Gay marriage backing

[grmaerika 10]

Scoutfish...aww,you'll look real purdy! Have fun and congrats to your Scouts for winning that bet.

[packsaddle 753]

Scoutfish, If that doesn't make it to Youtube, someone is seriously shirking their duties!

OGE, I just love it when you show how profound that show was and how timeless its relevance to our lives. A civilization of alien mollusks, for example, might even think of the episodes as historical documents or something.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[AlFansome 10]

> I do know this: nothing remains the same. There is change always and it comes very quickly. And

> the things we are discussing here are tiny things compared with what is inevitable.

 

Reminds me of something a popular philospher(?) from Canada once wrote: "Changes aren't permanent, but change is."

 

 

[Trevorum 24]

Pack, she collects skulls? Really? Does she trade?

[Oak Tree 15]

Packsaddle - I guess the thing I find "strange" about the BSA's religious beliefs is the incongruous specificity of one of the beliefs. It's not one of the ten commandments, and the BSA does not apply the same stringency to the ten commandments - the BSA does not ban "avowed adulterers"; nor does it have hard rules on the 'seven deadly sins' - the BSA does not ban the gluttons (those with BMI over 35, or alcoholics) nor the lustful ("avowed readers of pornography", maybe), nor those with anger management problems, nor the lazy, arrogant, greedy, or jealous. And yes, there is indeed some irony in "respecting the beliefs of others", while not actually allowing the chartered organizations to freely choose leaders according to those beliefs (some of the COs are fine with homosexuality).

 

grmaerika - As to the rift - I'm not so sure. I do agree that many/most of the religious organizations in America have effectively split into two branches - a conservative branch and a liberal branch, in simplistic terms. So you have the PCA and PCUSA for Presbyterians, the Missouri Synod and the ELCA for Lutherans, the Conservative and Reformed branches of Judaism, the ongoing drama of the split in the Episcopal church, etc. The Girl Scouts chose the more liberal path and the American Heritage Girls formed as a conservative reaction. BSA has clearly chosen the more conservative path thus far. If the BSA was to allow "local option", would that mean they were becoming so liberal as to cause a split? I'm not so sure. Leaders of local units are always chosen by the chartered organizations. BSA does not have to do an about-face on this issue. They can just start indicating that they are going to give more weight to their belief that local units should continue to have the right to select leaders as they see fit. There was a time when units weren't allowed to select women leaders, either, because they didn't make effective role models for young men.

 

Barry - I agree the Judaeo-Christian religious setting was the backdrop for the BSA for most of its history. And if the BSA accepted all general Judaeo-Christian beliefs as bedrock principles, that would make it more consistent. But the BSA doesn't do that. It specifically accepts many other religions. You don't have to believe that God created the world. You don't have to believe Genesis.

 

As for the transgendered, I'm not sure the BSA would know how to handle them. In Texas, the law says you're stuck with the gender on your birth certificate, at least as far as marriage is concerned. Here in North Carolina, you can legally change your gender once your doctor certifies that you've gone through gender reassignment surgery. I know a woman who used to be a man. She's legally female in all regards, and you wouldn't know it when you met her that it was ever any different. When I see her, I don't think of Star Trek, although it did take a little while to adjust to saying 'she' and 'her' instead of 'he' and 'his'. It was more like something you hear about in documentaries but never think will actually be something that you yourself encounter. If she applied to be a Scout leader, I'd accept her - even though she is legally married to another woman (which is otherwise impossible in NC - you can't get married that way, nor will NC recognize such marriages from other states). At least, I'd accept her unless the national organization said I couldn't. Is she gay? I'm not sure that term is really intended to apply to this situation.

 

And Scoutfish - I too think you will look quite exquisite. I don't think marriage licenses are to give the government money, though - there are a lot of legalities that attach to being married, because, as Eagledad says, the government has decided it's worth it to encourage healthy families (and probably to simplify a lot of legal questions, too).

 

All of you - thanks for keeping a sense of perspective and humor :-) Much individual respect to you all!

[packsaddle 753]

Trev, the great thing about that long all-summer camping trip I took her on around the US, was that we were in an Expedition with plenty of space and there were lots of skulls here and there out west to beef up the collection. So what we have is mostly mammals, usually larger ones (coyotes, bobcats, elk, antelope, deer, raccoons, opossums, armadillo etc., but no humans...yet). I have my list...muhahahaha!

I've picked up quite a few Bald Eagle skulls but I had to turn them over to the fish and fur people. We only have a couple of snake skulls and a couple of interesting fish. Birds are OK, but we really want more herps and small mammals. Frogs are tough to get without a beetle colony. Same for most really small mammals. But... I guess it's a reasonably good excuse for another trip sometime!

