Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 nice dodgeHe's right. Go start a thread advocating your position that SSA is always and forever, if that's what you want to discuss. Don't derail this one. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 The First Amendment guarantees that the church can include or exclude anyone they wish, volunteer or not. This is a slippery slope that doesn't apply This is about the church belonging to an organization that allows its members to choose gay leaders. If the church thinks that's too much to ask, they're within their rights to leave, but I think they're crazy for doing this, as it very publicly bolsters the impression a lot of people already had that the LDS church is intolerant of gays. Like I said, there's no upside to this besides having an excuse to get out of Scouting, but very bad PR downsides.There are ways to exert unjust coercion on an entity regardless of First Amendment rights. One of those is bringing onerous litigation. 1
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Ultimately I think you are correct. "If it isn't in our image we will change it or destroy it" seems to be the consistent motto of groups that oppose traditional values based organizations. I don't find replacing one kind of tyranny with another kind of tyranny any kind of diversity, freedom, or liberty at all. How is allowing sponsoring organizations to decide whom to choose as leaders tyrannical in any way? Again, the reaction to this decision is just bizarre to me. Who cares if the Episcopalians choose gay Scout leaders? 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Who is killing the organization? The folks who want to be part of the organization, or the church that is saying it will leave if it has to be in the same organization as those folks? Gay leaders were given the option of joining the organization, just not openly advocating sexuality, just like straight leaders, under the policy adopted last year. Its not just joining that they insisted on, its joining and changing the organization in the process. What I'm hearing behind the rhetoric of freedom is that organizations that espouse heteronormacy, or cisgender policy don't have the right to exist unchanged or they will be sued. Which is not really freedom of religion or association. 1
Guest Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Smac97 I'm not trying to be combative, so I'm sorry if I came across that way. It's just hard to believe some of the claims outlined by Judith Reisman. Feels too folk devil-y. Just kinda feels like scare tactics.it does not mean however that a Scout leader would not know where or encourage a young man how to get in touch with other young men to have his first sexual experience. Even if the youth is unsure and questioning his sexuality. Also unlike other leadership positions like teacher, counselors, etc, scouting puts youth in advance programs in ages over 18, with scoutmasters on extended exposures for periods of time day and night. Also many (most) gay men have had negative experiences with faith and religion, and maybe the youth is just having issues with their belief in God or serving a mission. In this situation the Scouthmaster would feel no obligation to tell the parents or encourage the youth to tell the parents. No mater how you view it, the majority of Gay men disagree with our faith, traditional views of abstinence before marriage and the idea that any of these issues are the business of parents. So you are correct, most Gay men are not attracted to young boys...but do not share our beliefs in what is best for these youngs boys. Face it, Husband and Wife (traditional marriage) views the world differently that Gay marriage couples, most of which have no children.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 You are the one who has CFR'd and even changed the course of the debate. Rockpond said the chruch's stance was the homosexual feeling "are not chosen." YOU CFR'd that statement. Rockpond provided a source which backed up his claim perfectly. Now you are debating inborn and eternal. At least give the man credit for fulfilling your CFR perfectly before moving your goalpost.If rockpond is disavowing an assertion that SSA is inborn, let him define here what he means by "are not chosen."
provoman Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 This is not the same as stating definitively that SSA is inborn.Does man need to commanded or told what to believe in all things? Whether a definitive statement or a statement that allows room for possibilities, it matters not. It is short-sighted and perhaps a denial of teachings for a member of the LDS Church to claim that same sex attraction can not be inborn. We are given weakness to help us become strong and to look to Christ.
Buckeye Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 For one thing, Scout leaders are chosen by calling in the church, so an actively gay man would most likely not be considered worthy to hold such a calling. Nothing in the Scouts' decision requires the church to call gay Scout leaders, and any lawsuit to do so would violate the First Amendment. Again, I don't understand why this is a big deal. The only way it affects the church is that LDS Scout troops might interact with troops that allow gay leaders. It's bizarre to me that the church would put itself out there as not only opposed to gay Scout leaders in its own ranks but on record as insisting that no other sponsoring groups be allowed to choose gay leaders. The upside? They have an excuse to dump Scouting. The downside? They make themselves look unbelievably intolerant. There's also money (isn't there always). The policy helps national in two ways: (1) it allows many corporate donors to continue donating without facing heat from the public, (2) it pushes to the chartering organizations the costs of defending any legal actions. From national's view, that's a double-win. From the church's view, it's a loss to have to pay legal fees (though I still believe the church is better positioned to defend such actions than national).
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) How is allowing sponsoring organizations to decide whom to choose as leaders tyrannical in any way? Again, the reaction to this decision is just bizarre to me. Who cares if the Episcopalians choose gay Scout leaders? Not allowing - forcing. And again don't be so sure that expensive and resource eating lawfare won't be used to force the LDS church out of their cisgender and heteronormative practices when participating in BSA programs, especially if their volunteer policy has not insisted in LDS membership or belief in the past. The LDS Church stance has nothing to do with Episcopalians, Baptists or anyone else. It does have to do with the ability to freely choose their own leaders, and espouse their own values. If the BSA does not continue to have a values set consistent with the LDS values it is no longer a good fit for the LDS youth programs. Edited to add- If the Church remains in the BSA under the new policy (which I personally hope they do) and no one ever sues to be admitted as a gay leader in an LDS, Catholic, Baptist or other church troop that does not currently allow them, I will apologize profusely for by current paranoia. Here is the real irony. I don't have a personal issue with gay scout leaders. I've worked along side them. I've advocated for and finally won equal benefits for gays in my workplace. My real complaint is that external groups are trying to dictate to a private organization, what their values should and should not be. Edited July 28, 2015 by KevinG 1
MorningStar Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Your kids can still get their Eagle scout if the church pulls out of the program, just not in an LDS troop. Your husband can still volunteer in it as well. I'd actually encourage both those options if the church withdrawals. With 5 kids, I don't know how we would have the time or money to do Young Men's and Scouting. 1
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 With 5 kids, I don't know how we would have the time or money to do Young Men's and Scouting. the irony of someone advocating the changing of BSA policy to accommodate them, telling someone they can always go somewhere else to get the Scouting experience is not lost on me. 1
Tacenda Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If the church pulls out, the Utahans will feel the brunt significantly. Think of all the summer day camps for the Cub Scouts. Or so many other things. But I guess life is full of change, hopefully whatever happens, it will be for the best.
