B.s.a. Allows Gay Leaders, Church Responds

[Gray]

You do realize when this was written homosexuality along with a host of other behaviors was considered both sinful and a psychological disorder.

 

People once said similar things about Mormons. 

[KevinG]

People once said similar things about Mormons. 

 

Not the American Psychological Association who reversed course on the idea that homosexuality was a disorder.

 

You may agree or disagree with that decision.  But historically medical science once categorized homosexuality as a disorder.

 

False equivalency with anti-Mormon ministries noted.

[Gray]

Not the American Psychological Association who reversed course on the idea that homosexuality was a disorder.

 

You may agree or disagree with that decision.  But historically medical science once categorized homosexuality as a disorder.

 

False equivalency with anti-Mormon ministries noted.

 

Mental health is not the same thing as medical science. But if you want to bring up discredited former ideas regarding the mind, one can call up any number of things from phrenology to strange treatments for "female hysteria." I'm not sure what the relevance of any of those things is.

 

Mainstream society was very much of the opinion that Mormonism was a kind of perversion. No false equivalence there. 

[KevinG]

Mental health is not the same thing as medical science. But if you want to bring up discredited former ideas regarding the mind, one can call up any number of things from phrenology to strange treatments for "female hysteria." I'm not sure what the relevance of any of those things is.

 

Mainstream society was very much of the opinion that Mormonism was a kind of perversion. No false equivalence there. 

 

Sorry non-sequitur is probably a better description than false equivalence.  Although I still see both in your argument.

 

Your baseline assumption that homosexuality is healthy and moral, and that those who disagree with you are bigoted is a bit jaded in its own right.

 

I know I'm walking a very fine line here, but I see homosexuality as part of the human experience, without allowing it to get special dispensation for moral purposes.  A sin is a sin is a sin.  And homosexual behavior (not desire) is defined as a sin over roughly 6000 years of Judeo Christian law (not to mention 1400 years of Islamic Law, and other assorted religions and cultures).

 

You can throw that out if you want, but please don't claim to be an active believer in Biblical or LDS doctrines and propose that homosexual behavior is not sinful, or that people should be allowed to engage in that behavior without the same consequences as those who engage in other sexual sins (fornication, adultery, etc.)

 

I personally make no claim that it is not "normal" or a disorder of the mind, etc.  I was however noting at the start of this side conversation that when the BSA Oath was written homosexuality was still considered outside of the definition of morally straight, and that the general culture changing that does not make it less so.  I also disagree that the word straight in the phrase morally straight was referring exclusively to homosexuality.  Arguing both extremes are red herrings.

Edited July 29, 2015 by KevinG

[Gray]

Sorry non-sequitur is probably a better description than false equivalence.  Although I still see both in your argument.

 

Your reference to discredited ideas about human psychology is also a non sequitur. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

Your reference to discredited ideas about human psychology is also a non sequitur. 

 

Read my additional comments.

 

Not in the context of someone saying "Morally Straight" did not refer to homosexuality.  Of course it was not a reference to "straight" as in heteronormative, but Judaeo-Christian "morality" included at the time of the Oaths writing - assumptions about sexual purity and ethics that were undoubtedly cisgender, heteronormative, and Biblically based.

 

Without passing judgement on the validity of those assumptions using today's popular stance on morality, homosexual behavior was certainly included in prohibited behaviors for Boy Scouts for the first 100 years of saying "morally straight".

Edited July 29, 2015 by KevinG

[stemelbow]

Does anyone actually read the conversation in these threads...  After being answered I'm still seeing assume the following things that just aren't true:

- Scouts is compulsory for LDS young men.

Sure technically you are correct, but in practice I've seen plenty of wards in which scouts is pretty much presented as compulsory for young men.

- YM get more money than YW in the church programs

Perhaps there are wards out there where moneys are distributed equally but I've never seen one. On top of that the focus of the wards is always more directed at YM than YW, from what I've seen. Even if there are exceptions, which I'm sure there are, it doesn't do away with the typical practice.