[Eagledad 2777]

>>And yes, there is indeed some irony in "respecting the beliefs of others", while not actually allowing the chartered organizations to freely choose leaders according to those beliefs (some of the COs are fine with homosexuality).

[packsaddle 753]

Whether based in racial prejudice, or homophobia, or some other source of fear, there are always reasons for churches to split and they will. Heck, who ARE the Protestants if not a bunch of malcontents who split from THEIR church. Like TheScout wrote, "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

Indeed.

[sherminator505 10]

An interesting exchange earlier in the thread:

 

Oak Tree - "Sometimes it just seems like a strange religious organization that I've joined here."

 

WAKWIB - "It has only been regarded as "strange" for the last 20 years or so, and only mainly by those outside of the organization."

 

My involvement with the BSA began as a Scout close to 30 years ago. My observation is that in certain respects this movement of the BSA toward being a "strange religious organization" really didn't become noticeable until the late 1990's.

 

In my earlier years as a Scouter, from 1988 until 1996, I went through SMF and Wood Badge and served on a SMF course, and this was never a topic of discussion. We were all aware of Scouting's stated principles, but I don't think we were really looking for people to exclude.

 

Then the fight started. The lefties in Santa Fe got the BSA booted from the United Way, and people started to sue. I'll be the first to say that I was appaled by this.

 

Then the inevitable backlash occured. The BSA shifted from a fairly neutral position to actively booting out those it found to be undesirables. I was appaled by this as well, and it was one of the factors that led to my five-year hiatus from Scouting that I have written about in other threads.

 

I came back to Scouting to find an organization that is even more stiff-necked than the one I left. Specifically, it seemed that things like this membership issue and popcorn sales and the huge amount of BSA merchandising that goes on have eclipsed what used to be the important things, like what we're doing for the boys or what we're teaching them and why.

 

At times, I wonder if I have become a fossil. I wonder if I have a mindset that better served the 20th-century of Scouting and really doesn't have a place in the movement today.

[acco40 95]

When my oldest son joined Boy Scouts the Scoutmaster, a good one, was a great influence on him. He (the SM) was very dedicated and IMO, was a good role model for the boys. After he stepped down, I became the Scoutmaster. When my son turned 18, I happened to find out that his former Scoutmaster (not me, the previous one) is now a "she." She lives out of state so he has not had any contact with her and is not aware. As a male, I can't comprehend what must of gone on in his/her head to make such a change but I know it happens and I don't feel it is wrong in any way, just unfortuante that someone feels they have to go through something like that.

 

Was this person gay at one time? I don't know and don't really care.

 

Seriously, I can't understand how the BSA can claim to be a religious organization but nonsectarian. I agree with Trevorum, the issue, is BSA's claim to be "non-sectarian" while at the same time making specific items of theological dogma as membership requirements. We don't exclude pork eaters. We don't exclude divorced folk. We don't exclude folks who may have onced worked on the Sabbath. Heck, we don't even necessarily agree which day of the week is the Sabbath! Why do we exclude avowed homosexuals? Also, exactly how does the BSA define a homosexual? Is there such a thing as a celibate homosexual?

 

Oak Tree, I'd like to see a reference to the following statement "6. Homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." Not that I don't believe you, but I know that the BSA likes to keep that view somewhat under wraps.

 

From wiki pedia which is from the internet so it must be true!

In reciting the Scout Oath, Scouts promise to be morally straight and to do their duty to God; the Scout Law holds that a Scout is clean and reverent. As early as 1978, the Boy Scouts of America circulated a memorandum among national executive staff stating that they held it was not appropriate for homosexuals to hold leadership positions in BSA. Similarly, since at least 1985, the BSA has interpreted the Scout Oath and Law as being incompatible with agnosticism and atheism. In both instances, the organization asserted that it was not a new policy to oppose and disfavor atheism, agnosticism and homosexuality; and, in support of that, to deny membership to atheists and agnostics, and to deny leadership roles to and occasionally expel "avowed" homosexual persons rather, the BSA argued it was just enforcing long-held policies which had never been published or publicly challenged. emphasis is mine

 

BSA Religious Principles

(Reprinted from the 1992 edition of BSA's Advancement Guidelines: Council and District Functions.)

 

The Boy Scouts of America has a definite position on religious principles. The following interpretative statement may help clarify this position. The Boy Scouts of America:

 

Does not define what constitutes belief in God or the practice of religion.

 

Does not require membership in a religious organization or association for enrollment in the movement but does prefer, and strongly encourages, membership and participation in the religious programs and activities of a church, synagogue, or other religious association.

