Boy Scouts Of America Compromise?

[Scott Lloyd]

I missed these responses before.

Are you aware of any adult Eagle Scouts that have been denied the ability to serve in the BSA for having sex with women? (I'm not referring to the LDS calling of scoutmaster, here, but to the general position of Scout Leaders...)

Does the BSA make a point of asking scout leaders whether or not they're sexually active, and with how many partners? Can you point to any links with specific examples of such?

Daniel2

Knowing what I do about eligibility to serve in the Church, I'm confident sex outside of marriage not repented of would be grounds for denying someone a calling as a Scout leader. I'm nearly as confident that a similar policy would prevail in many of the other churches and religious organizations that currently sponsor Scouting units.

Furthermore, as a parent I would not knowingly allow my children to affiliate with any unit that engaged the services of leaders involved in premarital or extramarital sex.

Caveat: I don't recognize same-gender relationships as truly being marriage.

Edited to add:

With that said, I found this paragraph in a legal ruling. The language definitely acknowledges an association-wide ban by BSA against extramarital sex and homosexual activity:

Concerned that accepting an avowed homosexual as a scoutmaster would signify endorsement of such a lifestyle in contradiction to their declared policies against extramarital sex and homosexual activity, the Boy Scouts went beyond refusing Dale a volunteer leadership post. They also revoked his Boy Scout membership.

(emphasis mine) Edited April 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Daniel2]

From as best I can tell, the alleged "shadow" doesn't fit the shape or the lighting in the linked photo or in the graphic you posted. But, I will accept that there may have been nothing intentionally untoward happening at the time of the photograph.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Save for the change in background, the photo is exactly the same. I'm glad you accept that nothing was intentionally untoward about it's use.

Daniel2

[Daniel2]

Knowing what I do about eligibility to serve in the Church, I'm confident sex outside of marriage not repented of would be grounds for denying someone a calling as a Scout leader. I'm nearly as confident that a similar policy would prevail in many of the other churches and religious organizations that currently sponsor Scouting units.

Furthermore, as a parent I would not knowingly allow my children to affiliate with any unit that engaged the services of leaders involved in premarital or extramarital sex.

Caveat: I don't recognize same-gender relationships as truly being marriage.

Edited to add:

With that said, I found this paragraph in a legal ruling. The language definitely presupposes an association-wide ban by BSA against extramarital sex and homosexual activity:

(emphasis mine)

That's all fine and dandy, but it didn't answer my questions:

Are you aware of any adult Eagle Scouts that have been denied the ability to serve in the BSA for having sex with women? (I'm not referring to the LDS calling of scoutmaster, here, but to the general position of Scout Leaders...)

Does the BSA make a point of asking scout leaders whether or not they're sexually active, and with how many partners? Can you point to any links with specific examples of such?

Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

That's all fine and dandy, but it didn't answer my questions:

Are you aware of any adult Eagle Scouts that have been denied the ability to serve in the BSA for having sex with women? (I'm not referring to the LDS calling of scoutmaster, here, but to the general position of Scout Leaders...)

Does the BSA make a point of asking scout leaders whether or not they're sexually active, and with how many partners? Can you point to any links with specific examples of such?

Daniel2

I don't know where I would find such a link. Does BSA document and publicize individual instances of their refusal to appoint people as Scout leaders for any reason, sexual or otherwise? Why would they do this?

It strikes me as sufficient to the moment to show evidence that BSA as a matter of policy has long banned extramarital sex. If I can't (or choose not to) cite a specific instance of the ban being enforced, or if some individuals successfully hide their violation of the ban, does that mean the ban does not exist?

Edited April 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

Can't a gay man be "morally straight"?

Daniel2

A sexually active gay man cannot, unless he is married to a woman and faithful to her. Dude, you keep inserting shades of gray into a subject that really is black and white. Sexual relations except with your husband or wife (of the opposite gender) is ALWAYS against the commandment of God.