When all the propaganda and misunderstanding is wiped away what were left with is this:

 

- Are private organizations allowed to set their membership standards for behavior and belief with reasonable assurance they are protected by the law?  It should not matter what those beliefs are as long as they don't infringe on others right of free assembly and speech.

it'll be interesting when some LDS scout leader comes out as gay, the parents and bishop force him out, and he feeling like he was a great scout leader decides to make a suit out of it, or something. Something like that will probably happen. When it does, I think it'll say a lot.

[KevinG]

Sure technically you are correct, but in practice I've seen plenty of wards in which scouts is pretty much presented as compulsory for young men.

Perhaps there are wards out there where moneys are distributed equally but I've never seen one. On top of that the focus of the wards is always more directed at YM than YW, from what I've seen. Even if there are exceptions, which I'm sure there are, it doesn't do away with the typical practice.

it'll be interesting when some LDS scout leader comes out as gay, the parents and bishop force him out, and he feeling like he was a great scout leader decides to make a suit out of it, or something. Something like that will probably happen. When it does, I think it'll say a lot.

 

Church policy is very express about activity in Scouts being a choice, scouts is not a requirement for worthiness and temple attendance, and programs have been built to accommodate those scouts who do not want Scouts.  My experience has been the other way around.  My boys who are from 16-18 often had to find district or area events to scratch their Scout itch because the YM seemed to turn into a Wednesday night basketball league.

 

Your personal experience with ward funding is not indicative of most ward leaders who posted on earlier pages (you must have missed the comments).  In five states and 8 wards I have never seen a ward where the YW budget was lower than the YM.  Additional monies are often raised through fundraisers and out of parents pockets for YM activities, but the YW have the same opportunities.  I suggest it is not a church policy problem but a parental and cultural focus issue you present if the YW are not supported as much as the YM.  Incidentally I have pointed out a few times that the YW recognition award should be given as big a too doo as Eagle Courts.  My youngest girl is in a non-LDS Venture Crew with her brothers.  If inequity exists in your ward what have you done to correct it?

 

Parents cannot force a gay leader out unless the Bishop capitulates his responsibility to preside.

[Gray]

 

Your baseline assumption that homosexuality is healthy and moral, and that those who disagree with you are bigoted is a bit jaded in its own right.

 

I know I'm walking a very fine line here, but I see homosexuality as part of the human experience, without allowing it to get special dispensation for moral purposes.  A sin is a sin is a sin.  And homosexual behavior (not desire) is defined as a sin over roughly 6000 years of Judeo Christian law (not to mention 1400 years of Islamic Law, and other assorted religions and cultures).

 

There is almost no scriptural support for the idea that homosexuality is a sin, modern Judeo Christian beliefs notwithstanding. 

 

You can throw that out if you want, but please don't claim to be an active believer in Biblical or LDS doctrines and propose that homosexual behavior is not sinful, or that people should be allowed to engage in that behavior without the same consequences as those who engage in other sexual sins (fornication, adultery, etc.)

 

I'll happily admit that I'm no fundamentalist, but even if I were, I could find no real support in scripture for the idea that gay marriage for instance is sinful. All we have is Leviticus which puts gay sex on the same level as eating lobster, and Paul, who reacted negatively to the types of gay relationships he observed in ancient Rome (and also had a negative view of marriage in general and women talking in church, both teachings we are happy to ignore). That pretty thin stuff. 

 

I personally make no claim that it is not "normal" or a disorder of the mind, etc.  I was however noting at the start of this side conversation that when the BSA Oath was written homosexuality was still considered outside of the definition of morally straight, and that the general culture changing that does not make it less so.  I also disagree that the word straight in the phrase morally straight was referring exclusively to homosexuality.  Arguing both extremes are red herrings.

