Boy Scouts Vote To Accept Gay Youth

[california boy]

If the BSA policy of excluding gay leaders was simply discrimination and nothing else, you might have a point. Unfortunately for your side, that's not the case.Hence the simplistic accusation of "discrimination" whenever someone disagrees with what gays are demanding with regards to BSA policy is simply vilification on your part.

You still don't get it. It is the majority of the American public that are demanding BSA not discriminating. You keep making this a "gay agenda" demand, it is not. It is an issue with the general public and corporations that does not like discrimination of any kind. When BSA chooses to discriminate against gays for what ever reason they feel justifies their position, the majority of Americans will be opposed to their discrimination policies.

There are ways of dealing with BSA concerns about gay leaders. Two deep leadership and requiring all scout leaders to only sleep with other adults would solve most of the fears some seem to have about gay scout leaders. I personally think it is a much wiser course to take regardless of who they allow in the scouting program. and is probably required now. Those that want to prey on young boys are not the most honest men. Preventing out gays from leadership roles does nothing to address this concern.

[Stone holm]

If the BSA policy of excluding gay leaders was simply discrimination and nothing else, you might have a point. Unfortunately for your side, that's not the case.Hence the simplistic accusation of "discrimination" whenever someone disagrees with what gays are demanding with regards to BSA policy is simply vilification on your part.

Excluding gay and lesbian leaders is a form of discrimination, whether it is a righteous form or not depends upon your religious views. The way of solving that is not to turn BSA into a religious battlefield where one side tries to impose its beliefs on all of the chartered Organizations, some of whom aren't even religious Organizations, but to let those Organizations choose their own policy. Because the sentiment against discrimination has grown so strong, the social conservatives as part of an educational law enjoined public schools from banning BSA from their properties on the basis of discrimination. Clearly here we have LGBT activists (so called gay agenda) and Social Conservatives ( so called Christian Right or Moral Majority) using BSA as a battlefield. What we needed BSA to do was invite the pugilists to take their fight outside, namely outside BSA, so we could continue to conduct Americas iconic youth program in peace and no one would feel conscience bound to withhold funding or to leave the Organization.

[jwhitlock]

You still don't get it. It is the majority of the American public that are demanding BSA not discriminating. You keep making this a "gay agenda" demand, it is not. It is an issue with the general public and corporations that does not like discrimination of any kind. When BSA chooses to discriminate against gays for what ever reason they feel justifies their position, the majority of Americans will be opposed to their discrimination policies.

Really. Pressure from gay groups had nothing to do with this. Gay groups misrepresenting this as simply discrimination with no other explanation possible had nothing to do with this. Most Americans are opposed to discrimination in any form, even as they practice all sorts of discrimination every day.

Got any more fantasy tales that you want to tell us?

[jwhitlock]

Excluding gay and lesbian leaders is a form of discrimination, whether it is a righteous form or not depends upon your religious views. The way of solving that is not to turn BSA into a religious battlefield where one side tries to impose its beliefs on all of the chartered Organizations, some of whom aren't even religious Organizations, but to let those Organizations choose their own policy. Because the sentiment against discrimination has grown so strong, the social conservatives as part of an educational law enjoined public schools from banning BSA from their properties on the basis of discrimination. Clearly here we have LGBT activists (so called gay agenda) and Social Conservatives ( so called Christian Right or Moral Majority) using BSA as a battlefield. What we needed BSA to do was invite the pugilists to take their fight outside, namely outside BSA, so we could continue to conduct Americas iconic youth program in peace and no one would feel conscience bound to withhold funding or to leave the Organization.

You conveniently forget the fact that the BSA has its roots as a religiously founded organization, with "Duty to God" as a central tenet of its mission. You (and the gay groups you side with) want to turn the BSA into a purely secular organization, something that would eliminate the reason why it has been effective in the lives of young men. Gay groups have been effective in propagandizing their own definition of discrimination on various institutions and to individuals in society using the media. When your side is ready to finally realize that there are good and valid reasons - all of which have been discussed on this board at length - for keeping the BSA the way it is, and quit misusing well-poisoning phrases such as "discrimination" to demonize those who disagree with you, then maybe a discussion can take place.

Again, I'll make the point that claiming that a majority of Americans oppose all forms of discrimination is simply ludicrous on its face. It's those kinds of claims that make any real discussion next to impossible.

