for the goose.

 

And with regard to the question of morality, I see no conflict with allowing gays and atheists as members. My moral code is doing quite well without prejudice and phobias.

 

Finally, a note on statistics...there is nothing 'normal' in nature, in the statistical sense.

[Hiromi 9]

So Merlyn,

 

That being said, are you for pro-orgy scouting as well? And if you are not- by what moral standard do you have the right to ban this type of behavior- since nothing is normal or abnormal in yours and Packsaddles alternate universe?

 

The idea of with-holding self-gratification is at the core of scouting and nobility (Being helpful to OTHERS at all times).

 

IF we embrace all gratification as being acceptable then what a group of scouters or scouts do in the privacy of their own tent or behind that yonder ridge, should be nobodies business. If that is the case- then we might as well have scouting be coed so we can maximize the opportunity for fun and self-expression.

 

The reality is- kids should not be having sex. If you disagree with this moral stand, then where do you begin to add caveats?

 

And if straight scouts and their families and COs realize that scouting has gone the way of rest stops then what will that do to enrollment and FOS support?

 

Pappy

(This message has been edited by Pappy)

[DanKroh 11]

"I am not an expert on this issue of transgender. And I found the Wikipedia article very educational. But I do have a problem with identity politics. It lends itself to balkanization. And I have noticed that many groups make their particular sexual orientation the focus of their identity. I think this is troublesome."

 

Then perhaps it is better not to throw transgender around as a buzzword to indicate moral terpitude. BTW, transgender is NOT a sexual orientation. It is a gender issue.

 

"You also mentioned that heterosexuals can exhibit sexual deviance. I agree- sexual deviance is pretty universal. But an open adulterer is as much of a problem to a community of scouters as would be a Homosexual player. They are a destabilizing influences on the formation of normative values a community comes around such as marriage an sexual abstinence.. An open adulterer- or a closeted adulterer- whether Homo or Hetero is a pariah and should be unwelcome to an organization promoting contrary values."

 

Good, then let's judge people on what they actually do instead of who they are. Here is Massachusetts, same-sex marriages are legal. Have been since 2002. But a married man, who has been faithful to his spouse, still can't be in the BSA if that spouse happens to be another man.

 

"I know that you have written about all the seemingly normal everyday varieties of homosexuals who lead lives like most normal heterosexuals but the exponents of the hedonism found in many clubs would probably not put themselves in this category."

 

Then you better look open your eyes to some of the hedonism going on in clubs frequented by heterosexuals as well. The point is, again, that the BSA is not judging the homosexual on their lack or presence of hedonism or promiscuity. They are judging them on their identity as gay.

 

"Come out and say it --DO you want scouting to be open and admitting of gays or not?"

 

I believe I have always presented my position on this matter as an emphatic YES!

 

"But the idea of norming this behavior is ridiculous: IT IS abnormal by its very definition."

 

Using the definition of abnormal as "being outside the majority", yes. But so are many other things that are accepted by society. Being left handed (as Merlyn pointed out already), wearing glasses, having red hair. Doesn't make any of those things inherently immoral.

 

"So what we are really advocating is a boy scouting that would have no moral ground to say that boys who buddy up shouldnt participate in friendly behavior such as mutual masturbation- oral and anal relations, and group antics. After all- there is no harm done if it is consensual, right?"

 

Wrong. Sexual relations of any sort is prohibited between scouts (or scouters) at scouting events. Doesn't matter whether it's between two boys, two girls, or a boy and a girl. Not allowed. Period.

 

Do I think it's a good idea outside of scouting? No more or less than I think it is for young heterosexual couples to engage in irresponsibly sexual behavior before they are mature enough to handle it.

 

"This is what this is all leading to. Why shouldnt a boy want to satisfy himself with another boy especially if the other boys are willing to reciprocate the actions?"

 

Well, either of these hypothetical boys not being homosexual (or bisexual) would be a big reason. And chances are, at least one of them isn't. And if they both happen to be gay or bi, see above statements about irresponsible sexual behavior.

 

Same with the examples of Scoutmasters Steve and Ken. This presumes that homosexuals are less able to "keep it in their pants" than heterosexuals, which is an incredibly ignorant and insulting supposition. I know several heterosexual married couples who go on scouting trips together. They aren't sneaking off into the woods or shaking the tent at night. Why would you presume Steve and Ken would (and here in MA, Steve and Ken may even be married!)?

 

[Hiromi 9]

Yes DanKroh, that would be, let me see- oh yeah - Blue State.

