Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Trevorum

When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

Recommended Posts

I don't reckon it'll be a problem, Cambridgeskip. We already know you Europeans area bunch of heathen. :)

 

Mostly, da U.S. is workin' its way around to a culture of tolerance, but not endorsement. Within da U.S. programs, given what we feel about da importance of Adult Association and mentoring as a Method, openly active homosexuals as leaders feels to too many of us like endorsement. Even da wise Christian folk recognize that this is an area where we are called to evangelize, not to impose by legal stricture.

 

If folks here weren't so obnoxiously divided into competing political camps trying to "win", da natural resolution of the marriage question would be to allow legally equivalent "committed partnerships" (tolerance) but not da word "marriage" (endorsement). But as yeh can see from da media we export to yeh, our civil discourse has broken down to the point of bein' worse than kindergarten without adult supervision. :p

 

Do yeh have any old-fashioned nannys over there yeh can send us? If could assign a British Nanny to every politician and media personality, maybe it would help. :)

 

Beavah

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An excellent question OGE.

 

I did a quick search and nothing banning gay coaches turned up.

 

The problem with the question is most 10 or 11 year olds are not sent away for the weekend with their little league coach. Most of the interaction takes place on an open field.

 

Most youth sports is that way, you haul your kid to the playing field drop them off or sit and watch them practice. The potential for sexual abuse is very very low.

 

There is something very terrifying to the bible thumpers about their son spending some time around a campfire with a gay fellow.

 

The best thing I can equate this too, is the violent video games.......Does every boy who plays Call of duty become a murder. No. will every boy who associated with a gay scouter become gay.....no.

 

Personally I think the violent video games are more of a problem than a gay scouter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an ongoing challenge that is just going to get worse. It *does* affect membership, and with the military's dropping of DADT, the BSA is just becoming more and more isolated in its position. The number of people who think of BSA as backwards will grow, and they won't even consider Scouts as a possible thing to participate in.

 

The BSA needs to figure out a way to drop this policy in a manner that produces the least shock waves. I think I'd try to hire Robert Gates, the former secretary of defense, as the new chief. Do some surveys of the membership, so that they see the issue is under consideration. Run some education sessions. I'd like to think that the eventual change would be a non-event, just as it has been in the military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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?"

 

Alright, I probably owe you an answer.

 

Gay courtship is more casual, and usually more "open" with folks assuming more partners. This is even reflected in their tendency to show less jealousy in instances of infidelity. http://www.drmillslmu.com/sexdiffs/spr00/panel2.htm

 

The process of courtship, often due to shame or ostracizing, does often not include the families to the same extent. Before someone's panties get bundled realize that I'm positive you have an exception to that common belief and I'm sure it would offend that person to hear that point of view.

 

The final point is effeminate behaviors, personalities of many openly gay people. Again, I know there are exceptions. However, such men do not exemplify chivalry, manliness, and the tough as leather type of rugged American persona that is desired. Again, I realize there will be a thousand comments crucifying that point of view as I know I don't fill that kind of personality role model either. My point is that I do my best, and I'm not the antithesis of what we're trying to instill like an effeminate man would be.

 

I really don't want this to erupt into flames, but I felt you deserved an answer to your question. Getting upset and railing against me, as I expect to happen, because I hold these views only shows how oppressive the pro-gay movement has become.

 

I don't begrudge families that don't care, that's fine and let them go to a different unit. But I do care and my family won't participate in a unit with openly gay leaders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, presumably, BS-87 opposes women as leaders in the BSA and would not allow his child to belong to a unit that allowed women in leadership positions. He must also avoid district, council, and camp events where they might be involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah,

 

I think you misconstrued what I was trying to say...and I realize I wasn't as clear as I could have been, I think packsaddle did a better job of expressing it. I didn't mean to imply that hatred comes from policies, because it is an emotion that will exist regardless of policies. However, what I did mean to convey was that environments with discriminatory policies produce a breeding ground for those feelings foster. Think of it this way, how many people do you know that sit there and make derogatory comments about gays at trips, meetings, etc. when the adults are talking amongst themselves. These comments typically present themselves because the speaker feels they are in an environment where anti-gay sentiment is acceptable. What compounds this is when an impressionable youth overhears these kinds of comments, and you see where I'm going with this.

 

To quote Dropkick Murphys song The Torch "Ignorance is something you can't overcome, but you've passed it on down, and that's something much worse". And before anyone gets rattled, I'm not saying you are ignorant...its just a lyric.

