Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trevorum

When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

Recommended Posts

Nugent725 asks several excellent questions. Unfortunately, he is unlikely to receive reasoned responses to them from those supporting the discriminatory policy, based on past experience with similar questions. In most cases, there simply are not rational, evidence-based answers that support the policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take a stab at it...

 

Nugent's argument looks solid on the surface but misses the point. The idea of substituting black for gay is not a valid substitution.

 

"On my honor I will do my best to keep myself physically fit, mentally awake AND MORALLY STRAIGHT"

 

The issue at hand is if the person appointed as the leader has kept themselves MORALLY STRAIGHT and what is the yardstick you use to measure that.

 

I will humbly admit that while I have my own beliefs, they are established upon a standard that is not universally accepted and would not be agreed on by every person participating in this thread, much less in the world wide membership of scouting... And in the case of the BSA, I'm not advocating they should be.

 

So until that time, on whatever basis national has used as their yardstick, Irving has determined that open homosexuality violates the tent of remaining morally straight. There are people that would agree with that determination and there are people that disagree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

skeptic - I could live with allowing the CO to make the choice.. And if that happened all us PCers would be silenced.. Problem is, that is currently not the choice.

 

Yeah, creating a new youth scout program, while scouting as a whole is on a decline due not only to BSAs exclusionary practices, but due to the electronic age where more & more children dont know how to play outside.. And the heavy beauracracy of rules and policies to protect against everyone suing at the drop of a hat..

 

Lets face it BP was successful because he started up at the perfect time.

So we like the program all but the discriminatory practices enough to ride the program with you guys on its downward cycle. But, unfortunately BSA did not see to discriminate against anyone who disagreed with their policies, and promotes democracy..

 

So, we are free to stay in the program.. Disagree with what we choose to and are free to vocalize our disagreements..

 

Besides it is fun to take our fire stick out of the fire and poke our stick at the homophobics and watch them squirm.. eeek.. We fear homos camping with our children!!!.. eeek.. Their homo traits might rub off and infect our children !!! eeek.. .. They are sinners, because my church has said they are !!! We need to be able to judge and condemn sinners so that we know we are superior and holier-then-thou .. Oh, yes.. But even though these are our reasons, we truly respect homosexuals

 

Thing is you are wrong, if allowed to have an adult leader who was a homosexual in our troop, I would expect them to be no more visual then a heterosexual.. Which means I may have met the partner a few times, I might have seen some handholding or a look.. Both may even be involved in the troop.. But I would not expect them to get up on a podium and give speeches about the lifestyle, or see blatant hot passionate public displays.. If either homo or hetero did that they should be out..

 

Yeah, I would have no problem with my son going camping with a homosexual adult leader.. I would trust them. Because I dont fear them being pedophiles, or that their homosexual lifestyle will rub off..

 

We were in a troop for a while with a very scary looking Goth scout.. Long black hair with streaks of colors.. I cant remember all else but definitely did scare off some parents from joining with their kid.. We joined and found him to be a very nice, friendly guy.. Son adored and idolized him (as many scouts of the troop did), but did not grow up to be Goth, but I wonder if style of the big hat and long trench coat (though son chose brown not black) was from emulating the scout..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I consider the policy to be exclusive, intolerant, and hateful.

 

Yah, I get exclusive. I'll even allow intolerant, though I think it's stretching da outer limits of honesty. But 'hateful'? Surely folks can be permitted to politely disagree on a longstanding moral issue without being accused of being hateful.

 

There are all kinds of rational responses to nugent's flame, but if yeh support da flaming then odds are yeh aren't goin' to see the rationality of an alternative view. Perhaps those of us who are Believers just don't want adult leaders who espouse a position of calling da moral views of the vast majority of the world's religious people "hateful". We don't think that makes for a good example for children. ;)

 

Beavah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems Beavah's closest to the point on this subject, as even I drifted away from the main point earlier in the argument.

 

The main point to realize is that we need to be respectful of the moralities of everyone. All too often, those with traditional moral views that condemn homosexuality feel as though acceptance of homosexuality is being forced on them. Why is that? It's because that's the truth and the pro-gay rights crowd is aggressively and cruelly disrupting the rights of these traditional folk to set guidelines for their children as to what is morally acceptable.

 

While I'd have my boys in a CO's Troop that did not allow openly homosexual leaders, I definitely wouldn't condemn any parents that had no problem with their boys being in a unit that accepted homosexual leaders.