The fact that this commandment is so often ignored by his children does not void the commandment.

[USU78]

Can't a gay man be "morally straight"?

Of course he can . . . but will he?

[Rivers]

Of course he can . . . but will he?

I think the question is this: Is a gay man in a committed monogomous homosexual relationship considered morally straight?

I'd like to know more about the current Boy Scout policy. Are unmarried sexually active hetrosexuals also banned from the Boy Scouts?

[Scott Lloyd]

I'd like to know more about the current Boy Scout policy. Are unmarried sexually active hetrosexuals also banned from the Boy Scouts?

Yes.

[Stone holm]

Yes.

In the Church maybe, but I don't think you can say that across the board, in fact I rather doubt that is true. But, I question the idea that Boy Scouts as an international organization puts such a narrow view of morally straight as we do. I think it right and proper for LDS Units to require that their leaders and Scouts abide by LDS Standards as to sexual morality. I am not convinced that it was a wise move on the social conservatives part to try and force all of the chartered organizations to abide by their views. As a result, I believe this compromise flawed and the original compromise to have been more inspired. If the controversy continues, and this policy guarantees it will continue, then it will weaken if not destroy BSA.

[Scott Lloyd]

In the Church maybe, but I don't think you can say that across the board, in fact I rather doubt that is true.

Please see my Post #101

But, I question the idea that Boy Scouts as an international organization puts such a narrow view of morally straight as we do. I think it right and proper for LDS Units to require that their leaders and Scouts abide by LDS Standards as to sexual morality. I am not convinced that it was a wise move on the social conservatives part to try and force all of the chartered organizations to abide by their views. As a result, I believe this compromise flawed and the original compromise to have been more inspired. If the controversy continues, and this policy guarantees it will continue, then it will weaken if not destroy BSA.

If society's morals have drifted to the point where the BSA organization has now become casual about admitting leaders who openly practice non-marital sex, perhaps it is time we get out now, gay political pressure or not.

I'm not persuaded, though, that the attitude across the board has become as casual as you say it is.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Wanderer7]

Others are picking up on the problems inherent in this compromise, which is likely only a short-term Band-Aid that doesn't provide a long-term solution:

Here's my question, and it is a very sincere question, not tongue-in cheek. Why do people who are homosexual in orientation but do not participate in extramarital sex or homosexual relationships feel the need to "come out" to society? I don't think the issue with homosexual leaders is really an issue of trust or if they will molest boys (I don't believe sexual orientation has much to do with molestation rates), but what the perspective of the organization will be. If a man is homosexual and divulges that to his bishop/counselor and a few close friends/family, that is one thing. However, if the community knows it, wouldn't it appear like the BSA is supporting the lifestyle? Which, if they choose to do, that's fine. If they don't want to, however, then accepting openly-gay leaders would have a dramatic impact on their public image.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Wanderer7

[Stone holm]

Here's my question, and it is a very sincere question, not tongue-in cheek. Why do people who are homosexual in orientation but do not participate in extramarital sex or homosexual relationships feel the need to "come out" to society? I don't think the issue with homosexual leaders is really an issue of trust or if they will molest boys (I don't believe sexual orientation has much to do with molestation rates), but what the perspective of the organization will be. If a man is homosexual and divulges that to his bishop/counselor and a few close friends/family, that is one thing. However, if the community knows it, wouldn't appear like the BSA is supporting the lifestyle? Which, if they choose to do, that's fine. If they don't want to, however, then accepting openly-gay leaders would have a dramatic impact on their public image.

I believe you are asking some very important questions. I too have wondered why any gay person who intended to stay a member in good standing, in other words not act on their attraction would come out publicly. The only example that I have personally witnessed was a young man who came out during a fast and testimony meeting. The youth and several members rallied to his support, but this was at a time of political activism in our Stake on the issue of gay marriage and the Stake President was quite active on the issue and conducted a special Priesthood session in our ward soon thereafter in which he ascribed the movement for gay marriage as being Satanic in origin . The result was that the young man went inactive and was soon followed by his entire family including his father a former Bishop in the ward. I have often wondered about how all of that could have been handled differently. The young man later entered a gay marriage.

