Desnews: 33 Scout Councils Ask Bsa To Delay Decision

[california boy]

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.

And let me make it very very simple for you as well. I have no problem with the BSA, the Mormon Church or any other private group that is not receiving government benefits from discriminating any way they want. They can discriminate against blacks, Jews, gays Mormons or any other group they want to keep out of their organization. It is their right and choice. I personally would not be involved in such groups, but that is my choice as well. But let's not pretend this issue is about gay marriage. It is not. You have yet to tie in Gay Marriage or traditional marriage to the scouting program. You can tie this issue to the Mormon Churches religious beliefs, and if the church wants to discriminate against gays, then they have every right to. Just don't pretend that gay marrriage or traditional marriage has anything to do with BSA. Just be honest and state that the church nor you support gay marriage and you think the church should do all it can to keep active gays from participating in their charter groups. Now is honesty so difficult for you that you can't figure out how to discriminate against gays by using religion instead of the BSA to do it?

[semlogo]

You don't understand socialization.

This isn't an argument for your position, even if it were true.

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 have yet to articulate a coherent connection between the two, let alone demonstrate that one exists from actual scouting materials.

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?

I was referring to the scouting program, which is not the same thing as the Aaronic priesthood. You've jumbled completely my statement. If allowing gays in sacrament meeting doesn't harm that meeting (currently allowed by the church), then what harm could gays have on an activity dominated by knot tying, hiking, building camp fires, etc? It's as irrelevant to scouting as skin color.

And yes, scouting really is about tying knots and hiking. That's probably why it's dying out - it's the perfect program for the American boy of 1913.

[CV75]

But let's not pretend this issue is about gay marriage.

I would beg to differ, as the topic of same-sex “marriage” inevitably arises in the same breath as treating all people with dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation, whether in public or in private, including when criticizing the BSA and the Church’s positions on sexual orientation. Don't pretend this issue isn't related to gay "marriage" and that the propsoed policy change would not be an inroad for gay "marriage" advocates.

Just be honest and state that the church nor you support gay marriage and you think the church should do all it can to keep active gays from participating in their charter groups. Now is honesty so difficult for you that you can't figure out how to discriminate against gays by using religion instead of the BSA to do it?

Do you really know no better than to try these cheap shots? I don't care what you think about my honesty or your false accusation that I discriminate against gays. But I do care to mention how this tactic exemplifies how other issues about sexual orientaion get combatively pegged to this debate. Just as I said.

[CV75]

This isn't an argument for your position, even if it were true.

You have yet to articulate a coherent connection between the two, let alone demonstrate that one exists from actual scouting materials.

I was referring to the scouting program, which is not the same thing as the Aaronic priesthood. You've jumbled completely my statement. If allowing gays in sacrament meeting doesn't harm that meeting (currently allowed by the church), then what harm could gays have on an activity dominated by knot tying, hiking, building camp fires, etc? It's as irrelevant to scouting as skin color.

And yes, scouting really is about tying knots and hiking. That's probably why it's dying out - it's the perfect program for the American boy of 1913.

I accept your inability to carry this conversation further.

[semlogo]

I accept your inability to carry this conversation further.

That's not the problem here. The problem is that you have yet to do more than assert your position. You haven't put forth much of a defense of it.

[california boy]

Just be honest and state that the church nor you support gay marriage and you think the church should do all it can to keep active gays from participating in their charter groups. Now is honesty so difficult for you that you can't figure out how to discriminate against gays by using religion instead of the BSA to do it?

Do you really know no better than to try these cheap shots? I don't care what you think about my honesty or your false accusation that I discriminate against gays. But I do care to mention how this tactic exemplifies how other issues about sexual orientaion get combatively pegged to this debate. Just as I said.

wow this answer has me confused. Are you saying that I am falsely accusing you of being against gay marriage???? Well do you support gay marriage or are you against it?? When did honesty become a cheap shot?

[CV75]

That's not the problem here. The problem is that you have yet to do more than assert your position. You haven't put forth much of a defense of it.

Tell you what: in as good-faith a manner as you can, delineate what you think is my position and I can defend and clarify as needed. That might be easier than my expecting you to understand what I have written so far.

