Bsa Considering Ending Ban On Homosexuals

[Scott Lloyd]

Absolutely talk it through with your bishopric.

If the matter ever came up (and I don't expect it will) I would definitely make full disclosure to the bishop and, as you say, "talk it through" with him.

But if you're called to work in scouts, one of your primary responsibilities is to help the boys progress through the scouting program.

As I said, that could be a matter of how one chooses to interpret his responsibilities.

I can't imagine a church troop that would not encourage boys to attain Eagle.

Perhaps you need to expand your imagination. As I've indicated, I'm perfectly comfortable with the idea of a Scout leader helping a boy set and achieve individualized goals that may or may not include working through the array of institutional ranks and earning all the badges and paraphernalia.

(And by the same logic, it seems that if someone is not comfortable helping a scout obtain Eagle, they would also not be comfortable helping them obtain Life, 2nd Class, 50-miler, or any other scouting award).

I don't think you're understanding me. I can imagine someone in Saints Alive's position, for his own reasons, giving back his Eagle rank in protest as a matter of conscience but, at the same time, offering his service and talents to a boy who wants to achieve that goal in his own life. I see no inconsistency here.

It is one thing to work with boys who really have no interest in scouting and say to them "ok, lets find something in this program that works for you". It is quite another to be called as a scout leader and say you don't believe in the scouting program.

I don't think that's what Saints Alive is saying here. But he is free to clarify.

One possible solution would be to conclude that scouting is no longer a basis for teaching sexual morality.

If that were to happen, I should think it would lose much of its value to us in the Church.

Let me pose a question to you:

As a father of three sons, I want them to grow up to be worthy men of character and morality, but I am pretty much indifferent as to whether they achieve the rank of Eagle Scout. To me, it is a tool that may work for some people but not necessarily for all. If it's a goal that they want to set for themselves, I'll do what I can to help them, but to me, it's not an essential.

In your opinion, should my leaders call me to repentance for my casual attitude with regard to encouraging (or pressuring) my boys to achieve Eagle?

[Sleeper Cell]

I'm all for protecting the youth first. But the only way to give 100% protection is to keep them from society. Walking to school, trick-or-treating, etc. all carry risk. Any interaction between youth and adult carries a risk of abuse. But by your own admission, this risk is no higher for gay adults than straight adults. So if we exclude gay adult leaders in order to better protect the youth, we should also exclude straight adult leaders .... which of course would leave us with no leaders.

In this world, very few things are 100%. That does not mean that we shouldn’t take reasonable steps to minimize obviously foreseeable risks.

You misunderstood my argument (or, perhaps I made it poorly). The risk of a boy being molested is higher from gay male adults than from non-gay male adults, even though only a tiny fraction of gay male adults are pedophiles. I believe that gay pedophile men are far more likely to molest boys than are non-gay pedophile men. I also believe that non-gay pedophile men are far more likely to molest girls than gay pedophile men. Therefore, the risk for boys is greater from gay male adult leaders than from non-gay male adult leaders.

If no gay men were scout leaders, there would be no gay pedophile scout leaders. Obviously, there is no way to make sure that no gay men become scout leaders, just as there is no way to make sure that gay pedophile men do not become scout leaders. However, prohibiting all gay men from becoming scout leaders would make it less likely that there will be gay male pedophile scout leaders.

BTW, I suppose that one could use my reasoning to argue that only gay males should be allowed to occupy the “priesthood cabin” at girls camp. Of course, the cases aren’t quite the same because the primary interaction of the girls is with their adult female leaders. But it would make an interesting discussion.

[Scott Lloyd]

It just occurred to me, how is this self-determination policy going to work when it comes to things like summer camp, jamborees, and camporees? I know the church Venture groups aren't allowed to participate in co-Ed activities. How will we know which summer camps we can go to?

Yes, someone else on this thread raised that question earlier.

There are some serious implications to consider here.

[go_utes01]

Of course not. What I said in my post was that my attractions, not the action on those attractions, do not need to be changed. Even if I were to never act on my attraction to men, I would rather spend eternity in hell than to be "fixed" or "rewired" to be heterosexual in heaven.

Ok, you are free to have your opinion. I was just highlighting the problematic nature of the term "gay." You jumped on Robert for saying it is not ok to be gay. I was trying to explain that he might not interpret the term in the same way you do. To some, the term "gay" connotes indulging same sex attractions. That is why I prefer SSA to the term gay - it is more descriptive and less prone to misunderstandings.

Edited January 28, 2013 by go_utes01

[Buckeye]

It just occurred to me, how is this self-determination policy going to work when it comes to things like summer camp, jamborees, and camporees? I know the church Venture groups aren't allowed to participate in co-Ed activities. How will we know which summer camps we can go to?