[CASteinman]

From as best I can tell, the alleged "shadow" doesn't fit the shape or the lighting in the linked photo or in the graphic you posted. But, I will accept that there may have been nothing intentionally untoward happening at the time of the photograph.

There were at least two comments preceding mine that addressed the graphic you posted. Interesting, indeed.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It appears to be innocent.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/f76780bafd5cb7b8eb6dfdbc33eac80c/tumblr_mgbdyvDzo71r5jus8o1_1280.jpg

[CASteinman]

Here's my question, and it is a very sincere question, not tongue-in cheek. Why do people who are homosexual in orientation but do not participate in extramarital sex or homosexual relationships feel the need to "come out" to society? I don't think the issue with homosexual leaders is really an issue of trust or if they will molest boys (I don't believe sexual orientation has much to do with molestation rates), but what the perspective of the organization will be. If a man is homosexual and divulges that to his bishop/counselor and a few close friends/family, that is one thing. However, if the community knows it, wouldn't it appear like the BSA is supporting the lifestyle? Which, if they choose to do, that's fine. If they don't want to, however, then accepting openly-gay leaders would have a dramatic impact on their public image.

Its a good question. Immediately several alternative possibilities entered my mind and they might not all be mutually exclusive but I sort of thought of them as exclusive:

1. It is part of the pathology -- a need to "show".

2. It "feels" dishonest to have everyone think one thing and have you be something else inside (and youth is/are idealistic).

3. It is an act of social subversion or rebellion.

4. It is part -- a step so to speak -- of the process of becoming identified so that behavior may follow without additional surprise.

5. It is a cry for help.

In the end, I decided I did not know the answer. I also do not think that this is something that just asking the individuals involved would necessarily provide the full or correct answer.

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

Well I don't know about confusing general and the specific. I do know that when I ran track and cross-country back in the 1960's that the only adults other than coaches who showed up for our meets were my mother and father. And that was back when most of the mothers still worked at home. When my children ran in track and cross-country meets a small crowd of parents were there. My boys now coach both and the same holds true. We had plenty of girls getting pregnant out of wedlock in my hometown growing up, the difference between then and now is that we used to kick the girls out of school and suspend the fathers (if they came forward) from extracurriculars. So basically, I think we are getting better. True the gays and lesbians are more likely to come out of the closet, and drugs have about the same availability rate, but fewer kids are smoking. Pre-maritial sex is more common -- I think primarily due to the "pill" as the major deterrent back in the day was the girl being afraid of getting pregnant. But I don't see that the rising generation is necessarily more deviant than prior generations and they certainly aren't indiscriminately hanging blacks down South anymore. People are still raising families, but women aren't staying with men that beat the crap out of them as much, etc. On a macro level I don't see the Soviets killing millions of their own people for expressing their opinions, and I don't see any European country gassing people because of their ethnicity. True some of the middle-eastern countries are degenerating into medieval type societies, but that has been a tendency over there for years -- they have just had the curse of having too much oil underneath their land else we probably wouldn't give a rip. I don't see any country with the capacity to deliver an A bomb actually making any moves like it would do so -- although North Korea's leader does appear a bit deranged.

Again, this has little if anything to do with what I quoted from Paul. Sorry to see that you didn't heed my helpful suggestion. Oh well...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Its a good question. Immediately several alternative possibilities entered my mind and they might not all be mutually exclusive but I sort of thought of them as exclusive:

1. It is part of the pathology -- a need to "show".

2. It "feels" dishonest to have everyone think one thing and have you be something else inside (and youth is/are idealistic).

3. It is an act of social subversion or rebellion.

4. It is part -- a step so to speak -- of the process of becoming identified so that behavior may follow without additional surprise.

