May 23rd predictions and post-vote plans

[Huzzar 39]

Does Wayne Brock have any 12 year old sons or grandsons? If so, I offer to find two gay guys that are willing to take them into a wilderness area for 10 days. Just the kids and the two gay guys. I will guarantee that the two gay guys have passed the local school's child protection background check and have watched a video about Youth Protection on BSA website.

 

Think he'll bite?

You don't trust two gay guys you've never met before even though they pass the test for best youth protection in the country. I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya. :-)

 

There is no straw man argument. It's the rubber hitting the road argument. You're the one limiting the scene to two boys. I treat two gays wanting to be away with a group of teenage boys the EXACT same way as I do two straight men wanting to be away with a group of teenage girls. Extreme suspicion.

[AZMike 173]

I say again, there are no valid reasons, other than religious, for the exclusion of gays at any level of Scouting. If the BSA is truly nonsectarian, then there is no reason to ban them. For the benefit of those concerned about gay leaders taking boys into the woods, Wayne Brock stated that we have the best youth protection program of any youth organization. So, either the BSA is a religious organization with a particular religious bias, or it isn't.

There is a difference between "moral" and "sectarian." If we don't have a base-level agreement on what "morality" means, then "non-sectarian" devolves into an individual doing what he or she feels is subjectively right - which even the most awful people do. The basis for morality is Natural Law.

 

Without arguing about sectarian, denominational views on the rightness or wrongness of homosexual acts, one can look at the Natural Law argument against homosexuality, and come to the conclusion that homosexual behavior, or insisting on an identification as one who promotes immoral behavior as a norm, is not acceptable. Natural Law is at the base of all traditional religious belief, as it can be derived from reason and reason is a God-given instrument, but it is not necessary to be sectarian, or even religious at all, to say that homosexual behavior is disordered and should not be promoted.

 

Even if we ignore all traditional religious or moral belief systems, the evidence shows that homosexual behavior is emotionally, physically, and psychologically hazardous, particularly in juveniles. The long-term physical effects of sodomy are injurious to the male body, as proctologists and urologists will tell you. The willful desire to engage in a sterile lifestyle deprives young men of one of the greatest joys they can achieve, becoming a father. The evidence that the person most likely to sexually molest a boy is another boy leads us to the conclusion that there are enormous risk factors in including a subculture of boys that want to have sex with other boys, within a group of boys in an environment such as scouting. Regardless of YS procedures, there are also enormous liability risks to any adult scout leader and CO involved in a troop where a child is molested by another boy, whether BSA will defend the leaders or CO or not.

 

The evidence from the Center for Disease Control and the other sources that have been cited on this forum in the previous months of this debate clearly reflect that a premature identification as "gay" should be discouraged.

The evidence that most of these risk factors have little or nothing to do with societal disapproval (research shows the highest reason for suicide attempts among gay youth is not societal or family disapproval, but the break-up of a sexual relationship), so changing the societal environment will have little effect on these anti-social and risk-seeking behaviors.

 

If the physical, mental, and psychological risks that are associated with homosexual behavior and self-identification in youths were associated with any other behavior or self-identification, there would be a nation-wide campaign to discourage such behavior and self-identification. We discourage smoking, alcoholism, anorexia, obesity, and bullying for far less.

 

Moral behavior tracks pretty closely with health - psychological, emotional, physical, and spiritual. If we are to be a part of an organization that promotes health and moral growth, we should discourage homosexual identification and, certainly, behavior. This is, in my opinion, a bad resolution. The current policy of discouraging sexualization of youth and vigorous youth safety policies is better than the new proposal.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

There is a difference between "moral" and "sectarian." If we don't have a base-level agreement on what "morality" means' date=' then "non-sectarian" devolves into an individual doing what he or she feels is subjectively right - which even the most awful people do. The basis for morality is Natural Law.[/quote']

 

"Natural Law" is just a synonym for "subjectively right". HTH.

 

 

[MattR 2659]

AZMike, I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some. First, there is not a consistent set of moral rules. Different religions believe different things about a few things, homosexuality in particular. I agree that "doing what he or she feels is subjectively right" is a bad idea. But my religious beliefs are different from yours. You might say that I'm not true to the bible, but I'm fairly certain you aren't either. Do you keep kosher? 2500 years ago slavery was fine. It was actually considered a good way to help slaves pay off debts. Nobody believes in that anymore, although it is in the bible. Over 2500 years society has evolved. So it's not that people are doing whatever is convenient, it's that slowly, over decades at the shortest, our definition of moral is changing.

