Desnews: 33 Scout Councils Ask Bsa To Delay Decision

[Saints Alive]

The military seems to regard it as having value.

Not really, they promote you to E3 after basic training (only E2 in the marines). Most people make E3 within 6mo to 1yr after boot camp, in the Army anyway, if you have a pulse and can pass a PT test you make E3.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is all you have to be is gay to be kicked out of scouting. The BSA does NOT curently have a policy that if you are a celibate gay person you can be in scouting. Their policy is strictly if you are gay, you can not be in their program. At no time has BSA stated that celibacy is the determining factor. If you are gay and a member of the church, do you really think that the church should start a program where they encourage a youth to not talk about this issue in their lives? Should a youth not go to anyone in the church to receive help in dealing with this problem until when, after they are 18?

Check my prior post. I've already allowed that a clarification in the language of the existing policy to permit the inclusion of gay-but-celibate individuals would be a reasonable accommodation.

[Saints Alive]

If the Church is serious, (and I assume it is) about its outreach to LDS member who identify with SSA, as portrayed on the mormonsandgays.org website, then it seems to be a no-brainer that the Church would support a BSA policy that would embrace all boys into the program and use the resources of that program to teach ALL of them skills that will help keep them chaste. That would probably include taking advantage of the experience of men who identify with SSA to help boys understand that they can be upright Latter-day Saints and successful scouts even if their sexual orientation is not like everyone else's. Any other approach by the Church may cause its stated position to be viewed with some level of cynicism.

Except the BSA isn't changing to SSA but celibate people can be members, the policy change would allow open, avowed, married, and practicing gays to be members. That is something that the church could conceivably be against.

[Scott Lloyd]

An actual eagle? I would think that would be very unusual and could only take place where someone made a hobby of it (falconer for example).

They had somebody from Tracy Aviary in Salt Lake City bring in a live eagle to one of our pack meetings (Cub Scouts) on one occasion.

Perhaps it happens on occasion at Eagle courts of honor, but I'm certain it's not required or even common.

[Scott Lloyd]

If the Church is serious, (and I assume it is) about its outreach to LDS member who identify with SSA, as portrayed on the mormonsandgays.org website, then it seems to be a no-brainer that the Church would support a BSA policy that would embrace all boys into the program and use the resources of that program to teach ALL of them skills that will help keep them chaste. That would probably include taking advantage of the experience of men who identify with SSA to help boys understand that they can be upright Latter-day Saints and successful scouts even if their sexual orientation is not like everyone else's. Any other approach by the Church may cause its stated position to be viewed with some level of cynicism.

I should think the Church could still consistently oppose any policy change that provides for the inclusion of sexually active individuals, be they homosexual or unmarried heterosexual.

But here, we are both indulging in speculation, which the Church has asked people not to do.

[Mark Beesley]

Except the BSA isn't changing to SSA but celibate people can be members, the policy change would allow open, avowed, married, and practicing gays to be members. That is something that the church could conceivably be against.

Assuming your characterization of the proposed BSA policy is accurate, and I have seen nothing to suggest it is, your comment does not really address what i said since I commented on "a BSA policy that would embrace all boys into the program and use the resources of that program to teach ALL of them skills that will help keep them chaste." Pay particular attention to the first word in the quoted segment.

[Mark Beesley]

I should think the Church could still consistently oppose any policy change that provides for the inclusion of sexually active individuals, be they heterosexual or homosexual.

So, only celibate Catholic priests should be involved as Boy Scout leaders . . . hmmmmm.

[BCSpace]

If the Church is serious, (and I assume it is) about its outreach to LDS member who identify with SSA, as portrayed on the mormonsandgays.org website, then it seems to be a no-brainer that the Church would support a BSA policy that would embrace all boys into the program and use the resources of that program to teach ALL of them skills that will help keep them chaste. That would probably include taking advantage of the experience of men who identify with SSA to help boys understand that they can be upright Latter-day Saints and successful scouts even if their sexual orientation is not like everyone else's. Any other approach by the Church may cause its stated position to be viewed with some level of cynicism.

Check my prior post. I've already allowed that a clarification in the language of the existing policy to permit the inclusion of gay-but-celibate individuals would be a reasonable accommodation.

It'll be interesting. The Church's current policy, like the Scouts, is essentially don't ask don't tell. For the Church at least, I predict (unabashed speculation I know) it's policy will remain the same no matter what the BSA decides because the Church's policy on how gays should handle themselves includes not putting themselves into situations of temptation or social agitation, and not self-identifying as homosexuals.

[Mark Beesley]

They had somebody from Tracy Aviary in Salt Lake City bring in a live eagle to one of our pack meetings (Cub Scouts) on one occasion.

Perhaps it happens on occasion at Eagle courts of honor, but I'm certain it's not required or even common.

One Scout troop invited John Ashcroft to attend a Court of Honor to sing Let the Eagle Soar, after which the entire troop voted unanimously to adopt a policy banning heterosexuals from singing at any future Court of Honor . . .

[Saints Alive]

Assuming your characterization of the proposed BSA policy is accurate, and I have seen nothing to suggest it is, your comment does not really address what i said since I commented on "a BSA policy that would embrace all boys into the program and use the resources of that program to teach ALL of them skills that will help keep them chaste." Pay particular attention to the first word in the quoted segment.