 

Comments like nugent's show that increasingly it's becoming more acceptable to oppress people for what they believe as if their moral structure steeped in centuries of tradition were all of a sudden morally reprehensible. National will probably compromise to let CO's set this membership standard for themselves or at least allow for units to take a position contradicting the default national policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, again I'm not painting this policy with the 'intentions' of being hateful on the part of the national organization. I actually think they're simply and perhaps uncomfortably going for the money.

But when I sit around REAL campfires and listen to the stuff I sometimes hear from scouters, and not just about gays, "hateful" is the term YOU would ascribe to it as well. This policy facilitates real hate in individuals and anoints their prejudice with official sanction, in their minds, by the national organization. In that sense, I consider the policy to be hateful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Folks,

 

First, and foremost, allow me to say that I was not "flaming" anyone, or attacking anyone's personal religious beliefs. I firmly believe that this is America, so you may believe whatever you like, whether it be God, Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What I was trying to express when I said that I was appalled, was the fact that we strive to instill in the youth the qualities exemplified by the Scout Oath and Laws...yet some people feel that blanket discrimination is still within those guidelines.

 

Once Eagle - You missed my point, in which you would see that the black/gay substitution does work, in order to make a feasible comparison. It is not only my belief, but the belief of others (including the LGBT community) that homosexuality is not a choice, it is simply a way you are born (much like you are born black, white, asian, etc.). I know that I didn't decide to prefer women, I just do, it's the way I was born. Here is the question I pose to you - How can you state that something is immoral, if there is no decision involved? That is tantamount to saying that it is immoral to be a redhead. Additionally, the "morally straight" argument doesn't wash with me for several reasons, including the above. Morally straight is a subjective term, since we all have a different idea of what constitutes morality/immorality. Therefore, it seems rather odd for one person to arbitrarily dictate to me what I should see as moral, regardless of whether or not I agree (or society, for that matter, as can be seen by the modern view of indifference toward homosexuality).

 

Beavah - I never said hateful, and I agree with packsaddle 100%. The intent of the policy is not to produce hatred; however, it is a natural by-product of a discriminatory policy.

 

BS87 - I never said that it was acceptable to oppress people for their beliefs, in fact I strongly oppose doing so. However, your post did give rise to an interesting question. People claim that those who support an all-inclusive policy are forcing their ideas of morality upon them, yet isn't that the same as those same people stating that others accept the idea that homosexuality is immoral?

 

Moose and Blanc - Thanks for the backup ;)

 

I just want to reiterate that this post is not meant to be a specific "attack" or "flame" upon anybody. I just wanted to address each person's reply individually, so it didn't come across as some passive aggressive sounding nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to address the suggestion that the local units and their CO handle this issue on a unit by unit basic. I think this is unrealistic.

 

Illinois children are currently being removed from foster homes and adoption programs run by Cathilic Charities. When it comes to this issue, the state is no respecter of religion.

 

How long do you think Illinois would allow Scout units to exercise their local option?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, nugent, keep tryin'.

 

Yeh can substitute in "pedophile" or "drunk" for "African-American" just as easily. Pedophiles and alcoholics could be argued didn't have a choice in their preferences either. How dare we discriminate, yada yada. Word substitution is not a valid or rational argument.

 

[Hatred] is a natural byproduct of a discriminatory policy

 

Nonsense. Those fellows packsaddle talks about would have felt the same way regardless of what da BSA's policy is. Yeh don't honestly believe that they woke up one morning and said "Gee, the Boy Scouts won't allow openly gay leaders, I guess that means I should hate gays" do yeh? ;) Packsaddle, tell us... do those fellows dutifully follow da BSA's position on Leave No Trace? :)

 

Makes yeh think though. Does an employer's policy of only hiring people with degrees create hatred of people who didn't finish college as a "natural byproduct?" Does a bank's discriminating against those who can't afford a big mortgage naturally produce hatred of poor people? Nah.

 

People claim that those who support an all-inclusive policy are forcing their ideas of morality upon them, yet isn't that the same as those same people stating that others accept the idea that homosexuality is immoral?

 

Nope, not in this case. Yeh have a group of people trying to force a private organization based on religious principles to abandon their position. They're willing to try to cut off funding (public and private) cut off access to public spaces and resources, accuse 'em of spreading hatred, etc.