The same way we know which community service projects we can attend. When the youth in my ward do a joint service project at the local food pantry, no one checks to see if any of the food pantry staff are homosexuals. We don't care. Same thing with scout camps.

Really, come on. We are sending these youth off at 18/19 to serve missions. There they are on the front lines with all kinds of behavior the church disagrees with. Maybe going to a camp where the Environmental Science instructor is gay will help prepare the young man for a few years later when he is stuck in Rio in the middle of Mardi Gras. I have no worries about the youth.

[Scott Lloyd]

Of course not. What I said in my post was that my attractions, not the action on those attractions, do not need to be changed. Even if I were to never act on my attraction to men, I would rather spend eternity in hell than to be "fixed" or "rewired" to be heterosexual in heaven.

When I was a boy, I enjoyed watching professional wrestling on television. I used to think I would always be a pro-wrestling fan, and it could not be heaven for me without it.

Pro-wrestling no longer holds any appeal for me.

[go_utes01]

I have no worries about the youth.

We must live in totally different worlds. I have plenty of worries for the youth and the adults.

[Saints Alive]

The same way we know which community service projects we can attend. When the youth in my ward do a joint service project at the local food pantry, no one checks to see if any of the food pantry staff are homosexuals. We don't care. Same thing with scout camps.

That depends on what stance the church takes. If we take the position that it is inappropriate for homosexuals to be scout leaders, how can we send our boys to camps where there are gay scout leaders? It's hypocritical at best.

[Sleeper Cell]

Wait? I thought you previously said "I do not believe that the percentage of pedophiles in the gay population is any greater than the percentage of pedophiles in the non-gay population." So why would you be concerned that a boy with some gay leaders would be more at risk than a boy with zero gay leaders?

Because I believe that a boy is far more likely to be molested by a gay male pedophile than by a non-gay male pedophile.

[Damien the Leper]

When I was a boy, I enjoyed watching professional wrestling on television. I used to think I would always be a pro-wrestling fan, and it could not be heaven for me without it.

Pro-wrestling no longer holds any appeal for me.

Definitely NOT the same thing. My attractions and sexual orientations cannot be reduced to a hobby or fascination. Besides, I would sound so stupid if I were to imply such about heterosexuality.

[Buckeye]

As a father of three sons, I want them to grow up to be worthy men of character and morality, but I am pretty much indifferent as to whether they achieve the rank of Eagle Scout. To me, it is a tool that may work for some people but not necessarily for all. If it's a goal that they want to set for themselves, I'll do what I can to help them, but to me, it's not an essential.

In your opinion, should my leaders call me to repentance for my casual attitude with regard to encouraging (or pressuring) my boys to achieve Eagle?

Scott, for the first time I think we may be having a civil discourse. I therefore apologize that I need to leave for home and FHE. Hopefully this post can answer your questions.

I am not one of the people who thinks Eagle is mandatory. I have no intent of withholding a driver's license if my boys fail to achieve the rank. But I do find value in it and will encourage them pursue the achievement. Same thing as with Duty To God - if they fail to achieve it, they will still be found worthy in my eyes and I will hope they serve missions and become great fathers. (FWIW, I put a higher emphasis on DTG than Eagle, as does the church).

In that light, I think a scout leader has a responsibility to encourage his boys to work towards Eagle. "Encourage" does not mean to be over bearing. But it needs to be set up as a goal. For most boys, that goal will not be reached, yet the program will have hopefully benefited them. I see it kind of like the YM organization having the goal for all YM to serve missions. Most YM will not. But the leaders still put up that goal.

[Scott Lloyd]

Definitely NOT the same thing. My attractions and sexual orientations cannot be reduced to a hobby or fascination.

Something need not be sexual to be extremely absorbing.

[Damien the Leper]

Something need not be sexual to be extremely absorbing.

But equating a natural/biological (non-mistake) sexual proclivity that seeks to do no harm with a hobby is proposterous.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Valentinus

[Buckeye]

That depends on what stance the church takes. If we take the position that it is inappropriate for homosexuals to be scout leaders, how can we send our boys to camps where there are gay scout leaders? It's hypocritical at best.

I doubt the church will take that position, but we'll see. The church says that homosexual activity is a sin. But (at least in my stake) we do not particularly care if the person who drives the charter bus to take youth to Nauvoo is a practicing homosexual. It just doesn't matter. Likewise, when we take our youth to the local ice skating rink for an activity, we do not care if any of the employees are practicing homosexuals. So why would we care scout leaders if other troops or a camp are practicing homosexuals? Our youth are exposed to practicing homosexuals every day - from their teachers to their sports coaches to co-employees. It is simply impractical to think that we can keep them from coming into contact with practicing homosexuals.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Buckeye

[rockpond]

The way to enforce it would be to revoke or deny the charter -- which they could do easily enough.