 

Yes, that's probably right, but I don't think the BSA should be held hostage to the cultural norms of 1910. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[KevinG]

 

 

Your baseline assumption that homosexuality is healthy and moral, and that those who disagree with you are bigoted is a bit jaded in its own right.

 

I know I'm walking a very fine line here, but I see homosexuality as part of the human experience, without allowing it to get special dispensation for moral purposes.  A sin is a sin is a sin.  And homosexual behavior (not desire) is defined as a sin over roughly 6000 years of Judeo Christian law (not to mention 1400 years of Islamic Law, and other assorted religions and cultures).

 

There is almost no scriptural support for the idea that homosexuality is a sin, modern Judeo Christian beliefs notwithstanding. 

 

You can throw that out if you want, but please don't claim to be an active believer in Biblical or LDS doctrines and propose that homosexual behavior is not sinful, or that people should be allowed to engage in that behavior without the same consequences as those who engage in other sexual sins (fornication, adultery, etc.)

 

I'll happily admit that I'm no fundamentalist, but even if I were, I could find no real support in scripture for the idea that gay marriage for instance is sinful. All we have is Leviticus which puts gay sex on the same level as eating lobster, and Paul, who reacted negatively to the types of gay relationships he observed in ancient Rome (and also had a negative view of marriage in general and women talking in church, both teachings we are happy to ignore). That pretty thin stuff. 

 

I personally make no claim that it is not "normal" or a disorder of the mind, etc.  I was however noting at the start of this side conversation that when the BSA Oath was written homosexuality was still considered outside of the definition of morally straight, and that the general culture changing that does not make it less so.  I also disagree that the word straight in the phrase morally straight was referring exclusively to homosexuality.  Arguing both extremes are red herrings.

 

Yes, that's probably right, but I don't think the BSA should be held hostage to the cultural norms of 1910. 

 

 

 

Your interpretation of the scriptures may differ from that of millions of Protestants, Catholics and Mormons.  Add in modern prophets affirming that homosexual behavior is a sin and the Mormons have a valid conscientious objection to being forced to accept that behavior as acceptable when it comes to teaching values in their youth organizations.

 

Why is holding the BSA to a 2015 cultural norm any better than holding it to a 1910 cultural norm?  Especially since the majority of volunteer members and chartered organizations share that 1910 norm?

 

What right does Lamda and other LGBT groups have to insist they change their stated values or the definition of those values in light of the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of association and religious expression, (affirmed by the supreme court in Dale vs. Boy Scouts)?

 

Other than popular opinion in 2015 is there a legitimate reason to pressure, force or shame the BSA into changing their memberships assessment on sexual morality?

Edited July 29, 2015 by KevinG

[Scott Lloyd]

"Soft core porn?" In Boy's Life? I guess I have to ask what you have in mind when using this phrase because, at first blush, this strikes me as an utterly bizarre concern.

To me, sex between men and people who try to have their sex altered surgically are still bizarre concepts.

I recognize that to many people they aren't. That being the case, it's not out of the realm of possibility that stuff I don't want entering my home or served up to my family might be infiltrating traditionally benign sources such as Boy's Life, especially after this recent policy change.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[jkwilliams]

To me, sex between men and people who try to have their sex altered surgically are still bizarre concepts.

I recognize that many people don't. That being the case, it's not out of the realm of possibility that stuff I don't want entering my home or served up to my family might be infiltrating traditionally benign sources such as Boy's Life, especially after this recent policy change.

 

Hmmm. Soft-core porn? It's all becoming much clearer now.

 

[ttribe]

To me, sex between men and people who try to have their sex altered surgically are still bizarre concepts.

I recognize that many people don't. That being the case, it's not out of the realm of possibility that stuff I don't want entering my home or served up to my family might be infiltrating traditionally benign sources such as Boy's Life, especially after this recent policy change.