 

To be "the same", the BSA would have to try to force a private organization like Delta Lambda Phi to abandon their position of supporting gay men and open their doors to da religious right. They'd have to try to cut off DLP's funding, public and private. They'd have to try to cut off DLP's access to public and private colleges, and to employee donation mechanisms. Da BSA would have to accuse 'em of spreading hatred, and try to get local city councils to seize their buildings.

 

But we haven't, eh? All the BSA has said is that this is our position, others may disagree, and we support their right to associate. We just wish they would respect ours as well.

 

Beavah

 

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This started as a private message, but as I typed more, I felt compelled to post my reply publicly in the hopes that even one person would find something of value.

 

Nugent:

So on the point of choice, we may probably just agree to disagree- and I'm ok to do that. I can tell you that a God wouldn't be fair, just and loving if he condemned a man for being born a red head... nor would he be fair, just and loving if he condemned a person for any other biological trait they were born with. That forces me then to the idea then that to be gay is not a condition by birth but rather a choice that we make (don't shut down yet, i'll come back to this in a minute with a worthwhile story.) Similarly, the Bible says in different places that God calls people to repent, it says that he has given men over to depraved minds that they may commit unnatural acts, he even calls homosexuality an abomination. My point is that God's judgment wouldn't be righteous if man didn't have a choice in the matter.

 

I promised to come back to the choice thing... one of the most powerful moments I have ever seen on television was years ago when the whole homosexual marriage thing first became an issue in California. (I can already tell you I am not going to do justice to the moment.) They had a gay man who was the first man in line to get married speaking with John MacArthur (google him if you don't know who he is). In tears, the gay man asked John something like this "You say that I had a choice in my sexuality. Then tell me why would I choose something so rejected by society? Why would I choose something so biologically unnatural? Why would I choose something that caused me to be laughed at all through my years in school? Why would I choose something that has caused my friends to reject and mock me? Why would I choose something that caused my own parents to disown me and say they wish I had died rather than live gay? Why would I choose that?! WHY?!?!?!"

 

John with unfeigned sincerity said something like this... "Your pain is real and you are hurting badly. I can tell you first, there is a God that loves you and has a plan for your life. A plan that calls you to be all that He created you to be. A plan that wants you to experience the fullness and wonder of everything He created in you and turn it into worship and praise of Him. No person wakes up one day and says 'Today, I think I am going to get drunk, have an affair on my wife and divorce her, get fired from my job, and abuse and lose custody of my kids.' An alcoholic arrives at that point in their life by a series of micro-decisions, at each point he had a choice to turn away from the behavior that is destroying him or a choice to continue. If the alcoholic continues to choose the behavior that destroys, the behavior eventually takes control so he no longer has a choice. Then one day, he finds himself living an unpleasant pain-filled life where choices are made for them. It is not that the chance to choose never existed, but that he chose wrongly, or even just simply ignored the choice while it existed. But we have a wonderful God that is more powerful than our choices and he calls us to turn to Him. He calls us to turn away from sinful choices in our life- in whatever manifestation they reveal (and they are different for different people)- and turn to Him... and He promises then to comfort us in our pain and help us in our weakness. The choice is yours to make. I will find people that can help you if you want to make that choice."

 

For anyone that has read this far, thank you. Everything I've said makes one HUGE assumption- that we would agree the Bible is true in what it declares. I realize that there are MANY people that would STRONGLY refute my assumption, and probably do it with great eloquence. I'm not going to try and defend it, argue it or even change anyone's mind. I'm simply trying to share the content the Bible in a way that allows others to see the application (so many people today fail to connect the Bible to any purposeful or meaningful application in our lives.)

 

God bless!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh have a group of people trying to force a private organization based on religious principles to abandon their position. They're willing to try to cut off funding (public and private) cut off access to public spaces and resources, accuse 'em of spreading hatred, etc.

 

As far as the cutting off of access to public spaces and resources - to my understanding, the group of people who did that in most states were the elected state legislators who approved anti-discrimination laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once an Eagle:

 

The problem with your argument as support for the BSA's anti-gay stance is that the Bible is not the Boy Scout Handbook. Its contents are not universally accepted among Scouts and Scouters. There are plenty of other faiths and even Christian denominations that strongly disagree with your interpretation of a centuries-old text.