 

On the gay marriage thing - yes you can "civil unions", which are the same thing as marriage, except in name. However, the struggle there (on why marriage is preferred to civil unions), is that by creating a different name, it is equivalent to saying to the gay community "You get something different, because you're different". This is the same as separate but equal...to which Thurgood Marshall said "Once you have separate, you no longer have equal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS-87,

 

Thanks for the reply. I thought that was the direction you were leaning in, but wanted to make sure. I'm sorry you hold such a stereotypical view about gay men, but I'm not going to argue with you about it. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oak, there is no way to do it with the "least amount of shockwaves", because doing it at all would result in the vast majority of troops and packs having to find new chartering organizations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BS-87 If the homosexual person chooses a wild sexual lifestyle then that action may be considered as not morally straight (not the homosexuality, but the lifestyle decision). but a heterosexual person should be held to equal accountability.. So if you have a young ASM who has a respectful relationship with one woman over a period of time, but it breaks up.. And he finds another young women to have a new respectful relationship with.. Would you throw him out for not staying true to the first women?.. So should be the treatment of a homosexuals lifestyle.. If a young heterosexual ASM is dating a different woman each night and never settles down in a relationship, would you throw him out?

The homosexual with a wild sexual lifestyle of meetings in known parks or outhouses, or picking up guys at gay bars would be considered not morally straight.. But so would heterosexuals who try out for the mile high club or have flings in elevators, or go out nightly to bars to pick up some chic..

Statically the homosexual has had a higher percent of casual arrangements.. This may not ever equal out to the percentage of heterosexuals with a monogamous relationship, but it has been rapidly improving over recent years. The reason being is that the homosexual is no longer having to hide in shame, and accept a label of being immoral simply because of the homosexual feelings. They can find support inside and outside the gay community that will tell him he is a worthwhile person, and is not already damned, and can lead and successful and moral life even being a homosexual. As more of society accepts the homosexuals, more families are able to accept their homosexual child and embrace them for who they are.. Before homosexuals felt already damned and immoral and without any support centers.. So if they could no longer respect themselves, had no reason to live clean and moral lives.. In for the penny, in for the pound..

Now with society starting to accept them for who they are, they have the ability not to hide in shame, the ability to have a support group that can tell them they are worthy for who they are. They are able to love & respect themselves and thus are able to love and respect another person and find true love.

Will it ever be that the percentage of homosexuals will settle into marriage or life-partner or at least long-lasting relationships as heterosexuals? I dont know if it will totally even out, as they do not have the procreation and raising of children as an incentive.. But the upswing of more and more homosexuals settling down to monogamous relationship does prove condemning them as sinners played a big part in a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Same as the African-American, they were seen as not an intelligent race. About 50 years back you could point to proof of it.. Those would be the ones who were intelligent but hid it, for self-preservation, and the ones that didnt try because an education would get them nowhere, and the ones who had to leave any hope of an education behind them because they had to go out and work at an early age.. Once we started to treat them with respect and as our equals, they became intellectually our equals.

As for effeminate behaviors, usually these traits are seen early on in the life of a boy who will tend to have them. I have seen some grown men within a heterosexual marriage that you would say had them (closet case?? Maybe?? Dont know).. But, if he can still command the respect and admiration of the boys (which I have seen happen).. Then rest assured they will emulate the traits the admire about him, not the whole package.. Again studies show that children can be raised by homosexual parents. Even though they can respect and admire and accept the parents for who they are, it does not increase the percentage of homosexuals within this group of children, most times parents will have a much greater influence on a childs life then a Scout Master, unless there are problems in the home. So if a homosexual parent(s) doesn't turn the child, the homosexual Scout adult leader will not either.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're assuming that I fear the kids will be turned gay. That's not the case. I realize people are born a certain way and cannot help that. People do have a choice in how they act though, and learning/teaching behaviors that are associated with homosexual culture is not acceptable for the Youth and Leaders in the Scouting movement.

 

To your promiscuous ASM example, I think you point out a good reason many young people without families yet are not usually effective Scout Leaders. They are not mature enough yet to be an effective role model in many cases. I wouldn't disqualify a young ASM, but if he were promiscuous and it was common knowledge, I'd ask for his resignation hoping that he would realize that his lifestyle does not set a good example for the Boy Scouts.

 

And here I didn't want it to flame up, but I knew that it wouldn't take too long for someone to get bent out of shape by what I said...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not bent out of shape.. Nor what do I think what I said should be something to upset you.. I would have guessed that you would not find the young man who was out with a new girl every night as a good moral example.. Not sure how you would feel about the one in long lasting relationships that don't work out..

 

I too agree that if either man was in a loose sexual lifestyle, especially if it was known to the boys, neither would be good role models..

 

I would not condemn either for respectful long lasting relationships while not married.. But, that might be where you and your units opinion may differ.. Fine by me as long as it was equally expected of each..

 

As I stated.. If the homosexuals is loose and wild, then you could say that they are not morally straight.. But, neither is a heterosexual with the same lifestyle choices.. They both should lead morally straight lives..