 

Regarding your point that gay kids present a problem, you may be right. Most kids have problems because they haven't accepted who they are. Accepting that you're gay when your friends are everything has got to be hard on anyone. But is a gay kid any different than a kid that has Aspergers? I've had a few in my troop and one of them would fly off the handle and attack other kids because he couldn't read their signals. Another kid was fine, once you figured out how to talk to him. I know you don't want us to ban all kids with Aspergers. But you're right, it is a risk having a different kid around. I take a risk every time I go on a campout with the children of other parents. Climbing on rocks, throwing snowballs, starting the whole forest on fire, flying canoes from wind, tornadoes, I've been through plenty. Being prepared is important in mitigating that risk. I appreciate that you wouldn't want a gay kid in your troop. I'm willing to take that risk. I might completely screw up. But if I know that a kid is gay it's going to be a lot easier for me to deal with the risk. I'm willing to take that risk not because I think we should have gay appreciation meetings or any such crap, but because every kid comes from God, and that's why the phrase "love the stranger" is also in the bible.

[Kahuna 172]

Does Wayne Brock have any 12 year old sons or grandsons? If so, I offer to find two gay guys that are willing to take them into a wilderness area for 10 days. Just the kids and the two gay guys. I will guarantee that the two gay guys have passed the local school's child protection background check and have watched a video about Youth Protection on BSA website.

 

Think he'll bite?

Sorry, I stand corrected. No, I would feel differently about 2 known gay leaders taking a troop of kids out. Again, I would want to know them as well as I would know any Scout leader who takes kids out, regardless of any background checks. To some degree, I treat any men (or women) who want to take boys out camping with extreme suspicion unless I know them or have at least spent time watching their interaction with kids.

[AZMike 173]

There is a difference between "moral" and "sectarian." If we don't have a base-level agreement on what "morality" means' date=' then "non-sectarian" devolves into an individual doing what he or she feels is subjectively right - which even the most awful people do. The basis for morality is Natural Law.[/quote']

 

"Natural Law" is just a synonym for "subjectively right". HTH.

 

No, Merlyn.

 

"Objective Atheist Morality" is a synonym for "subjectively right."

[AZMike 173]

AZMike, I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some. First, there is not a consistent set of moral rules. Different religions believe different things about a few things, homosexuality in particular. I agree that "doing what he or she feels is subjectively right" is a bad idea. But my religious beliefs are different from yours. You might say that I'm not true to the bible, but I'm fairly certain you aren't either. Do you keep kosher? 2500 years ago slavery was fine. It was actually considered a good way to help slaves pay off debts. Nobody believes in that anymore, although it is in the bible. Over 2500 years society has evolved. So it's not that people are doing whatever is convenient, it's that slowly, over decades at the shortest, our definition of moral is changing.

 

Regarding your point that gay kids present a problem, you may be right. Most kids have problems because they haven't accepted who they are. Accepting that you're gay when your friends are everything has got to be hard on anyone. But is a gay kid any different than a kid that has Aspergers? I've had a few in my troop and one of them would fly off the handle and attack other kids because he couldn't read their signals. Another kid was fine, once you figured out how to talk to him. I know you don't want us to ban all kids with Aspergers. But you're right, it is a risk having a different kid around. I take a risk every time I go on a campout with the children of other parents. Climbing on rocks, throwing snowballs, starting the whole forest on fire, flying canoes from wind, tornadoes, I've been through plenty. Being prepared is important in mitigating that risk. I appreciate that you wouldn't want a gay kid in your troop. I'm willing to take that risk. I might completely screw up. But if I know that a kid is gay it's going to be a lot easier for me to deal with the risk. I'm willing to take that risk not because I think we should have gay appreciation meetings or any such crap, but because every kid comes from God, and that's why the phrase "love the stranger" is also in the bible.

MattR, I will respectfully have to disagree with some of your disagreements.

 

Yes, there is a consistent set of moral rules. See the appendix of C.S. Lewis's book "The Abolition of Man" for examples of the common laws of morality in most every culture and religion, which is part of Natural Law. The details may differ, but the base rules are there. Those rules have always held homosexual behavior to be wrong.