 

Now, if the BSA wants to come out of the closet, drop the pretense and become an arm of the LDS and conservative churches, that's fine. Though I'd strongly disagree with it, I sometimes think that honesty would be preferable than continuing to pretend that Scouting includes some underlying universal "religious principles" that justifies the "Gays are bad" mindset.

 

BS-87: Just following back up on my question from the second page in case you missed it.

 

Traditional heterosexual methods of courtship, relationship progression, and methods of showing affection are preferable to homosexual. For this reason, openly gay individuals do not make the kind of role model for relationships that Boy Scouts need to become great American men and citizens.

 

Uhmm... can you explain what the homosexual methods of courtship, relationship progression and showing affection are?

 

Do you mean like asking someone on a date? Going on more frequent dates, going on trips together, getting to know one's family, spending the night together? Holding hands, hugging, kissing?

 

Or is there some sort of secret homosexual approach to relationships that we don't know about?(This message has been edited by shortridge)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Powerful - but still an opinion that it is a choice. Sex is a base human need.. The list is breathing, food, water, sex, homeostasis, excretion.

 

You have a choice on how you form relationships over this base need. You can treat your partners as sexual conquests, with little respect. Jump from sex partner to sex partner, look for thrills by choosing to have sexual encounters in risky places, or orgies or swapping.. This is where you are not being morally straight.. Both Homosexuals and Heterosexuals have a choice to deal with their basic sexual urges by making morally straight choices, and respecting their sexual partners by forming respectful relationships.

 

So you have a story of someone with your views having words about how it is their choice.. They are wise only if you hold the same opinion that it is a choice..

Here is a story I have told before on this forum..

A relative of mine who is now deceased was a homosexual.. During this time he married a lesbian women, at the time purely so that she would not be deported, not the most nobelist of acts.. But, they stayed close friends and slowly over time these two became like man & wife in all aspects but a sexual relationsip. They became inseparable and were seen more with each other than their sexual partners. When my relative became sick with the aids virus, it was his wife who tended to him to the bitter end.. During this time, the wife had a conversation with my sister saying similar thing as the homosexual in your story.. With the addition of the fact that She and her husband loved each other totally in everything but sexually.. She wished with all her heart that they could have been a normal couple..

 

So here is an example of two homosexuals that didnt just make a series of micro-decisions, but took huge strides towards a normal heterosexual relationship.. Yet the heterosexual relationship never formed..

 

By the way, how moral is a child born with both female and male organs? I knew of one whose parents waited to have the until the child could choose their sexual orientations before the child went through surgery. Most choose for their child early on, and some have chosen wrong.

 

Pedophiles are more like rapists. It is not the same. A lot of times you find a pedophile has a past history that formed the issue, either they were victims of other Pedophiles, or they had abusive childhoods.. A pedophile feeds on control and power over their victims.. This is not the case with homosexuals, they do not form their sexual preference due to abusive childhoods, and can form respectful and loving relationships.. As long as they contine or relearn to respect and love themselves even though they are homosexual. Relationships that I would define as Morally Straight..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of questions from the UK.....

 

How does this whole thing work with international events? If I brought my troop to an international jamboree of some sort in the USA and my openly gay assistant leader came to what's the deal? Would she be allowed to attend? She's a fully signed up member in good standing of a WOSM affiliated association. What would happen if no one realised she was gay (there is no reason why they should) till she got there?

 

Similarly where leaders in the USA say they would have nothing to do with BSA if it admited homosexuals would you/they attend an international event in another country where being gay and a scout/leader is perfectly accepted?

 

Finally how will this circle be squared when USA hosts world jamboree in 2019?

 

I do hope those questions don't sound liek some European liberal sneering across the pond because it's not, I'm just interested to know how it all gets dealt with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Packsaddle, tell us... do those fellows dutifully follow da BSA's position on Leave No Trace?"

That smiley indicates you didn't ask this with a straight face and that's a good thing.

 

No. They mostly don't even go places where LNT would apply but might, if they had the chance, run over it with some kind of 4WD monstrosity. Maybe even shoot something. ;)

I've noticed over the years, that lack of regard for fellow man tends to go hand in hand for lack of regard for pretty much everything else, the environment included. This makes 'the gay policy' just that more incongruous for an organization which has legitimate claim to so many other high ideals. I'm hoping BSA will come around eventually. And those guys...you're right, they'll feel the way they feel regardless of what comes along.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×