Couldn't we just say: "Sorry, we don't even know any non-celibate gay men within our organization to invite to serve."? (Which in my current ward would be 100% true.)

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, for the first time I think we may be having a civil discourse.

Heh. I have no clear memory of our past interactions, but it's regrettable if they were marked by incivility.

I therefore apologize that I need to leave for home and FHE. Hopefully this post can answer your questions.

Don't apologize. Your family is far more important than any Internet chat.

I am not one of the people who thinks Eagle is mandatory. I have no intent of withholding a driver's license if my boys fail to achieve the rank.

Good for you.

But I do find value in it and will encourage them pursue the achievement.

That's fine. I think I myself said as much when I indicated I would help my boys achieve it if that's where their interest lies. I would do so as well if I were ever in the position of Scout leader. The desires of his parents would, of course, have some bearing on the matter as well.

Same thing as with Duty To God - if they fail to achieve it, they will still be found worthy in my eyes and I will hope they serve missions and become great fathers. (FWIW, I put a higher emphasis on DTG than Eagle, as does the church).

I have no quarrel with that.

In that light, I think a scout leader has a responsibility to encourage his boys to work towards Eagle. "Encourage" does not mean to be over bearing. But it needs to be set up as a goal.

A possible goal. Other goals could be equally as beneficial in some cases.

But as I said, if the matter ever comes up, I will try to make my position clear to the bishopric member extending the call and then leave it up to him whether or not to follow through.

For most boys, that goal will not be reached, yet the program will have hopefully benefited them. I see it kind of like the YM organization having the goal for all YM to serve missions. Most YM will not. But the leaders still put up that goal.

There's a difference. Missionary service is a priesthood mandate; Eagle Scout is not.

I notice you did not directly answer my question. I take it, then, that you do not see me as a candidate for reclamation because I have a too-casual attitude about the Eagle Scout rank.

[Scott Lloyd]

Couldn't we just say: "Sorry, we don't even know any non-celibate gay men within our organization to invite to serve."? (Which in my current ward would be 100% true.)

Depending on how stringent the national organization is, that may not work very well for very long.

[Scott Lloyd]

But equating a natural/biological (non-mistake) sexual proclivity that seeks to do no harm with a hobby is proposterous.

Not in an LDS paradigm, which holds that the frailties and afflictions of earthly mortality will all be removed in the resurrection. (And I think the jury is still out on whether it's natural or a mistake.)

Edited January 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[halconero]

Let's ban gays from leadership positions in the church as well...a loose gay executive secretary might use his calling to influence others seeking a meeting with the Bishop into full blown homosexuality...............

...................yeah I'm having a hard time not laughing at my own post in derision.........

[Scott Lloyd]

Let's ban gays from leadership positions in the church as well...a loose gay executive secretary might use his calling to influence others seeking a meeting with the Bishop into full blown homosexuality...............

...................yeah I'm having a hard time not laughing at my own post in derision.........

Sorry, but it seems rather ham-handed to me.

[Damien the Leper]

Let's ban gays from leadership positions in the church as well...a loose gay executive secretary might use his calling to influence others seeking a meeting with the Bishop into full blown homosexuality...............

...................yeah I'm having a hard time not laughing at my own post in derision.........

Still gonna move to Canada! You and Duncan are my primary motivation.

[Damien the Leper]

Not in an LDS paradigm, which holds that the frailties and afflictions of earthly mortality will all be removed in the resurrection. (And I think the jury is still out on whether it's natural or a mistake.)

I honestly don't care what science or religion have to say about my attraction to other men. That is irrelevent. I know myself, I know the reality of my attraction and there is absolutely nothing either science or religion can do to persuade me otherwise. It's really that simple.

[Scott Lloyd]

I honestly don't care what science or religion have to say about my attraction to other men. That is irrelevent. I know myself, I know the reality of my attraction and there is absolutely nothing either science or religion can do to persuade me otherwise. It's really that simple.

Just as I knew how intensely interested I was in watching Krusher Kowalski and Ox Anderson battle it out on local television. I never thought I would change in that respect.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[halconero]

Sorry, but it seems rather ham-handed to me.

As does the idea that a gay Boy Scout leader will lead his troop into a sexual orientation of any type or use his powers to molest the kids. As I said earlier, a scout leader of any sexual orientation who started going into explicit detail about his sexuality, rather than teaching kids how to tie knots, start fires and pitch tents would be removed pretty right quick.

[Damien the Leper]

Just as I knew how intensely interested I was in watching Krusher Kowalski and Ox Anderson battle it out on local television. I never thought I would change in that respect.

Well, you watching that fake sport says more about you than those actually performing it.