 

Until quite recently, all major religions agreed that homosexual acts were wrong. Under pressure from secular society, some denominations have changed their beliefs to accommodate an acceptance of homosexual acts (as opposed t0 accepting the sinner and encouraging him or her not to sin). That does not change the basis of morality, anymore than a denomination suddenly discovering, under the influence of a new generation of theologically liberal leadership that any other activity they have taught against for millennia - abortion, or adultery, to use another - may be okay if it is done out of "love" or simply "rights."

 

At least you accept, from what you wrote, that homosexual behavior is not in accordance with the Bible. No, I don't keep kosher, but then I am not Jewish and am not held under the works of the Mosaic Law. The Bible (the collection of texts that include the Old and New Testaments) quite clearly states that Christians are not bound to keep Jewish dietary laws. Christ and His disciples Peter and Paul both continued to preach against sexual immorality, passing on what they received from Christ as part of the deposit of faith, and the early Church fathers continued to hold the same beliefs on the immorality of homosexual behavior.

 

Likewise, the Israelites of the Old Testament were allowed to keep slaves, but only as prisoners of war - the Israelites, as nomadic desert people, didn't have prisons, so they were allowed to keep POWs to work for them, under standards that were remarkably compassionate given the standards of the era. You mention that nobody believes it is acceptable to keep people against their will to make them pay off debts anymore, but that is exactly what prison industries do now - prisoners (slaves by any other name) are made to work off their debt to society and their victims. I live not far from the POW camps in Arizona where captured Nazis were made to work in the agricultural fields around Phoenix during WWII. How is what your government did, and does, different from what the Israelites did?

 

Unjust slavery - slaves who were taken against their will for no crime and no reason other than the profit of the slavetakers - was forbidden by the OT and was forbidden for Jews and later, Christians. The early Christians were not in a position to overthrow the institution of chattel slavery (many were themselves slaves) but the teachings of compassion and the shared humanity of slaves eventually led to the end of the institution with the christianization of Europe. The teachings and actions of the early Church fathers - St. Paul, St. Augustine, St. Nicholas, St. Patrick, among many others - ended the immoral practice. The Church continued to lead the battle against African and New World slave trafficking, and Christians and Jews were the primary leaders of the Abolition movement (even as many of the most prominent atheists and free thinkers of the Enlightenment supported the African slave trade).

 

Slavery was wrong then, Homosexuality was wrong then, both are wrong now. No, morality doesn't change.

 

We should love the stranger, as you say, and we should love the sinner, but there is nothing to say we should love the sin. If, as you seem to agree, the behavior itself is wrong, should we accept it and accept that scouts should define themselves by it, or can we say that it is wrong, and advise scouts NOT to do it - to be morally straight?

 

It's all very well that you are willing to accept boys in your troop who define themselves by their preferred sex acts. I don't think that has a place in scouting. As scouts are involved in things like summer camps, many parents will not be comfortable with their kids going to camps with other troops who may accept kids who are bisexual or homosexual. You can understand that, right? And you can understand that there are many other youth leadership training options for youths who do want to define themselves by an interest in sex with other boys. The BSA is a grand institution, but it's not so important that every boy be a member that we should need to change its traditional standards to accommodate a radical change. Every kid may come from God, but so do all bullies, racists, alcoholics, and drug addicts. We are allowed to discourage that kind of behavior as well.

[Peregrinator 85]

Ou CO Executive Officer has already written our Council Scout Executive stating our CO may not renew their charter next year if the membership policy changes. It would require a vote of the CO membership to do this, but it is a very real possiblity. I'm carrying on as business-as-usual with the Pack as if nothing is happening. If the policy changes, my personal future in Scouting is uncertain.

 

I am in a conservative District with conservative CO's and I do believe that the CO's will practice local membership automomny

 

Scouts Canada may have better looking uniforms, but that's all they have. They have suffered massive losses in membership since they changed their membership policy years ago. The BSA does not need to be looking to them for enlightenment. A quick google search for Scouts Canada and you will find the stories and numbers.

 

http://www.scoutscan.com/issues/membershipstats.html'>http://www.scoutscan.com/issues/membershipstats.html

" Meanwhile in the UK, they've also allowed gays and their membership is growing so fast they have to limit membership due to a shortage of adult leaders. Post hoc. "

 

Meanwhile, in Canada:

http://www.scoutscan.com/issues/membershipstats.html

 

I don't have statistics handy for the UK Scout Association. It would be interesting to see them, especially if they're broken out by section.