It doesn't matter what you said, that was my point. What matters is what the BSA is actually considering, reversing their policy of excluding homosexuals. That would include all homosexuals, whether they are sexually active, married, etc. The policy that you suggested (which i have not seen anything to suggest that it is what the BSA is proposing) would only satisfy the LDS portion of the Scouts, it wouldn't go far enough for gay advocates, and would be too far for the more conservative and fundamentalist churches (i.e. Southern Baptists)

[Mark Beesley]

It doesn't matter what you said, that was my point. What matters is what the BSA is actually considering, reversing their policy of excluding homosexuals. That would include all homosexuals, whether they are sexually active, married, etc. The policy that you suggested (which i have not seen anything to suggest that it is what the BSA is proposing) would only satisfy the LDS portion of the Scouts, it wouldn't go far enough for gay advocates, and would be too far for the more conservative and fundamentalist churches (i.e. Southern Baptists)

There needs to be an emoticon of a cocked head . . . If what I said didn't matter, why did you feel a need to put my comment in quotes before writing your own non-responsive to a comment that didn't matter??? <cocked head>

[Saints Alive]

There needs to be an emoticon of a cocked head . . . If what I said didn't matter, why did you feel a need to put my comment in quotes before writing your own non-responsive to a comment that didn't matter??? <cocked head>

I thought there was a bang-your-head against the wall emoticon, but I cant seem to find it...

[Scott Lloyd]

So, only celibate Catholic priests should be involved as Boy Scout leaders . . . hmmmmm.

Yeah, I realized I misspoke (or miswrote). I went back in and fixed it.

[Scott Lloyd]

Deleted. Unintended duplicate post.

[Scott Lloyd]

It'll be interesting. The Church's current policy, like the Scouts, is essentially don't ask don't tell. For the Church at least, I predict (unabashed speculation I know) it's policy will remain the same no matter what the BSA decides because the Church's policy on how gays should handle themselves includes not putting themselves into situations of temptation or social agitation, and not self-identifying as homosexuals.

I think the only change on the Church's part would be to cut off association with BSA altogether.

[jwhitlock]

The news reports I'm reading indicate that gay rights groups are opposed to the potential BSA policy of allowing individual units to decide whether or not to exclude gays. It appears that they want the policy changed to take that option away from units, so that they must accept anyone without qualification. I see nothing about any religious exemption.

I've been of the opinion that gay rights groups ultimately want nothing less than full acceptance of all gays by all organizations, including religious organizations. So-called religious exemptions being written into gay marriage laws will, at some point, be found "unconstitutional" or "discriminatory" and be stricken. Opposition to any exclusion of any gays on any grounds by the BSA is, to me, an indication of what the real goals are here.

Given the nature of gay rights groups' opposition to the BSA policy, and how they're phrasing that opposition, I see no other option for the church other than to oppose any change to the policy. The "let the unit decide" option will not be acceptable to gays; they will continue to lobby for the BSA to force full inclusion of any gay - including those active in gay lifestyles - by all units, including church sponsored units.

[semlogo]

The news reports I'm reading indicate that gay rights groups are opposed to the potential BSA policy of allowing individual units to decide whether or not to exclude gays. It appears that they want the policy changed to take that option away from units, so that they must accept anyone without qualification. I see nothing about any religious exemption.

I've been of the opinion that gay rights groups ultimately want nothing less than full acceptance of all gays by all organizations, including religious organizations. So-called religious exemptions being written into gay marriage laws will, at some point, be found "unconstitutional" or "discriminatory" and be stricken. Opposition to any exclusion of any gays on any grounds by the BSA is, to me, an indication of what the real goals are here.

Given the nature of gay rights groups' opposition to the BSA policy, and how they're phrasing that opposition, I see no other option for the church other than to oppose any change to the policy. The "let the unit decide" option will not be acceptable to gays; they will continue to lobby for the BSA to force full inclusion of any gay - including those active in gay lifestyles - by all units, including church sponsored units.

Heterosexual groups have also been lobbying for years for admittance into all sorts of groups, religious and otherwise.

[semlogo]

It'll be interesting. The Church's current policy, like the Scouts, is essentially don't ask don't tell. For the Church at least, I predict (unabashed speculation I know) it's policy will remain the same no matter what the BSA decides because the Church's policy on how gays should handle themselves includes not putting themselves into situations of temptation or social agitation, and not self-identifying as homosexuals.

I'm not aware of any church policy dictating that gay people must keep their orientation a secret.

[jwhitlock]

Heterosexual groups have also been lobbying for years for admittance into all sorts of groups, religious and otherwise.

Not on the basis of their sexual orientation; I'm not sure what relevance your point has here.

[semlogo]

Not on the basis of their sexual orientation; I'm not sure what relevance your point has here.

Yes, they have that in common with gay groups - they simply want the same rights as anyone else regardless of their sexual orientation.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes, they have that in common with gay groups - they simply want the same rights as anyone else regardless of their sexual orientation.

So you're acknowledging, then, that the underlying agenda here includes eventually forcing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to admit sexually active homosexuals into their Scouting units?

As I said, a slippery slope.

[semlogo]

So you're acknowledging, then, that the underlying agenda here includes eventually forcing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to admit sexually active homosexuals into their Scouting units?

As I said, a slippery slope.

I don't think I said anything about anyone's sexual activity. I'm not sure what it has to do with building campfires and tying knots, though.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't think I said anything about anyone's sexual activity. I'm not sure what it has to do with building campfires and tying knots, though.

You didn't deny what jwhitlock said, but instead compared it to activism by heterosexuals.

To me, that amounts to tacit admission on your part that he's right.

[semlogo]

You didn't deny what jwhitlock said, but instead compared it to activism by heterosexuals.

To me, that amounts to tacit admission on your part that he's right.

If I had meant to say the words you're inserting into my mouth, I would have simply said them.

[DavidB]

I don't think I said anything about anyone's sexual activity. I'm not sure what it has to do with building campfires and tying knots, though.

Status quo, status quo, status quo....must defend the status quo.