[california boy]

You conveniently forget the fact that the BSA has its roots as a religiously founded organization, with "Duty to God" as a central tenet of its mission. You (and the gay groups you side with) want to turn the BSA into a purely secular organization, something that would eliminate the reason why it has been effective in the lives of young men.

Do you think that you can't be religious if you are gay?

From June 1st.

Lutheran Church Elects First Openly Gay Bishop

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America has elected the Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin to a six-year term as bishop of Southwest California Synod, which covers the greater Los Angeles area. It is the first time the church has elected an openly gay bishop.

Gay groups have been effective in propagandizing their own definition of discrimination on various institutions and to individuals in society using the media. When your side is ready to finally realize that there are good and valid reasons - all of which have been discussed on this board at length - for keeping the BSA the way it is, and quit misusing well-poisoning phrases such as "discrimination" to demonize those who disagree with you, then maybe a discussion can take place.

Again, I'll make the point that claiming that a majority of Americans oppose all forms of discrimination is simply ludicrous on its face. It's those kinds of claims that make any real discussion next to impossible.

Most Americans definition of discrimination is when you bar an entire group of people from your organization simply because they are gay. It is exactly what the BSA has been doing. Americans have heard both sides of this argument. They have heard your "good and valid reasons" for justifying discrimination. Both sides have been heard in the media, most of the time appearing together on the same news segment, asked the same questions. The truth of the matter is, most Americans don't buy your justification for discriminating against gays. They think it is wrong, and they are not going to put up with it any longer. They are going to push back.

I am not demonizing anyone, I am only explaining why this issue is progressing. False accusations is not going to win this argument for you. And blaming it on "the gays" does not explain why the majority of Americans think discriminating against gays has got to stop. If you have a better reason to explain why people are walking away from supporting groups like the BSA who discriminate, I am ready to hear your explanation.

[jwhitlock]

Do you think that you can't be religious if you are gay?

Nope, that's not what I said. Try again.

Most Americans definition of discrimination is when you bar an entire group of people from your organization simply because they are gay. It is exactly what the BSA has been doing. Americans have heard both sides of this argument. They have heard your "good and valid reasons" for justifying discrimination. Both sides have been heard in the media, most of the time appearing together on the same news segment, asked the same questions. The truth of the matter is, most Americans don't buy your justification for discriminating against gays. They think it is wrong, and they are not going to put up with it any longer. They are going to push back.

Quite a few unfounded assumptions here. First, it is doubtful that you can define what "most Americans" think discrimination is, since I doubt they generally think too much about the concept in general - beyond what the media is telling them. Second, I was not aware that the BSA was barring all gays from their organization given their revised policy concerning youth with SSA, especially since this has already been general practice in the church and other scout units for a number of years now - a bit of a faux pas on your part. Third, Americans have not by any means heard both sides of this argument. Most are basing their opinions on biased media sources, which typically phrase the issue in rather shallow terms of "equality" and "discrimination" without digging into them any further. Fourth, the media has been rather biased on this and has presented their own viewpoints in hopes of swaying Americans, rather than informing them. Most Americans are simply not well informed about the issue. Fifth, most Americans frankly don't think too much about the issue at all. Most don't have boys in scouting and most don't really care that much, so characterizing "most Americans" as "pushing back" on this is simply hype.

The claims of "discrimination" being actively resisted by most Americans is simply not borne out by what's happening in the real world.

I am not demonizing anyone, I am only explaining why this issue is progressing. False accusations is not going to win this argument for you. And blaming it on "the gays" does not explain why the majority of Americans think discriminating against gays has got to stop. If you have a better reason to explain why people are walking away from supporting groups like the BSA who discriminate, I am ready to hear your explanation.

I'm reminded of claims that we hear from time to time that huge numbers of people are leaving the church. Kind of like the claims from the Iraqi minister of propaganda that hundreds of American soldiers were committing suicide outside of Baghdad during the war there. To claim that gay groups have not driven the pressure being put on the BSA and that it's really what the American public and corporations are actively demanding is disingenuous. Misrepresenting things by hyping them as some kind of grass roots uprising against the BSA is not going to win this argument for you.

