Desnews: 33 Scout Councils Ask Bsa To Delay Decision

[CV75]

The Supreme Court already ruled that organizations such as BSA may engage in discrimination if they wish. It seems they are unsure that they still want to be associated with that sort of thing, and the kinds of people who defend discrimination.

I don't see the current policy as discriminating against gays so much as ensuring an enviroment to assert traditional family and marriage values. Likewise, I don't see the Church's current management of the troops or treatment of gay individuals as discriminating against gays, either, and the Church certainly asserts traditional family and marriage values. If the BSA changes its stance, I suppose the Church will continue to assert traditional family and marriage values and treat gay people on the same playing field as any other member.

To date, the primary focus of the BSA has not been tolerance of advocacy against traditional family and marriage values, but many of the charter orgnizations see the new proposal in such a light. There is nothing wrong with their or the Church's tradition. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with charter organizations exercising the same right granted by teh Supreme court to the BSA--that still holds true even if the BSA chooses not to exercsise that right.

[Scott Lloyd]

No, you're trying to put words in my mouth, and I'm not letting you. Sorry!

You may speak for yourself. I will speak for myself.

I've already spoken for myself by pointing out your evasiveness. I'm content with that. It is you who keeps bringing it up.

[california boy]

It boils down to an abridgment of the freedom to associate with like-minded believers who share certain values.

And just who is responsible for that abridgment of the freedom to associate? The BSA is a private club. I think everyone agrees, including the Supreme Court that they can decide who they want to allow to assiciate with. So this abridgement that you speak about is squarely on the shoulders of BSA and no one else. You can not blame any other group for the shift in any position that the BSA chooses to make.

[CV75]

What possible deleterious effect could "sexually active gays" have on a group of weekend knot tiers and hikers that they wouldn't have in sacrament meeting, where they are currently welcome to attend?

You said you were a scout, and if just of the “weekend knot tiers and hikers” variety, I can see why you resort to mockery in inept defense of your position(s).

[CV75]

And just who is responsible for that abridgment of the freedom to associate? The BSA is a private club. I think everyone agrees, including the Supreme Court that they can decide who they want to allow to assiciate with. So this abridgement that you speak about is squarely on the shoulders of BSA and no one else. You can not blame any other group for the shift in any position that the BSA chooses to make.

The abridgement is on a personal level when one’s chosen organization of association changes membership policy so that it becomes infiltrated with those with whom he would not otherwise associate in solidarity for a principle (such as traditional marriage and families). I think he is speaking from a personal point of view for those that see a membership change that, according to the post, allow sexually active gay adults to mentor youth in a Church-chartered troop as appropriate, as their doing the same in a sacrament setting, as a negative development.

[california boy]

I don't see the current policy as discriminating against gays so much as ensuring an enviroment to assert traditional family and marriage values. Likewise, I don't see the Church's current management of the troops or treatment of gay individuals as discriminating against gays, either, and the Church certainly asserts traditional family and marriage values. If the BSA changes its stance, I suppose the Church will continue to assert traditional family and marriage values and treat gay people on the same playing field as any other member.

To date, the primary focus of the BSA has not been tolerance of advocacy against traditional family and marriage values, but many of the charter orgnizations see the new proposal in such a light. There is nothing wrong with their or the Church's tradition. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with charter organizations exercising the same right granted by teh Supreme court to the BSA--that still holds true even if the BSA chooses not to exercsise that right.

Of course you don't. Because every single leader in the boy scouts is a shining example of marriage values as you see them. I can certainly understand how you justify that belief.

[semlogo]

It boils down to an abridgment of the freedom to associate with like-minded believers who share certain values.

By whom? The BSA? Don't they have the right to make their own rules? They are the ones responsible for the change in direction (if it indeed occurs).

Even then, isn't their position to allow local units to make their own decision on whether or not to be inclusive? Sounds fair to me.

[semlogo]

I've already spoken for myself by pointing out your evasiveness. I'm content with that. It is you who keeps bringing it up.

I'm sorry I didn't say the things you wanted to put into my mouth. Next time PM me the position you'd wish I'd taken, then I can take that position and you can offer the juicy rebuttal you were itching to make to the statement you made up for me.

[semlogo]

I don't see the current policy as discriminating against gays so much as ensuring an enviroment to assert traditional family and marriage values. Likewise, I don't see the Church's current management of the troops or treatment of gay individuals as discriminating against gays, either, and the Church certainly asserts traditional family and marriage values. If the BSA changes its stance, I suppose the Church will continue to assert traditional family and marriage values and treat gay people on the same playing field as any other member.

To date, the primary focus of the BSA has not been tolerance of advocacy against traditional family and marriage values, but many of the charter orgnizations see the new proposal in such a light. There is nothing wrong with their or the Church's tradition. There is nothing wrong, in principle, with charter organizations exercising the same right granted by teh Supreme court to the BSA--that still holds true even if the BSA chooses not to exercsise that right.

Some people felt the same way about mixed race marriages, and used similar arguments. They didn't hold up then, and I don't think they've improved with age.

[semlogo]

You said you were a scout, and if just of the “weekend knot tiers and hikers” variety, I can see why you resort to mockery in inept defense of your position(s).

Scouting is serious business apparently.

[CV75]

Of course you don't. Because every single leader in the boy scouts is a shining example of marriage values as you see them. I can certainly understand how you justify that belief.

This is how you think, not me. I think the way I stated because I understand policy, the relationship between policy and ideal, and can distinguish between policies, ideals, people and people’s behavior. Your arguments indicate that you do not. This is why I can see that, unlike me, you seem to justify that sexually active gay men are in fact shining examples of traditional marriage values, or have no interest in promoting any alternative that they might want to exemplify, or have no effect on others’ modeling of traditional marriage values to youth.