 

(Note that I'm not claiming the stats say that allowing homosexuals results in a decline in membership. But it clearly doesn't turn an existing decline around.)

[EmberMike 144]

I say again, there are no valid reasons, other than religious, for the exclusion of gays at any level of Scouting. If the BSA is truly nonsectarian, then there is no reason to ban them. For the benefit of those concerned about gay leaders taking boys into the woods, Wayne Brock stated that we have the best youth protection program of any youth organization. So, either the BSA is a religious organization with a particular religious bias, or it isn't.

AZMike, you're assuming that homosexuality is a choice. I have yet to see any compelling evidence to support that.

 

Morality is irrelevant when we're talking about something that people have no more say in than you or I have in our heterosexuality.

[Basementdweller 608]

Got an email over the weekend that says our council is casting all of it's votes in support of the resolution.....

[ThomasJefferson 33]

REading about how there is a universal morality is tedious. There is no such thing and never has been.

 

The only universal truth amongst the mobs of humans who populate this world is that most of them act in their own best interest and within the limits of what their fellows in whatever culture they live in will allow.

 

In Saudi Arabia it is OK to behead a man for setting foot in Mecca and not being Muslim. In some countries, chopping off someone's hand is OK. In our country, the death penalty is OK, and apparently so is putting a rather disturbingly large portion of our citizens behind bars.

 

There is no universal morality.

 

There is universal negative reactions from others when you try to take their stuff or harm them. That's about it. If you want to cite Natural Law, that is all you can cite.

 

Everything else is just cultural rules and citing supposed holy books as part of a power grab.

 

[click23 66]

What I found interesting after watching the video conference on National's website is that allowing gay scouts will be all inclusive and not be at the discretion of any CO. That means that if if gay boy wants to join an LDS troop, a Catholic troop or any other conservative groups troop the CO will be unable to deny him membership with the current wording of the proposal. IMHO I do not see the LDS and many other CO's with an anti gay position remaining in scouting. I think the BSA shot themselves in the foot once again by not giving the CO the option based on their religious principles. If this passes on May 23rd we all may be witnessing the beginning of the demise of boy scouting. Yet another case of National trying to mandate to the CO's an unenforceable policy. Maybe it is time to bring back Woodcraft Rangers, Sons of Daniel Boone, etc.

Then if ALL units say no thanks, then it is. If they all do who determines where the young man will go?

[Huzzar 39]

What I found interesting after watching the video conference on National's website is that allowing gay scouts will be all inclusive and not be at the discretion of any CO. That means that if if gay boy wants to join an LDS troop, a Catholic troop or any other conservative groups troop the CO will be unable to deny him membership with the current wording of the proposal. IMHO I do not see the LDS and many other CO's with an anti gay position remaining in scouting. I think the BSA shot themselves in the foot once again by not giving the CO the option based on their religious principles. If this passes on May 23rd we all may be witnessing the beginning of the demise of boy scouting. Yet another case of National trying to mandate to the CO's an unenforceable policy. Maybe it is time to bring back Woodcraft Rangers, Sons of Daniel Boone, etc.

Now you're just being silly.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No' date=' Merlyn. "Objective Atheist Morality" is a synonym for "subjectively right."[/quote']

 

 

Sorry AZ, anyone using the term "natural law" is really only trying to boost their own opinion by claiming some sort of argument from authority. Your inventing of "Objective Atheist Morality" is what's called a red herring argument, to avoid the subject.

 

I certainly don't argue for "Objective Atheist Morality" and I never have.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ou CO Executive Officer has already written our Council Scout Executive stating our CO may not renew their charter next year if the membership policy changes. It would require a vote of the CO membership to do this, but it is a very real possiblity. I'm carrying on as business-as-usual with the Pack as if nothing is happening. If the policy changes, my personal future in Scouting is uncertain.

 

I am in a conservative District with conservative CO's and I do believe that the CO's will practice local membership automomny

 

Scouts Canada may have better looking uniforms, but that's all they have. They have suffered massive losses in membership since they changed their membership policy years ago. The BSA does not need to be looking to them for enlightenment. A quick google search for Scouts Canada and you will find the stories and numbers.

 

http://www.scoutscan.com/issues/membershipstats.html

Peregrinator, did you somehow miss Jeffrey H's original comment, which had the exact same link? My response was just to refuse his post hoc fallacy that the decline in Canada was caused by allowing gays, by showing that the UK hasn't suffered in a similar fashion. Do keep up.