Jump to content

Thank god your here......


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, we should all be opposing the attempt to redifing marriage from "Marry the person you love" to "Marry a person of the opposite sex"

 

It's only very recently that anyone has even associated marriage with the modern conception of love. People have been marrying for reasons other than love since time immemorial. Besides, love is an act of the will; it's not like we have no control over whom we love. If I fall in love with a married woman do I have the right to marry her? Is that part of the definition of "marriage" to which you adhere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The above said, I agree with the idea of local option. IMHO, our current position will lead to BSA eventually being forced into the position of allowing gay leaders regardless of CO opinion. The local option will allow groups that wish to stay traditional in terms of gay leaders to stay traditional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawsuits, public pressure, etc. IMHO, if we allow the local option idea, the pressure will be off to make changes. I believe in compromise, and in the idea of local governance on most things. Basically said, I don't mind what you do in your troop, there are certain things I don't want to go on in my troop. I don't believe that homosexual males are appropriate role models for boys in a values-based organization. I do think that your views may vary, and I have no problem with you choosing others to be role models in your local organization.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, "local option" is a myth. Here's how it will play out:

- policy is removed

- leader of unit 666 in CO X identifies as non-heterosexual

- COR or IH attempts to remove him/her on principle

- co-leaders (in the same unit or outside) rally to his/her side citing BSA's newly minted open sexual orientation policy

- Council staff tries to explain COR's prerogative to concerned leaders, but the person in question has very strong ties to 666

- leaders appeal to the courts or press (whoever listens) "Discrimnation continues in BSA"

- blogs and chat rooms copy headline ... it's pointed out that other scout assossiations (e.g. UK have) no such option.

- pressure on National to impose "non-discrimination" on every level.

 

Like it or not, progressives and reactionaries, we're all in this together.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to bring up the same point. The whole idea of local option as it's currently practiced with gender and religion, is that the CO can set their own membership standards and I'm not aware of any litigation or legal issues with units that don't allow women in certain leadership roles or units that only accept members of a specific religion.

 

SA

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems there is a misunderstanding of the local option. Local Option simply is the option of sponsoring a BSA unit. Once National takes away membership requirements, the sponsoring organization is left without cover for not accepting gay leaders. Given the choice, sponsoring no unit is a lot less hassle.

 

Barry

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, in regards to this topic, local option is an extension of the already existing local option. Right now, a unit can decide if it wishes to discriminate based on faith or gender in regards to unit leadership. A unit can also decide if it wishes to discriminate based on faith in regards to youth membership.

 

None of this has triggered a lawsuit to my knowledge, nor has it caused Charter Orgs to drop for fear of a lawsuit from a Jewish group wanting in a Catholic Troop, or a women's group suing for the right to be an ASM. My unit did not get an attorney when we had our Council Summer Camp registration cancelled so that LDS units could have an all LDS summer camp.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"the sponsoring organization is left without cover for not accepting gay leaders."

 

Exactly. If they feel strongly about the leadership qualities of gay individuals they will be free to not accept them. But they will have to do so based on their own convictions and not hide behind a "National" policy. It's currently the same way for women or religion.

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
×
×
  • Create New...