[CV75]

wow this answer has me confused. Are you saying that I am falsely accusing you of being against gay marriage???? Well do you support gay marriage or are you against it?? When did honesty become a cheap shot?

Look: you're really detracting from substantive discussion.

The cheap shots are where you said:

Just be honest and state [you are saying I haven't been honest] that the church nor you support gay marriage and you think the church should do all it can to keep active gays from participating in their charter groups. Now is honesty so difficult for you [you are suggesting I am not honest] that you can't figure out how to discriminate against gays [you falsely accuse me of discriminating against gays, which I do not] by using religion instead of the BSA to do it?

Why don't you do what I asked semlogo to do in post #207: "...in as good-faith a manner as you can, delineate what you think is my position and I can defend and clarify as needed. That might be easier than my expecting you to understand what I have written so far."

[california boy]

Look: you're really detracting from substantive discussion.

The cheap shots are where you said:

Just be honest and state [you are saying I haven't been honest] that the church nor you support gay marriage and you think the church should do all it can to keep active gays from participating in their charter groups. Now is honesty so difficult for you [you are suggesting I am not honest] that you can't figure out how to discriminate against gays [you falsely accuse me of discriminating against gays, which I do not] by using religion instead of the BSA to do it?

Why don't you do what I asked semlogo to do in post #207: "...in as good-faith a manner as you can, delineate what you think is my position and I can defend and clarify as needed. That might be easier than my expecting you to understand what I have written so far."

Sorry you interpeted my comments the way you did. A lot of irrevant comments get put in when in fact the only issue seems to be gay marriage. That is what I am expressing by my statement. The comment was not ment to be taken so personal but more in general to those that oppose inclusiveness towards gays.

I am not sure what exactly your position is on this issue, but I will make a more general statement on what I feel peoples belief is on this issue. Whether it is allowing gays into the BSA or gay marriage, those that oppose that action feel that gay sex as immoral and they don't want anything that might in any way make those relationships a normal result of being gay. They are happy keeping gays celibate but don't actually want them to have any kind of relationship. If we allow gay marriage, then some how that makes gay couples appear more normal. If we allow gay marriage, then we are implying gay relationships are ok. How is that for my first attempt?

[semlogo]

Tell you what: in as good-faith a manner as you can, delineate what you think is my position and I can defend and clarify as needed. That might be easier than my expecting you to understand what I have written so far.

That the mission of scouting is to teach values about marriage to boys? Honestly your position isn't entirely clear to me.

[CV75]

Sorry you interpeted my comments the way you did. A lot of irrevant comments get put in when in fact the only issue seems to be gay marriage. That is what I am expressing by my statement. The comment was not ment to be taken so personal but more in general to those that oppose inclusiveness towards gays.

I am not sure what exactly your position is on this issue, but I will make a more general statement on what I feel peoples belief is on this issue. Whether it is allowing gays into the BSA or gay marriage, those that oppose that action feel that gay sex as immoral and they don't want anything that might in any way make those relationships a normal result of being gay. They are happy keeping gays celibate but don't actually want them to have any kind of relationship. If we allow gay marriage, then some how that makes gay couples appear more normal. If we allow gay marriage, then we are implying gay relationships are ok. How is that for my first attempt?

I do feel that gay sex is immoral. I do not feel that gay sex or any other expression of immorality is an essential attribute of being gay any more than sex is an attribute of being single. I feel that gay people can live moral lives, for example, as temple-worthy members of the LDS Church, just like single members.

My working paradigm is to assume that those who practice gay sex are doing the best morally with what they have, and that I can work around any deleterious moral effects that I think individuals might create through policy, legislation and other appropriate controls acceptable to our society (fin relation to this thread, this would be the BSA and Church-run troops). But I hold that paradigm for any behavior that I believe is not good for society, not just gay sex.

I am not happy keeping gays celibate—that implies that I would rather control their behavior. Rather, I am happy extending to gays the opportunity to enjoy every blessing the Gospel affords, including gospel-worthy relationships with the people in their lives.

My opposition to gay “marriage” is not the resulting normalization of gay sex, though that is one aspect to consider (I think the correlation is as much that the normalization of gay sex leads to the popularization of gay “marriage”). My reasons for my opposition would be better stated in another thread, and there have been so many of them I’m not sure what the interest level would be in discussing it yet again.