 

Why should BSA ban sexual conduct during camping?- especially since it would be pretty hard to enforce with the buddy system and scoutmasters not allowed in boys's tents. Oh yeh, I forgot- "Scouts Honor, Scoutmaster Ken, Bruce and I didn't share sleeping bags last night." That works so well with kids in general- why wouldn't it work with BSA?

 

Pappy's solution -- Salt Peter for all!

 

It worked for my Dad's expeditionary force in the Philippines.

 

Pappy

 

 

Pappy

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Pappy, my example was to only refute your faulty association of "abnormal" with "morally wrong." Left-handedness is abnormal; if you do not consider it to be morally wrong, then you can't condemn something as immoral by merely stating it's abnormal. It has nothing to do with what I'D find moral or immoral, I'm just pointing out your lack of consistent reasoning.

[packsaddle 753]

Dan: Steve and Ken, married? Joined in a loving monogamous relationship? Heaven forbid!

 

Pappy, I'm open to your thoughts as to what you think is 'normal', statistically speaking, in nature. Keep in mind that to meet that definition the metric must extend to both positive and negative infinity.

 

Be advised, though, that while you may disagree with my viewpoint, it admits a greater degree of reality than the 'alternate universe' you wish existed (but evidently doesn't, or else you and Nessmuck wouldn't be doing so much handwringing). Or are you ready to give up YOUR local option approach in order to support universal conformity?

[Hiromi 9]

Packsaddle,

 

I think what the world statistically thinks is normal- and what is good, beautiful, and true- will always be about 180 degrees out of phase.

 

I think opening up scouting to all is probably inevitable. But so is opening up pornography to all as well.

 

The local option for morality and conforming to the word of God will continue as well. And that is why the schism is an inevitable.

 

And it will probably fall along similar fault lines of the ever widening red state blue state cultural chasm.

 

Pappy

 

[Lisabob 13]

Dan: Steve and Ken, married? Joined in a loving monogamous relationship? Heaven forbid!

 

Yeah, and they're threatening my marriage as we speak; how dare they.

 

Look I don't think there's a place for sexual relations on any BSA camp outs, regardless of the identity of the people involved. Simple as that. As I've never, ever, not once, heard anybody argue that there SHOULD be a place for leaders to engage in sexual activity (let alone, for scouts!) on camp outs, then I really think this is a moot point, brought up by some who simply can't or won't let go of the notion that there's some big moral argument here when in fact, there is not.

[packsaddle 753]

Pappy, I can actually agree with most of that. Thing is, I don't see it as necessarily lamentable. Diversity is- and always has been- necessary for social evolution as well as biological evolution.

[Hiromi 9]

Lisabob,

 

You seem to always be extolling the virtues of a properly followed BSA organization you really want me to believe that you represent the majority of good-scouting practices that exists out there in the ether and yet you seem to hold its policy on homosexuality in contempt. Wow. You want to have your cake and eat it too.

 

Why doesn't BSA just come out and open up to Atheists and Homosexuals LisaBob if it isnt a morality issue? What's the harm?

 

And Lisa bob, do you honestly believe that homosexual scouts would be any less inclined to break the ban on sexual activity during campouts than would boys and girls sharing tents in a coed camping situation?

 

It is you and your scouter-ati that are being unreal and unreasonable.

 

Keeping it hetero- and keeping it same sex- is just plain good horse sense.

 

Or just maybe, deep down, you also believe this to be true, and you are too petrified of your fellow lefty professors learning that you might hold a belief out of lock-step with theirs. That is a sure fire way of getting yourself UN_invited to the next faculty pot-luck and maybe tenure as well, isn't it?

 

Pappy

(This message has been edited by Pappy)

[DanKroh 11]

"And Lisa bob, do you honestly believe that homosexual scouts would be any less inclined to break the ban on sexual activity during campouts than would boys and girls sharing tents in a coed camping situation?"

 

I'm not Lisabob, but I'd like to answer that. No, I don't believe they'd be less inclined. Nor do I believe they would be more inclined, as you seem to, Pappy. Actually, that's not entirely accurate. I do believe they'd be less inclined, for a couple of reasons:

 

1) statistically speaking, the chances of finding a partner who is of the same orientation, and there being mutual attraction, within a troop of 20-40 boys (average troop size, no?), is pretty low.

 

2) currently, there would still be significant fear of peers reacting negatively. Don't have that with hetero couples.

 

"Or just maybe, deep down, you also believe this to be true, and you are too petrified of your fellow lefty professors learning that you might hold a belief out of lock-step with theirs. That is a sure fire way of getting yourself UN_invited to the next faculty pot-luck and maybe tenure as well, isn't it?"

 

Wow, Lisabob, I think you are right. All I got was my opinions dismissed with the "Blue State" label.

