Boy Scouts Of America Compromise?

[Stone holm]

Way to miss the salient point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What was the salient point?

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I definitely think that one who regards himself as bisexual has a basis for overcoming his SSA.

Edited April 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

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.

I guess you and scott either missed my post or completely ignored the realities of being gay and staying in the closet at church. Though I have never really expected a straight person to really understand the implications of what they want to see gay members of the church do to fit the expectations that they want met. It is the same as hearing single people expound on how parents should raise perfect children when they have absolutely no experience in what being parents entails.

[Scott Lloyd]

I guess you and scott either missed my post or completely ignored the realities of being gay and staying in the closet at church.

I didn't miss your post. And I definitely think that if a gay man is being subjected to unwanted advances by a female at Church, he should make his sexual orientation clear to her so she will know to back off.

What I was getting at with my hopothetical is that there is perhaps a middle ground between being altogether secretive about one's orientation and an all-out, in-your-face, defiant, "coming out" declaration.

I guess what I'm getting at is disclosure on a need-to-know basis. I think it's a reasonable notion.

[california boy]

I didn't miss your post. And I definitely think that if a gay man is being subjected to unwanted advances by a female at Church, he should make his sexual orientation clear to her so she will know to back off.

What I was getting at with my hopothetical is that there is perhaps a middle ground between being altogether secretive about one's orientation and an all-out, in-your-face, defiant, "coming out" declaration.

I guess what I'm getting at is disclosure on a need-to-know basis. I think it's a reasonable notion.

Well I don't know what kind of Single's ward you are familiar with, but telling a sister that you are gay is not likely to result in his situation being a secret for long. And I think my friend knew that.

[CASteinman]

I guess you and scott either missed my post or completely ignored the realities of being gay and staying in the closet at church.

You may have missed my post on the subject. But I did not miss yours. I do not believe the "reality" of being gay and staying in the "closet" in the Church is any necessarily different than other problems people might have -- outside of the cultural evil that makes people behave badly toward others.

Though I have never really expected a straight person to really understand the implications of what they want to see gay members of the church do to fit the expectations that they want met. It is the same as hearing single people expound on how parents should raise perfect children when they have absolutely no experience in what being parents entails.

You have no idea what experiences I have. You are not one to lecture me on this until you do. Its a wee bit offensive that you would make your assumptions and then run off like that.

(PS.. some single people DO know better than some married people. This should be obvious by inspection).

Edited April 23, 2013 by CASteinman

[wenglund]

What was the salient point?

If it is not obvious to you, then it is not comprehensible to you. So, no worries.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Well I don't know what kind of Single's ward you are familiar with, but telling a sister that you are gay is not likely to result in his situation being a secret for long. And I think my friend knew that.

Letting word get out via the grapevine is not the same as making a public, perhaps defiant declaration and demanding to be regarded as a Gay Mormon ™ rather than just a member of the ward and a brother in the gospel. I draw your attention to my use of the term "middle ground."

Edited April 23, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[wenglund]

I didn't miss your post. And I definitely think that if a gay man is being subjected to unwanted advances by a female at Church, he should make his sexual orientation clear to her so she will know to back off.

Actually, I think it may be handled by a gay man the same way that it may be handled by a heterosexual man--i.e. simply and firmly and honestly letting the woman know that he isn't romantically interested. Disclosure of sexual orientation isn't needed. The same is true for lesbians and unwanted male suitors.

Where it may prove a bit more problematic is when singles Wards have match-up dates (where the the activities coordinator goes down the Ward list and randomly matches up the men with the women), but even then it isn't necessary to disclose orientation. One need but opt out for undisclosed reasons, or go out on the date--it isn't as if it will kill you, and most everyone will be going out with people in whom they aren't romantically interested. I have good reason to believe that the women I was matched up with weren't romantically interested in me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, I think it may be handled by a gay man the same way that it may be handled by a heterosexual man--i.e. simply and firmly and honestly letting the woman know that he isn't romantically interested. Disclosure of sexual orientation isn't needed.

Unless he is concerned about sparing her feelings. It isn't much fun to be rejected in any case, and it's worse if you're told it's because you are not romantically desirable.

[rockpond]

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

I think we should preach truth but I think we should avoid preaching political positions as truth.

[BCSpace]

This appears to be a clarification, in the hopes of averting the nuclear option from both sides with either "stand firm" or "open up the Berlin Wall" -style decisions.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out!

It won't work. Gay scouts grow up and want to become leaders. That means this IS a nuclear option just with a slow burn. There is actually another organization targeted at gays who want to participate in Scout-like activities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigators_USA

That is the solution.

Edited April 23, 2013 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

I think we should preach truth but I think we should avoid preaching political positions as truth.