5. It is a cry for help.

In the end, I decided I did not know the answer. I also do not think that this is something that just asking the individuals involved would necessarily provide the full or correct answer.

Trying to place myself in the position of one who is beset with SSA and who knows that it is a condition not likely to change in mortality, I should think I would keep it to myself for the most part (while resolving to remain celibate in mortality), but would disclose it to certain individuals, i.e. close and trusted family members and friends, as well as priesthood leaders in a direct pastoral role over me, as I would feel the need for their support, compassion and counsel.

[california boy]

Here's my question, and it is a very sincere question, not tongue-in cheek. Why do people who are homosexual in orientation but do not participate in extramarital sex or homosexual relationships feel the need to "come out" to society? I don't think the issue with homosexual leaders is really an issue of trust or if they will molest boys (I don't believe sexual orientation has much to do with molestation rates), but what the perspective of the organization will be. If a man is homosexual and divulges that to his bishop/counselor and a few close friends/family, that is one thing. However, if the community knows it, wouldn't it appear like the BSA is supporting the lifestyle? Which, if they choose to do, that's fine. If they don't want to, however, then accepting openly-gay leaders would have a dramatic impact on their public image.

I can understand your question coming from someone who has probably not ever had to deal with what it means to be gay. Let me share with you what I know about this issue. It might give you a better perspective. I am friends with a gay member who has only told his parents and the bishop. He was active in a singles ward where there is a lot of pressure to date. He is good looking and a great guy. Occasionally women would ask him to go do something with him. They wouldn't necessarily call it a date, but it really was. The guy would accept and have a fun time with the young woman. A week would go by and then he would get a call from the young woman asking if he didn't also have a good time. Then the question. Well when are you going to ask me out? She simply wanted to get to know him better. But it isn't that easy. If he did go out with the young woman, she would start to become interested and want to know where their relationship was headed. He found it almost impossible to just be friends with the women in the ward. But he had absolutely no romantic interest in them. They would get upset at him and think that there was something wrong with them. Then they would get upset with him and think he was just a jerk. For a guy that is very sensitive to how he treats others, this really upset him. He tried to just not date or go on activities with the women in the ward, but it was not that easy. He began to isolate himself even more. In the end, he just quit going to church.

Sometimes it is just easier to be honest with others and tell them that you are gay. The women understand that they can be friends with you, but there is not going to be a romantic relationship. Given this reality, what would you do? Would you tell others that you were gay or would you kinda be not totally truthful with them and pretend you were straight? It is not as easy as you may think.

[wenglund]

I believe you are asking some very important questions. I too have wondered why any gay person who intended to stay a member in good standing,

It is as senseless as were certain married men to come out of the closet about their attraction to other men's wives they haven't acted upon--accept that, in our day and age, coming out of the closet for homosexual has become a matter of prestige and a potential means for manipulation, all under the guise of "being true to oneself."

in other words not act on their attraction would come out publicly. The only example that I have personally witnessed was a young man who came out during a fast and testimony meeting. The youth and several members rallied to his support, but this was at a time of political activism in our Stake on the issue of gay marriage and the Stake President was quite active on the issue and conducted a special Priesthood session in our ward soon thereafter in which he ascribed the movement for gay marriage as being Satanic in origin . The result was that the young man went inactive and was soon followed by his entire family including his father a former Bishop in the ward. I have often wondered about how all of that could have been handled differently. The young man later entered a gay marriage.

I think it could have been handled differently. The young man and his entire family could have reacted maturely and not sacrificed their faith and spiritual welfare over their misguided political position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[CASteinman]

We had plenty of girls getting pregnant out of wedlock in my hometown growing up, the difference between then and now is that we used to kick the girls out of school and suspend the fathers (if they came forward) from extracurriculars. So basically, I think we are getting better.