 

Okay, but, you specifically mentioned "Soft Core Porn," so I guess I'm still trying to get where you were coming from.  I understand you think "sex between men and people who try to have their sex altered surgically are still bizarre concepts," but that's entirely beside the point of my question.  Has Boy's Life had content that rises to the level of your concern prior to this decision by the BSA?  Has there ever been heterosexual "soft core porn" in Boy's Life?  I'm trying to understand why you think that would change now.

[Gray]

Your interpretation of the scriptures may differ from that of millions of Protestants, Catholics and Mormons.

 

My interpretation takes into account historical context and scriptural context. It may not be in line with more fundamentalist viewpoints, but I think it's valid.

 

 Add in modern prophets affirming that homosexual behavior is a sin and the Mormons have a valid conscientious objection to being forced to accept that behavior as acceptable when it comes to teaching values in their youth organizations.

 

The viewpoint is valid, sure. Except no one is forcing members of the church to accept any behavior they disagree with. 

 

Why is holding the BSA to a 2015 cultural norm any better than holding it to a 1910 cultural norm?  Especially since the majority of volunteer members and chartered organizations share that 1910 norm?

 

Because it's 2015, obviously. Hopefully we've learned a thing or two in 105 years. 

 

What right does Lamda and other LGBT groups have to insist they change their stated values or the definition of those values in light of the 1st Amendment guarantee of freedom of association and religious expression, (affirmed by the supreme court in Dale vs. Boy Scouts)?

 

Any group has a right to object to discrimination, even if that objection is aimed at private clubs  or  churches. However, the courts have consistently found that private clubs and churches can discriminate as much as they please. BSA did not have to make this policy change. No one forced them to make it. It's a good move as it respects the freedom of choice of all of BSA troops. 

 

Other than popular opinion in 2015 is there a legitimate reason to pressure, force or shame the BSA into changing their memberships assessment on sexual morality?

 

No one can force BSA to change. Pressure is another matter, and is protected under the first amendment. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[rockpond]

 

My prediction is the Church will stay in scouts on the short term as they organize its own internal program for all LDS worldwide.  It will take some time to get that all organized.  The boy scouts will cave in eventually to exemptions made and force all troops submit. Not only this, but the next shoe to drop is allowing transgendered kids into scouting.  Who knows what after that.  Scouting will turn into an "progressive" freak show within 10 years. 

 

 

I was thinking earlier: I have one boy left in Scouting proper; the other two are in their older teens. Will I want to encourage the younger boy to subscribe to Boy's Life magazine? Who knows what unpalatable ideas or even soft core porn will show up in there under the new order of things?

Your "progressive freak show" prediction may be right, if the movement doesn't suffer an early demise before it gets to that point.

As for the Church staying on board for the short term I believe it could have a new program up and running sooner than you think. My hunch is that it already exists on paper, ready for implementation when necessary. It is probably greatly streamlined by comparison, so it wouldn't be necessary to replicate everything.

 

This is a fascinating glimpse of what it's like to live in your world.

[KevinG]

So in essence its valid because you agree with it, or the majority of people outside the organization agree with it, or because its more modern a sensibility.

 

And pressure in the form of shaming or legal extortion is moral because it is legal.

 

Flip that for a moment and think what would happen to minority groups you agree with if we excused people from protesting, suing, pressuring, and protesting because it was legal and OK with the majority?  That is exactly why the gay rights advocacy organizations were formed to protect gays from.  

 

So free speech (association) for me but not for thee is the mob rule of the majority.  Don't assumed that kind of thinking is more enlightened in 2015 than it was in 1965, or 1945. 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by KevinG

[carbon dioxide]

 

This is a fascinating glimpse of what it's like to live in your world.

 

Its a great world. It rocks.  Would you like it if transgenders are allowed in scouts.  I like Halloween but every week? 

Edited July 29, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[KevinG]

 

 

 

 

 

This is a fascinating glimpse of what it's like to live in your world.

 

 

One man's bath house is another man's freak show.