[Stone holm]

You conveniently forget the fact that the BSA has its roots as a religiously founded organization, with "Duty to God" as a central tenet of its mission. You (and the gay groups you side with) want to turn the BSA into a purely secular organization, something that would eliminate the reason why it has been effective in the lives of young men. Gay groups have been effective in propagandizing their own definition of discrimination on various institutions and to individuals in society using the media. When your side is ready to finally realize that there are good and valid reasons - all of which have been discussed on this board at length - for keeping the BSA the way it is, and quit misusing well-poisoning phrases such as "discrimination" to demonize those who disagree with you, then maybe a discussion can take place.

Again, I'll make the point that claiming that a majority of Americans oppose all forms of discrimination is simply ludicrous on its face. It's those kinds of claims that make any real discussion next to impossible.

Your understanding of the BSA being organised as a religious based entity is not in accord with my understanding of BSA history. BSA goes out of its way to avoid religious partisanship. While it requires a belief in a supreme being it favours none. It was set up as a leadership training program. Going back further to Scoutings origin it came out of Britain's disasterous experience in the Boer wars, which led Baden Powell to believe that they needed a training program for boys which will teach them to work together in small groups. Troops in America were not just sponsored by religious Organizations. As time has gone on, however, its CO ranks have been thinned until dominated by the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The BSA religious award which you refer to is the LDS award, each Church has its own award it is not necessarily required for rank advancement and many troops do not emphasise it.

[jwhitlock]

Your understanding of the BSA being organised as a religious based entity is not in accord with my understanding of BSA history. BSA goes out of its way to avoid religious partisanship. While it requires a belief in a supreme being it favours none. It was set up as a leadership training program. Going back further to Scoutings origin it came out of Britain's disasterous experience in the Boer wars, which led Baden Powell to believe that they needed a training program for boys which will teach them to work together in small groups. Troops in America were not just sponsored by religious Organizations. As time has gone on, however, its CO ranks have been thinned until dominated by the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The BSA religious award which you refer to is the LDS award, each Church has its own award it is not necessarily required for rank advancement and many troops do not emphasise it.

Since I never said "religious partisanship", you missed the point.

[Stone holm]

Since I never said "religious partisanship", you missed the point.

No igot the organised as a religious based entity and said not really.

[california boy]

Nope, that's not what I said. Try again.

This is what you did say.

You (and the gay groups you side with) want to turn the BSA into a purely secular organization

Since you have now acknowledged that you can be gay and be religious, CFR where gay groups and I are trying to make scouting purely secular.

Quite a few unfounded assumptions here. First, it is doubtful that you can define what "most Americans" think discrimination is, since I doubt they generally think too much about the concept in general - beyond what the media is telling them.

Ok, lets go through your points. My statement was that the majority of Americans believe that the BSA is discriminating against gays. Are you denying that poll after poll have affirmed this statement? If I provide the polls will you then admit that the majority of Americans believe that the BSA are discriminating against gays?

Second, I was not aware that the BSA was barring all gays from their organization given their revised policy concerning youth with SSA, especially since this has already been general practice in the church and other scout units for a number of years now - a bit of a faux pas on your part.

I did not say all gays, I said gays. I also specifically talked about scout leadership.

Third, Americans have not by any means heard both sides of this argument. Most are basing their opinions on biased media sources, which typically phrase the issue in rather shallow terms of "equality" and "discrimination" without digging into them any further.

Like I also stated. There have been countless times where the media has had a representative from both sides explain their position on this issue. Are you now denying that this is a regular occurrence when discussing this issue?

Fourth, the media has been rather biased on this and has presented their own viewpoints in hopes of swaying Americans, rather than informing them. Most Americans are simply not well informed about the issue.

I repeat again, When the media has done stories on this issue, both sides have often been given the opportunity to explain their position. Trying to blame the media as the reason why the majority of Americans disagree with the scouting policy is unfounded.

Fifth, most Americans frankly don't think too much about the issue at all. Most don't have boys in scouting and most don't really care that much, so characterizing "most Americans" as "pushing back" on this is simply hype.

You may be right about caring for scouting. But that doesn't mean that most Americans and most corporations disagree with the scouting policy of banning gay leadership. They do however think that finally allowing gay boys to join the scouts is a step in the right direction. And I would say that most Americans frankly do think a lot about this issue of discriminating against gays in general. This is just one of many ways gays are discriminated against in this country.

The claims of "discrimination" being actively resisted by most Americans is simply not borne out by what's happening in the real world.