[Lisabob 13]

Pappy, that's actually funny. For one thing, my colleagues are quite well aware of my views on a pretty wide variety of issues and for another, we're a very diverse group ranging from libertarians to victims of the Bush/Cheney myopia to liberals, to resident Marxists. Your concerns about my tenure and place at the potluck table, while touching, are entirely misplaced. But I thank you for thinking of my welfare and providing me with a smile.

 

But yeah, I agree with what DanKroh posted. I have no problem with the idea of allowing homosexuals and atheists and agnostics into the BSA. I don't believe it will result in rampant sexual activity at scouting events, any more than is the case now with women as leaders. Of course I am aware that you favor male leadership so perhaps this is a reflection of your fears. To which I can only say that you and I worry about different things. I doubt I will be able to convince you of the veracity of my world view and I am equally doubtful that you, in your apparently homophobic worldview, will convince me that I'm wrong. I have too much personal experience knowing wonderful individuals who simply are also gay to ever see them as "bad" or "sick" or "immoral" people. They're people and that's all, in my eyes. Many of them would be fine role models for my son (regardless of my son's orientation - youth in the BSA are considered to be "asexual" anyway). Of those who I don't think would be good role models, it has nothing to do with their sexuality and everything to do with other aspects of their lives, which is equally the case for "straight" men and women.

 

So anyway, is being homophobic part of being "manly" in your view?

[Hiromi 9]

LisaBob,

 

My faith guides me that I fear no man. And I can assure you that I dont fear Homosexuals.

 

But I do fear that we are letting go of our God-given duty to parent our children. I think that the concerns I had about scouting and sexuality are not the same as fears.

 

I do fear that radical liberals are having a deleterious effect on generations of Americans.

 

I do fear that while most of America slumbers a radicalized and organized and educated element are doing their darndest to overcome the best values in America and on Earth.

 

I do fear that Godlessness leaves openings for the worst forms of evil conduct.

 

But my fears are all allayed by Gods grace- which helps me to be calm amidst a raging sea.

 

The canard you raise of calling me Homophobic is no less a cheap epitaph than calling someone a Nazi. I do not fear Homosexuals- , as I said; I am mandated to actually love them as Gods children. But the inclination to want to give other men oral pleasure, or to partake in sodomy, are issues that will arise in scouting- no matter how asexual you want to pretend the boys are.

 

To my thinking Coed heterosexual scouting is as dumb as single sex Homosexual scouting. (Unless you drop the law on sexual conduct during camping- and dont make judgments about fornication amongst teens and preteens).

 

On moral grounds- what are the grounds for BSAs prohibition on sexual activity during camp outs? By whose moral code? Is it secular? What is the logic? Why not let the boys have their fun- whos getting hurt? You think two gay boyfriends who join a troop and bunk together arent going to get it on? Are you so nave? We already know that boys often join scouting to be with their friends. And we know how sexually aggressive teenage boys can be. So why do we keep pretending that homosexual youth are somehow more discretionary in their sexual conduct? Why two standards?

 

 

I have explained my views on what Manliness is or at least should aspire to more than most on this site. And I never said it had anything to do with sexual appetite or proclivity. I wasnt the one who kept on bringing up Monty Python and SNL gags snickering about manliness as latent homosexuality.

 

I think you, and the rest, who are in agreement, ought to bring this up at the next jamboree maybe after President Obama gives a rousing speech to the scouts on hope and BSAs timeless values. In the spirit of a big fat inclusive tent you can make the proclamation that Boy Scouting is now open to everyone, whether they are gay or straight, believers or atheist, republicans or communists.

 

Im sure the scouts and their leaders attending the Jamboree will come out in your defense- (seeing that you believe that it is you and your ilk that are in the vast majority).

 

 

Yeh, have fun with that. But I advise you to wear your best running shoes as you make a bee line for the hills they'll have you heading for.

 

Pappy

 

 

(This message has been edited by Pappy)(This message has been edited by Pappy)

[Lisabob 13]

Actually I may very well be attending the next jamboree and would be delighted to hear a speech from President Obama on hope and the BSA at such an event. It might even be inspirational, who knows. And while personally, yes, I would love to be able to widely proclaim that the BSA is now open to all, sadly I cannot do that because that is not the current BSA policy and I (and others of my "ilk") do not write BSA policy on that matter. Have you ever been to a national jambo? I have not up to this point, but from what friends who have attended tell me, I can only surmise that there is an astonishing and eye-opening array of people, cultures, beliefs, traditions, and backgrounds on display there, all of whom have one big thing in common - they proudly call themselves Scouts and Scouters. But I do not think that the BSA is as monolithic as some seem to believe.