[Mormonmaniac]

Gay or straight, a scout leader should leave his sexuality out of the troop meetings. If the leader is focusing on the scouting program, his sexual orientation will not be discussed nor will it be relevant. Can a gay scout leader teach a scout how to tie knots? Set up a campsite? Cook on a portable stove? Administer first aid?

 

Would you also prohibit schools from hiring teachers who happen to be gay? Teachers can serve as role models for their students. Do you think a  heterosexual teenage boy would suddenly want to be gay because his English teacher (who happened to be gay but never discussed it in class) successfully helped him understand the difference between it's and its?

A Proper scout troop in the LDS church is ran, or should be run, by a male with strong and godly moral convictions so that he is led by the spirit. Besides that fact, the boys look and know what type of individual, as a role model, to grow up into to. Its not debatable.

[Mormonmaniac]

Exactly. I had a high school teacher who came out as gay just before my junior year. He didn't make a big deal about it, but word got out, and it was not a huge deal. I had 3 classes from him in 2 years, and never once did he bring up his sex life in class. If he had, that would have been highly inappropriate, just as it would for a heterosexual teacher, and could have been grounds for dismissal. I don't want teachers and Scout leaders and church leaders talking to minors about their sex life, period. I remember when we lived in Utah that a petition went around to get a high school teacher/volleyball coach fired because, when a student asked, "Are you gay?" she answered "Yes." That was the extent of her being "openly gay." There was no mention of her sex life, no advocacy of gay rights, just coaching. She was fired, but she won a summary judgment against the school district for violating her First Amendment rights.

 

This is why I keep saying that this isn't about people's sex lives or whether they are advocating anything.

I had a situation up at scout camp years ago where some of the older boys had some pornography and were speaking about sex graphically to the younger scouts. I immediately addressed the problem and we had a good sex discussion on the proper gender roles and morality. This is just one area where a scout leader needs proper moral convictions so that he can lead and teach youth the correct path to godliness.

[jkwilliams]

I had a situation up at scout camp years ago where some of the older boys had some pornography and were speaking about sex graphically to the younger scouts. I immediately addressed the problem and we had a good sex discussion on the proper gender roles and morality. This is just one area where a scout leader needs proper moral convictions so that he can lead and teach youth the correct path to godliness.

 

Do you think a gay man would be OK with Scouts using pornography? 

[Mormonmaniac]

I disagree about leaving my sexual orientation out of scouting. I've been on many camping trips with my wife. I think I should be able to discuss things I've learned on those trips. When I sit in sacrament meeting and the scouts are watching, I think it appropriate that they see the little things I do with my wife, such as putting my arm around her or holding her hand. If a scouting activity is planned in my backyard or inside my home, I would sure hope they see the loving relationship between my me and my wife.

There are three locations in this world that I consider more sacred than others. The temple, the church, and my home. All three of those locations I consider safe havens and sanctuary from the pressures of society. Just because my sons may have a homosexual school teacher doesn't mean they should also have a homosexual scout leader.

I totally agree. To add, its also so important, perhaps more so, for our children to see the loving, caring, respectful devotion we show to our wives so that they too have a positive pattern to learn and follow to. Our greatest teaching we have with youth is our examples of who we should be and act accordingly so that the youth see it and pattern their lives in similar fashion.

[jkwilliams]

I totally agree. To add, its also so important, perhaps more so, for our children to see the loving, caring, respectful devotion we show to our wives so that they too have a positive pattern to learn and follow to. Our greatest teaching we have with youth is our examples of who we should be and act accordingly so that the youth see it and pattern their lives in similar fashion.

 

That works, unless a child is gay. 

[Mormonmaniac]

Do you think a gay man would be OK with Scouts using pornography?

Not sure where you are going here but you cannot preach morality if you yourself are not moral by church standards.

[Mormonmaniac]

That works, unless a child is gay.

I don't believe children are gay. Edited July 29, 2015 by Mormonmaniac