I'm reminded of claims that we hear from time to time that huge numbers of people are leaving the church. Kind of like the claims from the Iraqi minister of propaganda that hundreds of American soldiers were committing suicide outside of Baghdad during the war there. To claim that gay groups have not driven the pressure being put on the BSA and that it's really what the American public and corporations are actively demanding is disingenuous. Misrepresenting things by hyping them as some kind of grass roots uprising against the BSA is not going to win this argument for you.

I never stated that gays are not pressuring BSA to change their discrimination practices. I agree they are pushing scouting to stop discriminating. What I did state is that it is the majority of Americans and corporations which don't believe discrimination is something scouting should engage in that is actually causing scouting to change their policy. You will remember that I started out by remindnig you that only 3-5% of the total population is gay. I doubt very seriously that those kinds of numbers alone would cause BSA to change their policy.

[jwhitlock]

This is what you did say.

Since you have now acknowledged that you can be gay and be religious, CFR where gay groups and I are trying to make scouting purely secular.

The gay agenda to remake the BSA includes the demand that ALL units of scouting be required to accept openly gay leaders. That means purely secular demands (gay agenda) override religious considerations in an organization. That results in making an organization more secular. As you are well aware, gay rights groups' agenda includes making religious principles, worship, and practice subject to litmus tests based on "inclusiveness" when it comes to gays. That's the ultimate goal, and is a purely secular goal.

Ok, lets go through your points. My statement was that the majority of Americans believe that the BSA is discriminating against gays. Are you denying that poll after poll have affirmed this statement? If I provide the polls will you then admit that the majority of Americans believe that the BSA are discriminating against gays?

As I made very clear, I don't think that most Americans have bought into a very simplistic definition of "discrimination" in this case, which they have been fed by a media pushing gay rights agendas. Given the leading nature of polls and the ways questions are often phrased to return a desired result, I don't accept polling data as particularly realistic or "proof" of anything in general. You keep wanting to come back to a simplistic definition of discrimination in pushing your point; the fact is that when you start to explain personally to someone who "supports ending discrimination in the BSA" what is really going on, many rethink their position - in my experience.

I did not say all gays, I said gays. I also specifically talked about scout leadership.

This whole point is quite a weakness in your argument. Your use of "gays" in the context of BSA discrimination accusations (and you did NOT mention just leadership) was all inclusive. Yet now that we have BSA policy admitting boys with SSA who are not acting on that weakness, there is really no validity anymore to the claim that the BSA discriminates against gays (inclusive). Yet we're still finding gay rights groups screaming that there's all inclusive (gays) discrimination still being practiced by the BSA.

This is an example of the simplistic sound bites being pushed by gay rights groups when it comes to the definition of discrimination. It's a bit more complicated than that, but you really don't want people to delve deeper into it do you.

Like I also stated. There have been countless times where the media has had a representative from both sides explain their position on this issue. Are you now denying that this is a regular occurrence when discussing this issue?

Most Americans (in fact, quite a large majority) don't watch such shows that go into any depth on the subject. They don't have the attention span to do so. Hence, polling about "discrimination" is based on rather shallow responses of people to whatever has caught their attention in passing.

I repeat again, When the media has done stories on this issue, both sides have often been given the opportunity to explain their position. Trying to blame the media as the reason why the majority of Americans disagree with the scouting policy is unfounded.

Given that the media does have demonstrated agendas (and it does, you know), and since most Americans really don't think too deeply about the issue and are not tuned in to any kind of in depth analysis of the subject, any poll showing that Americans think the BSA "discriminates" are really demonstrating that most Americans are regurgitating the sound bites they have been fed.

You may be right about caring for scouting. But that doesn't mean that most Americans and most corporations disagree with the scouting policy of banning gay leadership. They do however think that finally allowing gay boys to join the scouts is a step in the right direction. And I would say that most Americans frankly do think a lot about this issue of discriminating against gays in general. This is just one of many ways gays are discriminated against in this country.

You overstate the importance that gays have in Americans' every day lives. They don't think a lot about this issue, or about other issues in general. They just regurgitate what is being fed to them by whatever media outlet they are paying attention to. You also overstate discrimination against gays in this country. But I do understand that; the victimization methodology needs to be milked as long as possible so that gay rights can become the overreaching litmus test on anything in this country.