smac97 Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 (edited) Not allowing - forcing. And again don't be so sure that expensive and resource eating lawfare won't be used to force the LDS church out of their cisgender and heteronormative practices when participating in BSA programs, especially if their volunteer policy has not insisted in LDS membership or belief in the past. The LDS Church stance has nothing to do with Episcopalians, Baptists or anyone else. It does have to do with the ability to freely choose their own leaders, and espouse their own values. If the BSA does not continue to have a values set consistent with the LDS values it is no longer a good fit for the LDS youth programs. Edited to add- If the Church remains in the BSA under the new policy (which I personally hope they do) and no one ever sues to be admitted as a gay leader in an LDS, Catholic, Baptist or other church troop that does not currently allow them, I will apologize profusely for by current paranoia.It's not paranoia to anticipate further litigation against the LDS Church. See here: "Due to the social political and legal changes taking place in our country and in our movement, I did not believe our adult leadership policy could be sustained," Gates said in a video announcement Monday. "Any effort to do so was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions and at staggering cost."... The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights organization, said the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays. "Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period," said the HRC's president, Chad Griffin. "BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion."...Kenneth Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable. "There will be a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," Upton said. "But that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't keep coming. ... They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going." The BSA specifically cited the ongoing threat of litigation and its attendant "staggering costs" as the basis for the changing the policy to what it is now (allowing openly gay leaders in the BSA, but with church-sponsored organizations still having the option of applying their own standards). And the gay rights folks' response is to . . . threaten to continue litigation until church-sponsored units are not allowed "to continue excluding gays." Thanks, -SMac Edited July 28, 2015 by smac97 4
KevinG Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It's not paranoia to anticipate further litigation against the LDS Church. See here: Looks like the slope has been pre-treated with 30 weight. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 It's not paranoia to anticipate further litigation against the LDS Church. See here: "Due to the social political and legal changes taking place in our country and in our movement, I did not believe our adult leadership policy could be sustained," Gates said in a video announcement Monday. "Any effort to do so was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions and at staggering cost."... The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights organization, said the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays. "Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period," said the HRC's president, Chad Griffin. "BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion."...Kenneth Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable. "There will be a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," Upton said. "But that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't keep coming. ... They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going." The BSA specifically cited the ongoing threat of litigation and its attendant "staggering costs" as the basis for the changing the policy to what it is now (allowing openly gay leaders in the BSA, but with church-sponsored organizations still having the option of applying their own standards). And the gay rights folks' response is to . . . threaten to continue litigation until church-sponsored units are not allowed "to continue excluding gays." Thanks, -SMacThis is the thing that's being ignored by rockpond, John Williams and others on this thread who claim to be "mystified" by the stance the Church is taking. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Looks like the slope has been pre-treated with 30 weight.You're on a roll today, KevinG.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Gay leaders were given the option of joining the organization, just not openly advocating sexuality, just like straight leaders, under the policy adopted last year. Its not just joining that they insisted on, its joining and changing the organization in the process. What I'm hearing behind the rhetoric of freedom is that organizations that espouse heteronormacy, or cisgender policy don't have the right to exist unchanged or they will be sued. Which is not really freedom of religion or association. That's incorrect. The 2013 resolution allowed gay youth to join, but kept in place the policy against gay adult leaders. http://www.scouting.org/sitecore/content/MembershipStandards/Resolution/results.aspx The recent resolution reverses the ban on gay leaders. There's nothing in the resolution about advocating homosexuality, openly or not. Of course the organization will be changed by the inclusion of gay leaders, but I am at a loss as to how that will affect the church's implementation of Scouting. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 If the church pulls out, the Utahans will feel the brunt significantly. Think of all the summer day camps for the Cub Scouts. Or so many other things. But I guess life is full of change, hopefully whatever happens, it will be for the best. I'm certain the Church members in Utah and elsewhere will do just fine. For one thing, we won't have to put up with those nasty "Friends of Scouting" drives any longer. And it's Utahns, not "Utahans." 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 Pass the butter!A lame pun? Don't press your luck. 1
Buckeye Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I'm certain the Church members in Utah and elsewhere will do just fine. For one thing, we won't have to put up with those nasty "Friends of Scouting" drives any longer. And it's Utahns, not "Utahans." I prefer "Utahanananas" ... in a Brian Regan voice, of course.
jkwilliams Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 This is the thing that's being ignored by rockpond, John Williams and others on this thread who claim to be "mystified" by the stance the Church is taking. No, I'm not ignoring it. Please explain to me how there is any more incentive for these lawsuits to go forward than there was last week.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 I prefer "Utahanananas" ... in a Brian Regan voice, of course.I can't even pronounce that.
sethpayne Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 And it's Utahns, not "Utahans." Both are technically correct.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 28, 2015 Posted July 28, 2015 No, I'm not ignoring it. Please explain to me how there is any more incentive for these lawsuits to go forward than there was last week. You don't think the gay advocacy juggernaut is feeling its oats this week? And if BSA caved in so readily this time, what would keep it from doing so in the future, citing "staggering legal costs" as the justification? 1
Recommended Posts