packsaddle Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 Thanks Scoutnut for noting that. (in triplicate, lol) I was almost ready to believe SeattlePioneer's assertion and had decided not to mention that around here there are several men who are Girl Scout leaders. I didn't want them to get in trouble. They started as fathers but their daughters have gone on to college and they were so good at it that the community basically asked them to continue if they wanted. Well, one has moved away so I guess he doesn't count anymore. But otherwise it's working pretty well as far as I can tell. Of course, down here we're just a bastion of liberal thought...NOT. Edit: thanks Lisa for noting the difference between skepticism and promoting a conspiracy theory.(This message has been edited by packsaddle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 >>Again? Really? Please stop spreading nonsense when you have no first hand knowledge. GSUSA DOES have men in their program - ESPECIALLY fathers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 First of all Lisa, I am a proponent of "local option" as well. But, I am really skeptical of the way these things are orchestrated by the political arm of the Gay rights movement. It does far more harm than good to local units, as we then have to deal with the idiots that do not understand we simply do not discuss it with scouts. A conspiracy? No, I think it is a politically oriented attack that is not necessary or constructive. He chose, supposedly to "come out" publicly; then he feels the need to tell the world how mistreated he is. Sorry, but currently that is the exact thing that would happen; it is not like it should be a surprise. It is much like the similar "coming out" of a Santa Barbara executive a few years back. It was orchestrated to fit into the agenda of the local groups. BSA did not make it a public thing; he did by his own admission. It is the continued politicizing of the issue that annoys me; because their goal has little or nothing to do with the best interests of the units or the members thereof. This is how I see it. I do not hate Gays; I do not discuss the life styles of adults with the scouts; I do not try to determine if a scout may be struggling with the issue of sexuality. These are not part of the program; they are personal things that should remain personal and within the families. Certainly they should not be used as political clubs to the detriment of the scout members. The problem with these kind of stories, and the slant the press uses, is that a few ultra radical individuals feel the need to verbally, and even occasionally physically attack the youth and that is unacceptable. And please do not tell me I am making this up; I have seen it happen personally more than once. No one says people do not have a right to their own opinions. But the rights go both ways. JMO of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasE61 Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 My thought is that he probably wrote the letter because he could no longer stand the hypocrisy of being gay in an organization that is openly anti-gay. It would be the same for a non-believer as well. I've burned many a personal bridge for myself over the years solely because not doing so made me feel like a hypocrite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortridge Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I do not discuss the life styles of adults with the scouts Skeptic: Have you or any one of your fellow leaders ever had a conversation about your wife/husband/boyfriend/girlfriend within earshot of a Scout? Have you ever mentioned or joked casually in earshot of Scouts about your w/h/b/g doing laundry, cooking a meal, watching a movie with you, sharing a good book, attending a sporting event, taking too much time in the shower, getting ill, sewing a patch on your uniform, picking up your kids or calling you at work? Has your w/h/b/gs ever driven Scouts on a trip or attended a unit meeting or has registered as a committee member? If married, do you wear a wedding band? ... If you answered in the affirmative to any of those, you are being openly heterosexual. And by your own rules, you should not be allowed in Scouting. In so many little ways, we Scouters discuss the "life styles of adults" with our Scouts, though we may not recognize it. How difficult would it be for you to go through a day or a week without doing any of those things publicly? That's what a don't-ask, don't-tell policy requires. For some reason, DADT proponents think it's just fine to require gays and lesbians to follow that - we can't have them being openly gay! -- but would be righteously offended if someone suggested that they stop talking about their w/h/b/g. (This message has been edited by shortridge) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 skeptic writes: "The problem with these kind of stories, and the slant the press uses, is that a few ultra radical individuals feel the need to verbally, and even occasionally physically attack the youth and that is unacceptable." Well yes, of course attacking children is unacceptable. But I'm not sure why you felt a need to bring this up, as I saw absolutely nothing in the news article that suggests otherwise. Did you read the article? You need to do better than this, to justify why this person shouldn't peacefully and rationally share his concerns on an issue that matters to him, and that has been in the news lately. Also, if the BSA doesn't want these kinds of news stories to continue popping up, then perhaps the BSA should examine what it is about their own policies and choices that cause stories like this to occur, in the first place. Now if the problem is really that you dislike the way the story was covered and felt it was too sympathetic, how about writing an op/ed or a letter to the editor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Well said, Shortridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WasE61 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 "I do not discuss the life styles of adults with the scouts..." I beg to differ.... every time you stand with your troop and say "...Morally Straight..." you are discussing life styles and your specific opinion of it. Or is the meaning of "Morally Straight" a local option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beavah Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 In so many little ways, we Scouters discuss the "life styles of adults" with our Scouts, though we may not recognize it. Yep, and I think that's the primary reason why da large majority of those holdin' BSA charters don't want to change the policy, eh? They don't want to teach the kids in their care to view homosexual relationships as normal and acceptable, because they have different views. That's also