I never stated that gays are not pressuring BSA to change their discrimination practices. I agree they are pushing scouting to stop discriminating. What I did state is that it is the majority of Americans and corporations which don't believe discrimination is something scouting should engage in that is actually causing scouting to change their policy. You will remember that I started out by remindnig you that only 3-5% of the total population is gay. I doubt very seriously that those kinds of numbers alone would cause BSA to change their policy.

You stated very clearly that Americans and corporations are the major impetus for changing the BSA to be what gays want it to be. That's false; gay rights groups have been the catalyst for the pressure on the BSA the whole time. Accusations of discrimination against the BSA are based on political and media considerations, and not on moral or ethical evidence. Most corporations operate in a political / financial world where real ethics are not a consideration. Gay groups have managed to tap into a perception that their definition of discrimination should be embraced, or there will be financial consequences. That's what's really happening.

In addition, your assertion that small minorities don't exert influence in society is simply ridiculous. I won't even bother responding further to that.

[Stone holm]

The gay agenda to remake the BSA includes the demand that ALL units of scouting be required to accept openly gay leaders. That means purely secular demands (gay agenda) override religious considerations in an organization. That results in making an organization more secular. As you are well aware, gay rights groups' agenda includes making religious principles, worship, and practice subject to litmus tests based on "inclusiveness" when it comes to gays. That's the ultimate goal, and is a purely secular goal.

As I made very clear, I don't think that most Americans have bought into a very simplistic definition of "discrimination" in this case, which they have been fed by a media pushing gay rights agendas. Given the leading nature of polls and the ways questions are often phrased to return a desired result, I don't accept polling data as particularly realistic or "proof" of anything in general. You keep wanting to come back to a simplistic definition of discrimination in pushing your point; the fact is that when you start to explain personally to someone who "supports ending discrimination in the BSA" what is really going on, many rethink their position - in my experience.

This whole point is quite a weakness in your argument. Your use of "gays" in the context of BSA discrimination accusations (and you did NOT mention just leadership) was all inclusive. Yet now that we have BSA policy admitting boys with SSA who are not acting on that weakness, there is really no validity anymore to the claim that the BSA discriminates against gays (inclusive). Yet we're still finding gay rights groups screaming that there's all inclusive (gays) discrimination still being practiced by the BSA.

This is an example of the simplistic sound bites being pushed by gay rights groups when it comes to the definition of discrimination. It's a bit more complicated than that, but you really don't want people to delve deeper into it do you.

Most Americans (in fact, quite a large majority) don't watch such shows that go into any depth on the subject. They don't have the attention span to do so. Hence, polling about "discrimination" is based on rather shallow responses of people to whatever has caught their attention in passing.

Given that the media does have demonstrated agendas (and it does, you know), and since most Americans really don't think too deeply about the issue and are not tuned in to any kind of in depth analysis of the subject, any poll showing that Americans think the BSA "discriminates" are really demonstrating that most Americans are regurgitating the sound bites they have been fed.

You overstate the importance that gays have in Americans' every day lives. They don't think a lot about this issue, or about other issues in general. They just regurgitate what is being fed to them by whatever media outlet they are paying attention to. You also overstate discrimination against gays in this country. But I do understand that; the victimization methodology needs to be milked as long as possible so that gay rights can become the overreaching litmus test on anything in this country.

You stated very clearly that Americans and corporations are the major impetus for changing the BSA to be what gays want it to be. That's false; gay rights groups have been the catalyst for the pressure on the BSA the whole time. Accusations of discrimination against the BSA are based on political and media considerations, and not on moral or ethical evidence. Most corporations operate in a political / financial world where real ethics are not a consideration. Gay groups have managed to tap into a perception that their definition of discrimination should be embraced, or there will be financial consequences. That's what's really happening.

In addition, your assertion that small minorities don't exert influence in society is simply ridiculous. I won't even bother responding further to that.

What happened was that all BSA units must now accept "gay" Scouts who are otherwise worthy, and that no BSA unit -- even those whose Chartered Org. perform SSM and which have anti-discrimination policies or which have gay/lesbian pastors are not allowed to have gay/lesbian leaders. The original compromise would have allowed each Chartered Org. to make both decisions for themselves. It is hard to see that the gays with or without an agenda are the ones imposing on all organizations, they certainly weren't in the original compromise. Historically the Chartered Org. had virtually complete control over the appointment of local unit leaders. BSA has turned into a battlefield for Christian Right Activists pushing their conservative social agenda and Gay Rights activists pushing for reform to fight out their political/social/cultural warfare. This is no longer about providing leadership and group cooperation experience for boys, it is about two groups of politically active adults locked in a culture war.