 

All I figured our difference was is in agreeing if homosexuality is a moral choice or not.. But, I guess not, as you stated that you are not in the camp those toting the moral choice opinion.. You are in the camp where it is a genetic condition..

 

So I guess on that, there is no difference of opinion at all.. Except that you wouldn't allow a person with a genetic condition of homosexuality into BSA who is in a steady relationship with a life-long partner.. Because ??? I don't want to put words in your mouth.. so I am just guessing here.. ??? Because you don't think there are any in the world who are in a respectful monogomous relationship, even if now they have married the person ???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I've given sufficient answer to the subject in previous posts.

 

If BSA wants to let CO's make their own choice that's fine, but my family won't be in a unit that chooses to allow homosexual leaders.

 

I know there are those with loving monogamous relationships, but allowing them in sets the precedent of allowing those that are not. I think those that are not are far more damaging to the boys than a heterosexual leader who is not. You can counsel a promiscuous heterosexual or ask for their resignation. If you try to do that for a promiscuous homosexual, you become labeled as their oppressor and next thing you know the local LGBT groups are picketing your church for being a hate-filled nazi who wants to kill all the gays.

 

It's much easier to counsel a group that doesn't feel victimized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok.. I will accept that as a reasonable explanation, and will respect that..

 

I will agree to disagree, that it is a fair reason to discriminate..

 

But, I do think that it is an intelligent argument.. There are still people who will drop the "race" card when it has nothing to do with their race, but what they are doing.. or not doing.. It is something that can frustrate me..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking me what effect a change of the gay policy would have on membership or finances?

Is a waste of time.

Truth is that I just don't know.

I really don't know enough about the LDS Church to be able to say with any knowledge where they stand on homosexuals.

Sure I've read and heard enough to kinda take it for granted that they are not in favor of homosexual behavior.

As a practicing Roman Catholic I do know that homosexuality is a sin.

While I can't talk for very many catholics, I have over the years met and dealt with a lot of very active church members who if they weren't gay? Sure seemed that way to me.

The church at the local level seemed happy to allow these guys and girls to go about performing the work they did for the church and turn a blind eye too it all.

There really doesn't seem to be any reliable numbers on how many (What percentage?) Of men are gay.

I'm willing to bet that we have a fair number of homosexual men serving as members of the BSA.

While most of them have not come out and are in the closet. They more than lightly fit the bill of being gay. (I have no idea what the bill is??)

With this in mind I tend to think it blows the idea of gays being bad role models out of the water.

I've been married for going on 30 years.

All the youth I've worked with over this time have known that I'm married. I wear my wedding ring, call my wife on the phone, many kids have visited my home and seen my wife, many know my son and yes before leaving for the weekend or camp I've been known to give my wife a good-bye kiss (More of a peck than a real kiss.)

I have never, ever, not once discussed my sex life with any youth members.

What has and does happen when it comes to that area of our life is no one's business and not something that I would talk about with hardly anyone else let alone a youth member or group of youth members.

I feel lucky that I don't feel that I have to hide the fact that I'm married and heterosexual from anyone.

As I've posted before I don't understand gay sex. Maybe this is due to the fact that I'm not gay?

I do understand how two people of the same sex can have deep feeling for each other and I suppose this is no different than the love I feel for my wife.

I think it's unfair that anyone should have to hide who they are.

I really don't think that a guy who is a good Scout Leader is going to be a bad Scout Leader just because he lives with another man? As for what they might get up to? Just like me that's no one's business.

Do we really believe that Scouts seeing two guys saying farewell and maybe giving each other a quick peck is going to change the lives of the kids that we serve? I think not.

We can beat around the bush as much as we like.

But the truth is that we belong to an organization that has chosen to discriminate.

As a private organization it is allowed to do so.

Others who see this as wrong can of course opt to not support the organization.

 

 

When it comes to membership?

I'm sure that there are some parents who strongly support the BSA and the policy. There are some who because of the policy refuse to allow their kid to join.

But there is also the group that very often seems to get forgotten about, those who just don't care one way or the other.

In the District I serve we had a Den Leader, father of four boys who left his wife to move in with his gay friend, they eventually got married.

He was a very good Den Leader when he was married to his wife. I fail to see how that might change just because he was no longer married to a woman?

While some people did voice a lot of hate toward him and his "Kind". A lot of parents seen him as just being the guy hat he always was. They didn't quit because he quit, they said it just didn't matter.

While I think the policy is wrong.

I fail to see how discrimination against a group of people can ever be right.

I also think that we as an organization do and can can do a lot of good.

I'd like to see this issue become a local issue with CO's making their own choices. But until then I'm willing to stick around just because of the good.

Ea.

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  

×