exactly why this has become an agenda-driven lobbying effort, because da goal really isn't access to a private organization like the BSA. There's already access, as this fellow's membership demonstrated. Da goal is to teach children that various homosexual relationships are normal and acceptable, and somethin' for lads to consider. Da issue isn't about discriminatin' against gays, it's about privileged access to the hearts and minds of impressionable young folks. Beavah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Well, now you people are simply reaching to the point of foolishness. There is a difference between simply living your life within the view of others and making it a public issue. If you cannot see that, then you are not as bright as you seem to think. As far as the specific case, and a number of similar ones, they have obviously been prompted by the political arm of the Gay movement to keep the controversy regularly in view. He did not have to make this decision and immediately go to a reporter. The exec in So Cal did not have to come out and immediately bring in the reporters. The Gay rights groups have actually published their plans, as has been linked in these forums; and they have done an admirable job of keeping the pressure on. And because they do this, they continue to affect the youth and leaders who really do not care about any of it, but simply want to run their units and have fun. The groups most in the forefront of all this could care less about the actual BSA. They simply want to force changes to a group that they mostly do not even want to be part of, simply for a political cause. And, their methods, especially accusing the scouts of teaching hate and suggesting they actively look to keep boys or adults out is nonsense. We continue to come back to the fact that being a Scout, or and Elk, or a member of Toastmasters, or many other groups is a choice. Hopefully National will evolve soon, or simply return to what was in place before the Gay rights groups took on the issue for whatever reason, which was local option with the CO approving the leaders. That is why it did not really cause problems until it somehow became the cause celebre of the ACLU and other PC proponents and forced National to make what most of us agree now was a poor decision on how to respond. As I have said before, I just hope that you do not spread these attitudes to the youth in the program. I will now try and not let these things push my buttons for a while, but there really is NO reasoning with many here. There is simply no middle ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lisabob Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 skeptic, are you familiar with Dale (I am certain you must be)? That's the "whatever reason" you seem to be searching for. The policy that BSA has asserted, vigorously, since about 2000 is the issue. The BSA's stance in Dale is the issue. You're pretty much correct that we used to have a "local option." That was, until Dale, when the BSA chose to elucidate a different position. Don't blame "gay rights groups" for a decision made and sustained by the BSA. A Scout is Obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them. Sounds pretty much exactly like what this fellow did! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horizon Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 "they have obviously been prompted by the political arm of the Gay movement " Who or what is this political arm of the Gay movement that got this guy to go public? Do you have an address, a spokesperson, or anything else? There are many gay rights groups focusing on different issues, and then there are many gays who stay out of it. Do you think there is a central organizing Gay Mafia that pulls the strings of groups like the AIDs Coalition, the Pink Pistols and the Log Cabin Republicans? The reason this hits the news? - It is August, a typically slow news month. - Once again we have a leader who has to quit. - Thanks to the prior recent articles, this makes it easier to report on without needing to explain to the readers the complete background. - Boy Scouts have a big enough presence in the public eye that it makes for an article that people will read. - It will trigger letters to the editor and the usual trolls and troglodytes on the internet to comment on the paper's website, driving traffic. After all, who cares about a single country club admitting women? I don't play golf, I don't watch the Masters, and I think that the green jackets are ugly as sin. However, Condi Rice was a professor of mine so I was interested when she became one of the first two women to become a member. Instead of covering the protests at the Masters next year, at most there will be one article commenting on if Condi is present (nobody will care about the other woman - she is a local not a national figure). Why did this guy go public with his leaving - maybe he felt it was the right thing to do. I am sure that his CO and his unit knew of his orientation, given his partner and sons. Obviously on the local level there was not an issue - so his decision to out himself to the Council and resign was an action to raise awareness of here again is a leader we are losing. He is a living contradiction to those who wish to claim that there are not gays who want to help, they just want to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Beavah says: Da goal is to teach children that various homosexual relationships are normal and acceptable, and somethin' for lads to consider. Whose goal is that, Beavah? Me? Lisabob? Acco? Horizon? Calico? The rest of the dozens of people in this forum who think there should be local option? To whom exactly are you ascribing the goal of teaching children that a particular lifestyle is "something for the lads to consider"? Or is this some theoretical "lobbying effort" that I bet nobody on "my side" of the issue in this forum has ever seen or heard of? So, whose goal, Beavah? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 Well, I'm just thankful that the BSA didn't allow that horribly bad role model Condoleezza Rice into our organization. Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Stanford Professor and Provost, National Security Council member, Phi Beta Kappa member, Notre Dame grad (cum laude), accomplished pianist, etc. but possibly gay so we can't take any chances! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 22, 2012 Share Posted August 22, 2012 skeptic writes: That is why it did not really cause problems until it somehow became the cause celebre of the ACLU and other PC proponents and forced National to make what most of us agree now was a poor decision on how to respond. The ACLU is not a "PC" proponent, it's a civil liberties proponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now