[rockpond]

You stated very clearly that Americans and corporations are the major impetus for changing the BSA to be what gays want it to be. That's false; gay rights groups have been the catalyst for the pressure on the BSA the whole time. Accusations of discrimination against the BSA are based on political and media considerations, and not on moral or ethical evidence. Most corporations operate in a political / financial world where real ethics are not a consideration. Gay groups have managed to tap into a perception that their definition of discrimination should be embraced, or there will be financial consequences. That's what's really happening.

It seems to me that the BSA's membership policy had all but disappeared from the consciences of the average American prior to the summer of 2012 (when the BSA announced completion of their two-year study and decision to maintain the current membership policy). BSA has the legal ability to maintain the policy that prohibited open/avowed homosexuals... and they were clearly intending to do so. "Gay rights advocates" may be behind what happened earlier this year but the real issue here is that the BSA wanted corporate dollars more than they wanted the policy prohibiting homosexuals. So, in your tirades against "gay rights groups" regarding this policy change you might wish to also place the blame on those who are actually responsible: BSA execs who decided that they were more interested in continuing to fund their salaries and pay for their offices.

Either that, or they decided that allowing open homosexuals actually was the right thing to do. Which, as an Eagle Scout and a leader in an LDS unit, is what I like to think happened.

[thesometimesaint]

Your understanding of the BSA being organised as a religious based entity is not in accord with my understanding of BSA history. BSA goes out of its way to avoid religious partisanship. While it requires a belief in a supreme being it favours none. It was set up as a leadership training program. Going back further to Scoutings origin it came out of Britain's disasterous experience in the Boer wars, which led Baden Powell to believe that they needed a training program for boys which will teach them to work together in small groups. Troops in America were not just sponsored by religious Organizations. As time has gone on, however, its CO ranks have been thinned until dominated by the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church. The BSA religious award which you refer to is the LDS award, each Church has its own award it is not necessarily required for rank advancement and many troops do not emphasise it.

Actually the BSA is a religious based organization. What it is not is sectarian.

The Boy 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 is:

• Trustworthy,
  
• Loyal,
  
• Helpful,
  
• Friendly,
  
• Courteous,
  
• Kind,
  
• Obedient,
  
• Cheerful,
  
• Thrifty,
  
• Brave,
  
• Clean,
  
• and Reverent.
  

[Stone holm]

It seems to me that the BSA's membership policy had all but disappeared from the consciences of the average American prior to the summer of 2012 (when the BSA announced completion of their two-year study and decision to maintain the current membership policy). BSA has the legal ability to maintain the policy that prohibited open/avowed homosexuals... and they were clearly intending to do so. "Gay rights advocates" may be behind what happened earlier this year but the real issue here is that the BSA wanted corporate dollars more than they wanted the policy prohibiting homosexuals. So, in your tirades against "gay rights groups" regarding this policy change you might wish to also place the blame on those who are actually responsible: BSA execs who decided that they were more interested in continuing to fund their salaries and pay for their offices.

Either that, or they decided that allowing open homosexuals actually was the right thing to do. Which, as an Eagle Scout and a leader in an LDS unit, is what I like to think happened.

Although I dislike the 2nd Compromise because it keeps this war within BSA alive, I do have a certain acknowledged befuddlement about how it comes to anyone's attention that a boy scout is openly either heterosexual or homosexual. How exactly does that come up. I personally can't imagine back in the day when I was a Scoutmaster having a conversation with one of my Scouts about sex, let alone about whether he preferred boys or girls. We had plenty of problems to contend with, but fortunately that one never landed in my face.

[rockpond]

Although I dislike the 2nd Compromise because it keeps this war within BSA alive, I do have a certain acknowledged befuddlement about how it comes to anyone's attention that a boy scout is openly either heterosexual or homosexual. How exactly does that come up. I personally can't imagine back in the day when I was a Scoutmaster having a conversation with one of my Scouts about sex, let alone about whether he preferred boys or girls. We had plenty of problems to contend with, but fortunately that one never landed in my face.