[CV75]

That the mission of scouting is to teach values about marriage to boys?

http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/Media/mission.aspx

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law:

A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent

Honestly your position isn't entirely clear to me.

I suggest you try harder to "...in as good-faith a manner as you can, delineate what you think is my position and I can defend and clarify as needed." After all, you had plenty to say about something you thought I was saying.

[california boy]

My opposition to gay “marriage” is not the resulting normalization of gay sex, though that is one aspect to consider (I think the correlation is as much that the normalization of gay sex leads to the popularization of gay “marriage”). My reasons for my opposition would be better stated in another thread, and there have been so many of them I’m not sure what the interest level would be in discussing it yet again.

Boy that was a big non answer.

[semlogo]

http://www.scouting....ia/mission.aspx

"The mission of the Boy Scouts of America is to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best

To do my duty to God and my country

and to obey the Scout Law;

To help other people at all times;

To keep myself physically strong,

mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law:

A Scout is: Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent

I suggest you try harder to "...in as good-faith a manner as you can, delineate what you think is my position and I can defend and clarify as needed." After all, you had plenty to say about something you thought I was saying.

So nothing about marriage, then.

Honestly, I don't think you've expressed yourself very clearly or made a clear argument for a position. That's my good faith, honest opinion.

[CV75]

Boy that was a big non answer.

It is not enough to say that I am opposed to gay "marriage" whether it might be legislated before or after an increase in society's acceptance of gay sex?

[CV75]

So nothing about marriage, then.

Honestly, I don't think you've expressed yourself very clearly or made a clear argument for a position. That's my good faith, honest opinion.

From many individual and charter organization perspectives, traditional marriage (among many other things) is congruent with “duty to God” and being “morally straight,” “clean” and “reverent.” So yes, the BSA mission does involve traditional marriage in many ways; just one example is the charter organizations' take on the Family Life merit badge. Another is in how the charter organizations expect their adult mentors to behave or what attitude to express about traditional marriage. I suppose some charter organizations may have or allow alternative or alternate ideals and definitions of marriage, but that does not invalidate the majority.

I was only asking you for a good faith effort to describe my position, not your opinion about it.

[semlogo]

From many individual and charter organization perspectives, traditional marriage (among many other things) is congruent with “duty to God” and being “morally straight,” “clean” and “reverent.” So yes, the BSA mission does involve traditional marriage in many ways; just one example is the charter organizations' take on the Family Life merit badge. Another is in how the charter organizations expect their adult mentors to behave or what attitude to express about traditional marriage. I suppose some charter organizations may have or allow alternative or alternate ideals and definitions of marriage, but that does not invalidate the majority.

I was only asking you for a good faith effort to describe my position, not your opinion about it.

That's a stretch. If the intent was to teach about marriage, I'd expect they'd just do so. “Duty to God” being “morally straight,” “clean” and “reverent” are too broad to support your argument.

What does the Family Life merit badge entail? I never got that one - it seemed too boring at the time.

[CV75]

That's a stretch.

Only for the narrow mind.

[semlogo]

Only for the narrow mind.

Only narrow-minded people could possibly disagree with you?

[CV75]

Only narrow-minded people could possibly disagree with you?

I need only refer you to posts #216 and 217 on that point as it relates to our conversation.

You said: "That's a stretch." That is an indication that there is no room for stretching (to too narrow a perspective).

You said: "If the intent was to teach about marriage, I'd expect they'd just do so." That is an indication of narrow expectations based on a narrow perspective and understanding of how things work. Granted, I can't educate you on that.

You said: "“Duty to God” being “morally straight,” “clean” and “reverent” are too broad to support your argument." If they are too broad, or even broad at all, then they have the advantage of being applicable to a number of religious, moral, and value-driven principles -- which seems to be the actual problem; they are not narrowly defined enough for you.

You said, "What does the Family Life merit badge entail? I never got that one - it seemed too boring at the time." Of course would be too boring for a narrow range of interests.

Now may we get away from making this all about you, and would you try once again to articulate what you think my position is--it has to be something according to the number of posts you've responded to. Please don't make it about me, either.

[california boy]

It is not enough to say that I am opposed to gay "marriage" whether it might be legislated before or after an increase in society's acceptance of gay sex?