 

Respects the convictions of those who exercise their constitutional freedom to practice religion as individuals without formal membership in organized religious organizations. In a few cases, there are those who, by conviction, do not feel it necessary to formally belong to an organized form of religion and seek to practice religion in accordance with their own personal convictions. Every effort should be made to counsel with the boy and his parents to determine the true story of the religious convictions and practices as related to advancement in Scouting. Religious organizations have commended the Boy Scouts of America for encouraging youth to participate in organized religious activities. However, these same organizations reject any form of compulsion to enforce conformity to establish religious practices.

 

If a boy says he is a member of a religious body, the standards by which he should be evaluated are those of that group. This is why an advancement committee usually requests a reference from his religious leader to indicate whether he has lived up to their expectations.

Throughout life, Scouts are associated with people of different faiths. Scouts believe in religious freedom, respecting others whose religion may differ from theirs. Scouting believes in the right of all to worship God in their own way.

 

(This message has been edited by acco40)

[grmaerika 10]

It wasn't long ago when being in a racially mixed marriage in Virginia was illegal. I experienced the tale end of this back in the late 70's. Not getting served, getting spaghetti spilled on me in a restaurant, not being rented apts.Shock and wide eyes when I informed people ,yes these are my kids.Strange comments and jeers etc...And they still have the box called "other" on the race section of forms.Seems like everybody has their turn. It might be akward for me to have to interact with "two dads" at a Pack meeting.Even tho I've been discriminated against myself I still have my own discriminations. Just like the people who looked at my family and thought"that's just not right". I just ignored them and really, it never bothered me. I laugh at the comments now when I think of them.But I still really puzzle at the "other" box on forms. Seeing as so , so many people are mixtures of alot of things, especially in the southeast.Black and White is pretty ridiculous.I think this is what people have tried to explain to me on the gender issue. I see male and female and a very few "others", but some people say there are like six different genders or something. I never really researched it. I guess there was White Troops and Black troops back in the not too distant past .Maybe we'll have something like that in regards to sexual identity in the not too distant future, like one person said, more of a local thing.Which got me to wondering--what are the rules in Europe on this?. Like for Swedish or Dutch Scouts for example.

[Oak Tree 15]

Oak Tree, I'd like to see a reference to the following statement "6. Homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the requirement in the Scout Oath that a Scout be morally straight and in the Scout Law that a Scout be clean in word and deed, and that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts." Not that I don't believe you, but I know that the BSA likes to keep that view somewhat under wraps. acco40, I'm going by the BSA's stated position in the Dale case. In fact, if you google the exact sentence that I quoted, you'll get a bunch of hits. Wikipedia gives the quote and points back to the Dale case, which has similar if not exact wording. In http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a2427-95.opn.html, it says According to Parvin L. Bishop, National Director of Program of the BSA, the requirements that a scout be "morally straight" and "clean" are inconsistent with homosexuality, and therefore known or avowed homosexuals or those who advocate to scouting youth that homosexual conduct is morally straight or clean, will not be registered as adult leaders.

 

You can find other references to the Dale lawsuit where the U.S. Supreme Court restates the BSA position - here's one: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=530&page=640

 

This isn't really surprising. The BSA may not have to state the policy all that precisely on its web site, but when defending itself in court it really needs to argue that it believes this statement. Otherwise it would just be excluding a group because it didn't like them, and that would not be permissible.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

America is a fat, rich country, and a democracy, and it's very hard to say "no" to anything, even bad things. We can sweep up the problems, etc.

 

I see homosexuality as a psychological disorder. There is no scientific consensus about its causes. I disagree with "gay" marriage because marriage is a social concern, a serious social concern, and not the right of one individual. It's an intergenerational thing as well.

 

I'll be mean. I'm against it.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

In the context of the OP's first post, I ask him, "if 100 people say that Hitler was a good man, does that make him a good man?"

 

If something's right, it's right, regardless of the vote. So concern about the BSA being "out of step" is problematic. . . and what happens if a poll next year shows different results? Do you change BSA policies each poll?

[packsaddle 753]

I remember very similar arguments applied in order to resist various aspects of racial integration. Wow, I guess things haven't changed as much as I had hoped.

 

However, you're inconsistent. First you use a claim that there is no scientific consensus as if this supports your contention and then you claim that such a consensus, if it exists, doesn't necessarily make something correct....in which case, if consensus is unreliable, why do you use lack of consensus to support your own opinion in the first place?

 

Moreover, by that logic, what YOU are saying is that simply because YOU and others say (as part of your consensus) that it's right, that doesn't necessarily make it right. And by extension of your logic then, just because it's current policy also doesn't necessarily make it right.

Please try to clarify your thoughts for us.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)