Yeah, it seems unlikely that a boy entering boy scouts at 11 would have openly acknowledged his sexual orientation (much less at 7 or 8 when they join cubs). I would guess that this becomes an issue when gay scouts reach their teen years and start to come out to family & friends. And then, it would seem to me that scout leaders should just verify that the scout is living the oath & law. Isn't that kinda the point of scoutmaster conferences and boards of review?

I too was more a fan of the first proposal: let the chartering organizations decide. Really seemed simple and best to me. But I know that it created concerns for others with respect to district/council events.

[Stone holm]

Yeah, it seems unlikely that a boy entering boy scouts at 11 would have openly acknowledged his sexual orientation (much less at 7 or 8 when they join cubs). I would guess that this becomes an issue when gay scouts reach their teen years and start to come out to family & friends. And then, it would seem to me that scout leaders should just verify that the scout is living the oath & law. Isn't that kinda the point of scoutmaster conferences and boards of review?

I too was more a fan of the first proposal: let the chartering organizations decide. Really seemed simple and best to me. But I know that it created concerns for others with respect to district/council events.

If they didn't like District and Council Events then they didn't have to participate, and the local leader should be there anyway watching over his Scouts, as far as Scout Camp was concerned the Church frequently rented camps and conducted their own. To be honest, back in the day, if a kid were socially unsavvy enough to come out as gay the other boys would have beat the crap out of him as soon as the Scoutmaster's back was turned so it really wouldn't have been a long term problem -- not saying that such activity would be condoned, but am not stupid enough to think that would not have happened. Effeminate boys tended to not last long in Scouts unless they were the Scoutmaster's sons.

[Daniel2]

Yeah, it seems unlikely that a boy entering boy scouts at 11 would have openly acknowledged his sexual orientation (much less at 7 or 8 when they join cubs). I would guess that this becomes an issue when gay scouts reach their teen years and start to come out to family & friends. And then, it would seem to me that scout leaders should just verify that the scout is living the oath & law. Isn't that kinda the point of scoutmaster conferences and boards of review?

Your post raised a question I hadn't thought of before....

Do scout leaders and/or boards of review ask boys if they're sexually active...?? (I don't recall that being the case when I was a scout growing up--but my troop growing up wasn't LDS-affiliated).

Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

Your post raised a question I hadn't thought of before....

Do scout leaders and/or boards of review ask boys if they're sexually active...?? (I don't recall that being the case when I was a scout growing up--but my troop growing up wasn't LDS-affiliated).

Daniel2

Not when I was a scout, but that has been many many moons ago.

[Daniel2]

Not when I was a scout, but that has been many many moons ago.

I wonder if adult leaders are ever asked if they're sexually active, when applying for their positions... (Obviously, LDS troops issue church callings, so my question pertains more towards troops that don't issue religious callings to fill scout leadership positions....)

Daniel

[Garden Girl]

Yesterday in Sacrament Meeting, the bishop read a letter from the First Presidency in regard to the Church's position and participation in BSA.

In essence, the Church will continue to participate in its BSA scouting activities as usual... and, any and all boys joining and participating in the ranks of LDS scout troops will have to agree to adhere to the Church's standards and policies of moral behavior as outlined in the "For The Strength of Youth" booklet.

In other words, any and all boys not willing to adhere to those standards are welcome to join another troop. By the same token, any and all boys who agree to follow the "For the Strength of Youth" standards will be welcome to participate in LDS troops.

GG

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah, I still think that the Church had sent a tacit signal that they wouldn't have objected to the first compromise, ...

This, of course, is nonsense. The Church sent no discernible signal -- tacit or otherwise -- regarding the first compromise.

... and that the reason they were so quick to pronounce themselves satisfied with the second compromise is that they wanted to head off the Great Salt Lake Council from derailing the second compromise.

I submit you do not know what the position of Great Salt Lake Council was regarding the second compromise prior to the Church making a statement on it.

This is a case where the Church understands the cultural/political situation more realistically than do certain social conservatives in Utah and elsewheres.

The Church's position is what it is: There can be no lawful expression of sexuality outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, though there is no sin in merely having unexpressed homosexual tendencies.

The "cultural/political situation" is not going to change that; not now and not in the future. The "social conservatives in Utah" who are faithful Latter-day Saints pretty much hold to the view of the Church on the matter.