I guess it depends on what you consider "better". It seems to me that these two statistics indicate it is not better by a long shot:

1. The ratio of children born in wedlock vs children born out of wedlock was about 9 to 1 in the first half of the 60's. Presently it appears to be on the order of 1 to 1. To me, that is worse than when we used to make it a bad thing and now accept it.

2. In addition to this increase in children born out of wedlock, more children are also aborted. Again, to me this is worse not better.

[rockpond]

I think it could have been handled differently. The young man and his entire family could have reacted maturely and not sacrificed their faith and spiritual welfare over their misguided political position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Maybe the Stake President shouldn't have been using his position & a priesthood session to talk about a political position being satanic.

But, I suspect that this family viewed the issue as far more significant than a political position.

[wenglund]

Maybe the Stake President shouldn't have been using his position & a priesthood session to talk about a political position being satanic.

But, I suspect that this family viewed the issue as far more significant than a political position.

Way to miss the salient point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 23, 2013 by wenglund

[CASteinman]

Trying to place myself in the position of one who is beset with SSA and who knows that it is a condition not likely to change in mortality, I should think I would keep it to myself for the most part (while resolving to remain celibate in mortality), but would disclose it to certain individuals, i.e. close and trusted family members and friends, as well as priesthood leaders in a direct pastoral role over me, as I would feel the need for their support, compassion and counsel.

I don't know if I would try to keep it to myself. I think I would try to find some sort of -- I won't call it a cure or treatment -- but some sort of way to modify my responses so that I could be more attracted to women. I absolutely believe this is possible and even likely for a great many who are attracted to the same sex.

I would like to see less gossip, less attention, and less pandering to people with same sex attraction and greater appreciation for how we all must struggle with things and that SSA struggles do not necessarily result in people who are bad people and that hidden problems that some heterosexuals struggle with make them potentially worse people. We all struggle and we should have some sympathy and courtesy one to another over such things.

This means, to me, that a gay man would not need to "come out" but would not need to be afraid of saying to a girl "I am not attracted go girls generally". She would not gossip about him and if she was weak and did gossip the community would not support any evil thinking or actions in his direction.

But this is an idealistic community and not where we mostly live.

[CASteinman]

Maybe the Stake President shouldn't have been using his position & a priesthood session to talk about a political position being satanic.

But some of them are. Apostles have said as much. Should we pander and not preach the truth in order to keep people happy?

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know if I would try to keep it to myself. I think I would try to find some sort of -- I won't call it a cure or treatment -- but some sort of way to modify my responses so that I could be more attracted to women. I absolutely believe this is possible and even likely for a great many who are attracted to the same sex.

But many have said that in their own cases it is not possible. I am hypothetically putting myself in the position of one such person.

I would like to see less gossip, less attention, and less pandering to people with same sex attraction and greater appreciation for how we all must struggle with things and that SSA struggles do not necessarily result in people who are bad people and that hidden problems that some heterosexuals struggle with make them potentially worse people. We all struggle and we should have some sympathy and courtesy one to another over such things.

I totally agree with this.

This means, to me, that a gay man would not need to "come out" but would not need to be afraid of saying to a girl "I am not attracted go girls generally". She would not gossip about him and if she was weak and did gossip the community would not support any evil thinking or actions in his direction.

Depends on what you mean by "come out." I think such a man's priesthood leaders, at the very least, need to know about it, because it is necessary in their role of providing pastoral care for him, determining what callings he can hold, backing off when it comes to encouraging him to date, etc. And as I mentioned above, trusted family members and friends who are compassionate and caring can be in a position to help him if they know about it.

But this is an idealistic community and not where we mostly live.

Yes, we are speaking of ideals and hypotheticals here.

[CASteinman]

But many have said that in their own cases it is not possible. I am hypothetically putting myself in the position of one such person.

Yes, I suppose that there are such people. But I think the matter has been over propagandized and is now believed way too much. Belief makes us actually become different -- whether we believe true or false.