I guess this is a pretty big deal to just pass off. Do you think that by not allowing gay couples to marry, they will be more moral? Do you think that gay youth are better off not participating in BSA? If you oppose gay marriage, what is your alternative for gay couples that do not have the same religious beliefs as you? How do you expect them to behave? And would you be happy with the alternative you have to offer gay couples?

[CV75]

I guess this is a pretty big deal to just pass off. Do you think that by not allowing gay couples to marry, they will be more moral? Do you think that gay youth are better off not participating in BSA? If you oppose gay marriage, what is your alternative for gay couples that do not have the same religious beliefs as you? How do you expect them to behave? And would you be happy with the alternative you have to offer gay couples?

Not all these questions in my mind have to do with the OP so I may not get into great detail.

Allowing or disallowing gay "marriage" will not make gay couples who want it more or less moral, in my opinion.

Because of the rule, generally speaking, gay youth cannot benefit from participating in Boy Scout troops, depending on how the rule is managed. Charter organizations seem to approach this matter in various ways, balancing what they think is beneficial to the youth in general, and to the gay youth in particular. I can only guess that in some cases, what the youth thinks is beneficial for him might be considered.

I do oppose gay "marriage", but I don't see a focused treatment of the gay "marriage" debate as germane to this thread. It is an ancillary issue in discussing the effects of having sexually active gay adult proponents of gay "marriage" working with the youth in Boy Scouts, how charter organizations that oppose or whose membership opposes gay "marriage" would react to such a proposal, and how such adults would (intentionally or not) influence the youth politically and morally in contradiction to the prevailing values.

I have no new alternative legal construct for gay couples that desire either gay "marriage" or traditional marriage than those that have been discussed in the public square. But that is getting far away from the purpose of this thread regarding the BSA.

As I mentioned earlier, my being happy about gay behavior would imply that I would rather control their private and personal behavior more so than other law-abiding citizens, which I do not (note that I do not see either traditional marriage or gay "marriage" as strictly private and personal arrangements). Rather, I am happy extending to gay people no matter their belief or circumstance the opportunity to enjoy every blessing the Gospel affords, including gospel-worthy relationships with the people in their lives.

If you need this is to become a strictly gay "marriage" discussion, I cannot accommodate you.

[Nemesis]

I guess this is a pretty big deal to just pass off. Do you think that by not allowing gay couples to marry, they will be more moral? Do you think that gay youth are better off not participating in BSA? If you oppose gay marriage, what is your alternative for gay couples that do not have the same religious beliefs as you? How do you expect them to behave? And would you be happy with the alternative you have to offer gay couples?

Gay marriage is not the topic. Please get back on topic or we will need to shut the thread down.

Nemesis

[california boy]

Not all these questions in my mind have to do with the OP so I may not get into great detail.

Allowing or disallowing gay "marriage" will not make gay couples who want it more or less moral, in my opinion.

Because of the rule, generally speaking, gay youth cannot benefit from participating in Boy Scout troops, depending on how the rule is managed. Charter organizations seem to approach this matter in various ways, balancing what they think is beneficial to the youth in general, and to the gay youth in particular. I can only guess that in some cases, what the youth thinks is beneficial for him might be considered.

I do oppose gay "marriage", but I don't see a focused treatment of the gay "marriage" debate as germane to this thread. It is an ancillary issue in discussing the effects of having sexually active gay adult proponents of gay "marriage" working with the youth in Boy Scouts, how charter organizations that oppose or whose membership opposes gay "marriage" would react to such a proposal, and how such adults would (intentionally or not) influence the youth politically and morally in contradiction to the prevailing values.

I have no new alternative legal construct for gay couples that desire either gay "marriage" or traditional marriage than those that have been discussed in the public square. But that is getting far away from the purpose of this thread regarding the BSA.

As I mentioned earlier, my being happy about gay behavior would imply that I would rather control their private and personal behavior more so than other law-abiding citizens, which I do not (note that I do not see either traditional marriage or gay "marriage" as strictly private and personal arrangements). Rather, I am happy extending to gay people no matter their belief or circumstance the opportunity to enjoy every blessing the Gospel affords, including gospel-worthy relationships with the people in their lives.

If you need this is to become a strictly gay "marriage" discussion, I cannot accommodate you.

Fair enough