At any rate, that's how I see it as a Latter-day Saint who resides in Utah and who is acquainted with many other Latter-day Saints who reside in Utah.

[Stone holm]

This, of course, is nonsense. The Church sent no discernible signal -- tacit or otherwise -- regarding the first compromise.

I submit you do not know what the position of Great Salt Lake Council was regarding the second compromise prior to the making a statement on it.

The Church's position is what it is: There can be no lawful expression of sexuality outside of a marriage between a man and a woman, though there is no sin in merely having unexpressed homosexual tendencies.

The "cultural/political situation" is not going to change that; not now and not in the future. The "social conservatives in Utah" who are faithful Latter-day Saints pretty much hold to the view of the Church on the matter.

At any rate, that's how I see it as a Latter-day Saint who resides in Utah and who is acquainted with many other Latter-day Saints who reside in Utah.

As a Latter-Day Saint who does not reside in Utah but follows the issue closely, and is aware of the Church's influence on the National Council it is basically inconceivable that the 1st Compromise would have gotten scheduled for a vote if the Church wanted it squelched, secondly the 1st Compromise was headed towards a vote until the Great Lake Council made a very public protest and called for the vote to be delayed while other alternatives were considered. So if you have any actual concrete information that contradicts that, would be glad to see it.

[california boy]

You stated very clearly that Americans and corporations are the major impetus for changing the BSA to be what gays want it to be. That's false; gay rights groups have been the catalyst for the pressure on the BSA the whole time. Accusations of discrimination against the BSA are based on political and media considerations, and not on moral or ethical evidence. Most corporations operate in a political / financial world where real ethics are not a consideration. Gay groups have managed to tap into a perception that their definition of discrimination should be embraced, or there will be financial consequences. That's what's really happening.

In addition, your assertion that small minorities don't exert influence in society is simply ridiculous. I won't even bother responding further to that.

Gay right groups have been pressuring BSA to stop their discriminating against gays to the point that this issue went before the Supreme Court. BSA stood firm in their commitment to not allow gays into their organization and they got the legal approval to do so. Now all the sudden, BSA initiates a change in this policy. What changed? Did the gay right groups become more active then they were 10 years ago when they forced this issue to the Supreme Court? The pressure from gay groups has always been on BSA to be inclusive. You can't blame the current policy on gay groups. If gay rights groups were the catalyst for this change then it would have happened 10 years ago when they were applying much more pressure.

The only thing that has changed is that corporations are refusing to support scouting with its discrimination policy. They have made no secrets about why they are withdrawing their support. Polling over the past 10 years have moved from supporting the BSA on its discrimination stand to disapproving its policy on how it treats gays. It is these two groups that have been the catalyst for the current change to happen. If it was the gay community that caused this policy change, then it would have happened 10 years ago.

That is my point. Now do you get it????

[Stone holm]

Gay right groups have been pressuring BSA to stop their discriminating against gays to the point that this issue went before the Supreme Court. BSA stood firm in their commitment to not allow gays into their organization and they got the legal approval to do so. Now all the sudden, BSA initiates a change in this policy. What changed? Did the gay right groups become more active then they were 10 years ago when they forced this issue to the Supreme Court? The pressure from gay groups has always been on BSA to be inclusive. You can't blame the current policy on gay groups. If gay rights groups were the catalyst for this change then it would have happened 10 years ago when they were applying much more pressure.

The only thing that has changed is that corporations are refusing to support scouting with its discrimination policy. They have made no secrets about why they are withdrawing their support. Polling over the past 10 years have moved from supporting the BSA on its discrimination stand to disapproving its policy on how it treats gays. It is these two groups that have been the catalyst for the current change to happen. If it was the gay community that caused this policy change, then it would have happened 10 years ago.

That is my point. Now do you get it????

Its actually more than the polling data. Many corporations and not for profits including many United Way funds have anti-discrimination policies -- there has even been some movement in the legal profession because the Judicial Code of Ethics bars membership in discriminatory organizations and there are a fair number of Judges who have been active in Scouts who were starting to feel uneasy. i suspect that if you are living in certain parts of the United States you may have trouble conceiving of the issues and problems that continuation on a national basis of the policy was and will continue to create for the BSA. The Canadians just kind of shake their head in wonder at us.