You can generalize the failings straight people in a certain way, but watch the hysteria commence should anyone lower himself to do the same about gay people.

[CV75]

Some people felt the same way about mixed race marriages, and used similar arguments. They didn't hold up then, and I don't think they've improved with age.

You are discussing this with me, not them, and about "this" and not about "that." If you can't stay on task, you'll end up talking to yourself.

Scouting is serious business apparently.

Serious enough for you to resort to desperate tactics to mock it.

[semlogo]

You are discussing this with me, not them, and about "this" and not about "that." If you can't stay on task, you'll end up talking to yourself.

Perhaps you could come up with a new argument, then? The recycled ones are starting to smell. Time to put them in the compost bin.

Serious enough for you to resort to desperate tactics to mock it.

This is rather melodramatic. Referring to scouting as an activity involving tying knots and building fires is not a "desperate tactic" and it is not intended to mock anything or anyone.

It is, however, accurate.

[semlogo]

This is why I can see that, unlike me, you seem to justify that sexually active gay men are in fact shining examples of traditional marriage values, or have no interest in promoting any alternative that they might want to exemplify, or have no effect on others’ modeling of traditional marriage values to youth.

What does scouting have to do with "traditional marriage values"?

[CV75]

It seems to me that this has turned into a discussion on how to use Scouting as a platform for promoting gay "marriage" instead of a vehicle for civic-minded gay people to contribute to a community organization with which they have congruent values (with the key exception of traditional marriage in those majority of instances where the charter organization upholds traditional marriage).

[CV75]

What does scouting have to do with "traditional marriage values"?

You said, "Perhaps you could come up with a new argument, then? The recycled ones are starting to smell. Time to put them in the compost bin." I have made this argument. I invite you to go back and review it.

[CV75]

Referring to scouting as an activity involving tying knots and building fires is not a "desperate tactic" and it is not intended to mock anything or anyone.

Go back and look at your tone but more importantly, the context.

It is, however, accurate.

Not even with a broad-brush.

[california boy]

This is how you think, not me. I think the way I stated because I understand policy, the relationship between policy and ideal, and can distinguish between policies, ideals, people and people’s behavior. Your arguments indicate that you do not. This is why I can see that, unlike me, you seem to justify that sexually active gay men are in fact shining examples of traditional marriage values, or have no interest in promoting any alternative that they might want to exemplify, or have no effect on others’ modeling of traditional marriage values to youth.

You can generalize the failings straight people in a certain way, but watch the hysteria commence should anyone lower himself to do the same about gay people.

I see. You are able to overlook any flaws a person may have as long as they are straight. It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to twist logic in order to justify their agenda.

The truth is, BSA is nothing to do with marriage at all. There is no merit badge for getting married or studying the evolution of "traditional marriage" throughout history. Marriage does not come up in any scouting handbook. BSA leaders are not expected to counsel boys on whom to marry. It is pure fabrication on your part to make traditional marriage any relevance to BSA.

[CV75]

I see. You are able to overlook any flaws a person may have as long as they are straight. It never ceases to amaze me how people are able to twist logic in order to justify their agenda.

The truth is, BSA is nothing to do with marriage at all. There is no merit badge for getting married or studying the evolution of "traditional marriage" throughout history. Marriage does not come up in any scouting handbook. BSA leaders are not expected to counsel boys on whom to marry. It is pure fabrication on your part to make traditional marriage any relevance to BSA.

I see you are ineducable on these prejudiced and erroneous concepts you desperately hold you.

[semlogo]

It seems to me that this has turned into a discussion on how to use Scouting as a platform for promoting gay "marriage" instead of a vehicle for civic-minded gay people to contribute to a community organization with which they have congruent values (with the key exception of traditional marriage in those majority of instances where the charter organization upholds traditional marriage).

Straw man. No one has suggested using scouts to promote gay marriage.

[semlogo]

You said, "Perhaps you could come up with a new argument, then? The recycled ones are starting to smell. Time to put them in the compost bin." I have made this argument. I invite you to go back and review it.

The only advice I was given about relationships as a scout was to not get serious until after my mission. And it was never part of the official scouting materials.

[semlogo]

Go back and look at your tone but more importantly, the context.

Not even with a broad-brush.

Apparently scouting is even more serious business than I had initially suspected.

[semlogo]

I see you are ineducable on these prejudiced and erroneous concepts you desperately hold you.

He's right. But if you disagree, you can produce something on marriage from an official scout handbook.

[CV75]

Straw man. No one has suggested using scouts to promote gay marriage.

I explained how this was being done; perhaps you can't or don't want to see it.

The only advice I was given about relationships as a scout was to not get serious until after my mission. And it was never part of the official scouting materials.

You don't understand socialization.

Apparently scouting is even more serious business than I had initially suspected.

I suppose so.

He's right. But if you disagree, you can produce something on marriage from an official scout handbook.

He's about as "right" as you were "accurate" a couple of posts ago. My posts on the last few pages address the relationship(s) between the current policy, charter organizations and their values and their scout troops, parent and adult values, traditional marriage as a component of citizenship training/acculturation/socialization, what individuals stand for, and relationships and responsibilities within and outside the program, including within the chartering organization, etc.

You pointed out that “sexually active gays” would have no deleterious effect on “knot tiers and hikers” in sacrament meeting. Is that how you want to represent their view the Aaronic priesthood and assert that this is not in any way deleterious?

[CV75]

Let me make it very, very simple for you (maybe): if one can’t abide the values of the charter organization, then his participation is suspect.