Say rather that political positions should be based in truth as politics is merely one outward sign of belief.

[rockpond]

It won't work. Gay scouts grow up and want to become leaders. That means this IS a nuclear option just with a slow burn.

What I can't figure out is why their first suggestion from earlier this year wasn't the best compromise and the way avoid a "nuclear option". It seemed like letting each chartered organization make their own policy on homosexuality was ideal. Then everyone can find a pack/troop that agrees with their views. Am I naive?

[Scott Lloyd]

It won't work. Gay scouts grow up and want to become leaders. That means this IS a nuclear option just with a slow burn. There is actually another organization targeted at gays who want to participate in Scout-like activities.

http://en.wikipedia..../Navigators_USA

That is the solution.

It would seem so.

I wonder what the Gay pressure groups have to say about this as a possible solution.

[Scott Lloyd]

What I can't figure out is why their first suggestion from earlier this year wasn't the best compromise and the way avoid a "nuclear option". It seemed like letting each chartered organization make their own policy on homosexuality was ideal. Then everyone can find a pack/troop that agrees with their views. Am I naive?

It's because the locally chartered units do not operate in total isolation. They expect and are expected to affiliate with the national organization if not the worldwide movement.

BCSpace's suggestion is the best I've heard for a solution: Let those who want gay volunteers to have unfettered access either form their own parallel organization or join one that's already in place.

[rockpond]

Say rather that political positions should be based in truth as politics is merely one outward sign of belief.

I agree that one's personal politics can be an outward sign of belief. But, is it not possible to believe that God only sanctions heterosexual unions while still politically supporting those who believe otherwise?

[BCSpace]

I wonder what the Gay pressure groups have to say about this as a possible solution.

It would be unacceptable to them. Their agenda is for complete societal and cultural acceptance of their lifestyle. Anything less is considered a threat. Our missionaries preaching the LDS religion is a threat to them because, as anyone well knows, we do not accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle or condition and teach that God Himself is opposed to it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It would be unacceptable to them. Their agenda is for complete societal and cultural acceptance of their lifestyle. Anything less is considered a threat. Our missionaries preaching the LDS religion is a threat to them because, as anyone well knows, we do not accept homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle or condition and teach that God Himself is opposed to it.

Alas, I believe you are correct.

[BCSpace]

I agree that one's personal politics can be an outward sign of belief. But, is it not possible to believe that God only sanctions heterosexual unions while still politically supporting those who believe otherwise?

It's possible to believe anything, but if you mean believe and have such a belief be acceptable to God, then it depends on what you mean, but generally no, one can't. The Romans 1:32 principle prevents it. "pleasure in them that do" is lexically interpreted as aiding, abetting, supporting etc. One could certainly support one's right to a different belief or for gays to marry between themselves. But one could not support, for example, the state recognition of gay marriage as this enshrines wickedness in law.

Edited April 23, 2013 by BCSpace

[CASteinman]

I think we should preach truth but I think we should avoid preaching political positions as truth.

What if the political position is also true or truth?

[california boy]

It would seem so.

I wonder what the Gay pressure groups have to say about this as a possible solution.

They say it is still discrimination. Which it is.

[rockpond]

It's because the locally chartered units do not operate in total isolation. They expect and are expected to affiliate with the national organization if not the worldwide movement.

Yes -- I guess I see the affiliation and even the shared events as a fair part of the compromise.

BCSpace's suggestion is the best I've heard for a solution: Let those who want gay volunteers to have unfettered access either form their own parallel organization or join one that's already in place.

Agreed, BCSpace's suggestion is fair but, I imagine, will result in the BSA losing a great deal of its financial support. But maybe other entities will step up and replace those donors.

[BCSpace]

Let those who want gay volunteers to have unfettered access either form their own parallel organization or join one that's already in place.

Or feel free to create their own.

[CASteinman]

But, is it not possible to believe that God only sanctions heterosexual unions while still politically supporting those who believe otherwise?

I think it is -- but as a compromise. No candidate would be perfect. I supported a man who is superb in every way. A very decent fellow who not only meets my ideas of how government should run, but comes up with original ideas and approaches that I have not thought of but instantly I find myself agreeing with him.

He is also gay and supports gay marriage.

I can't agree with him on that last bit, but I don't get to invent a robot candidate who is perfect. I have to compromise.

I have never voted for or supported anyone that I agreed with 100%.

So it is possible to support someone DESPITE that.

But it is not possible to believe that state recognition of gay marriage is wrong -- and then still support people who hold that idea and support them BECAUSE they hold that idea. That would be a "double minded" person. Neither hot nor cold. Spat out.