Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Motyak: it seems to mean less now for no reason that has to do with gays. Instead it seems to be more of just a general indifference to scouting in general. I imagine that would have something to do with the drop off in membership and the fact that sadly, many kids experience with scouting ends up like hotsauceman's or SlaveToDarkness's.

@HotSauceman, he got off lucky if that's true. You're supposed to do a heck of a lot more than just put up a bench. You sure he didn't do anything else?

Also realize that I'm just playing devil's advocate here when I'm arguing guys. I'm very happy the ban was lifted, and hope that more progress is made soon. Just trying to explain why you're even seeing resistance to this in the first place. Otherwise the ban would've lifted a long time ago.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Motyak: it seems to mean less now for no reason that has to do with gays. Instead it seems to be more of just a general indifference to scouting in general. I imagine that would have something to do with the drop off in membership and the fact that sadly, many kids experience with scouting ends up like hotsauceman's or SlaveToDarkness's.

I knew I was misinterpreting it, I'm going to go back and edit, in the context it read to me like you meant because of the lifting of the ban, but I get it. Mah bad. I just thought that, on the off chance you weren't, it needed to be said.

It's sad that some folks interpret their religion as disallowing the acceptance of homosexuals as fellow Scouts, and ethical and moral human beings. Hopefully those who hold that their faith is a major component of their Scouting will come to interpret that as meaning that they need to prioritize the command to love their neighbor, and that sexuality is none of the organization's business.

I think Ouze has a good point that the acceptance of black Scouts provoked similar uproar, and that Scouting got past that.

And Melissia's comments about how the Girl Scouts handle it hopefully also show how the Boy Scouts can approach the issue..

 purplefood wrote:

 The Bringer wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

So now, rather than "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”

My thoughts exactly.

Anyways, don't Churches have better things to do with their money?

The BSA is a great cause and all, but surely there are better ones out their for religious groups to donate to?

Yeah but then they wouldn't be able to indoctrinate the youth as effectively...

Don't have a clue do ya boy? What are you twelve?

Are church has botha boy scout and girl scout troop. When the fires came through. The Scouts were at the church serving drinks and food to the firefighters.
It fits with churches rather well.
Meh. Some churches will drop them. Others won't. The GS don't have such structures. They get flack and are less supported, tbut they still exist.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWhex wrote:
This is a good move for the BSA. It may mean some short term pain, but in the long run they needed to adapt or they would die off. The longer they put this issue off the more damage will be done in regard to leaders as well.

Some of these new Gay scouts will be some of the future leaders. They might as well deal with that sooner than later as well.

There are plenty of Christian churches that accept homosexuals in their church, so the whole Christian religion excuse really doesnt hold up any more. As far as the Latter Day Saints go, feth them, they wouldnt even allow black people in their church until what, the 70s? (Dont remember exact date but they discriminated against blacks well into modern times).

As far as the value of your Eagle badge, it was NEVER worth more than the individual effort you put into it anyway. Your badge is likewise not diminished if someone put less work into theirs. Thats the reality of the situation.

Maybe its a good move. Maybe its helps them from dying off, maybe it does the opposite. We shall see (but Frazzled not care actually).


none of this matters when box car derby time comes around. Get out of the way kids. The Dad's must compete!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
It's sad that some folks interpret their religion as disallowing the acceptance of homosexuals as fellow Scouts, and ethical and moral human beings. Hopefully those who hold that their faith is a major component of their Scouting will come to interpret that as meaning that they need to prioritize the command to love their neighbor, and that sexuality is none of the organization's business.

I think Ouze has a good point that the acceptance of black Scouts provoked similar uproar, and that Scouting got past that.

And Melissia's comments about how the Girl Scouts handle it hopefully also show how the Boy Scouts can approach the issue..

Agreed.

JWhex wrote:
As far as the value of your Eagle badge, it was NEVER worth more than the individual effort you put into it anyway. Your badge is likewise not diminished if someone put less work into theirs. Thats the reality of the situation.

I disagree with the bolded sentiment. As someone that officially earned his Eagle 2 weeks before his 18th Birthday (Board of Review was for the month after my birthday, but that's allowed by the BSA), I congratulate any person that has taken the time and the effort to take their full 7 years (or so) to get their Eagle badge. I worked for 6 years at a local Boy Scout Camp (Beaumont Scout Reservation in Rock Creek, Ohio), and during my tenure there I met hundreds of young men that were in scouting because of their dad, their friends, or even themselves. Most of the boys that I had met were in it to camp, have fun, and get their Eagle if they wanted it. My third year on camp staff I was in charge of the first year scout program, and the first week of the summer we were "bought out" by the local LDS diocese (idk their word for it) so that the LDS troops from around Ohio could go to the scout camp without issue. I had a young boy who was 10 and had joined scouts a month or two before camp. By the end of the week (5 days) his dad was congratulating me on helping his son achieve first class... ("4th" rank after joining). It took me 2 years or so to reach first class (granted I had life by the time I was 15, and had everything done for Eagle with the exception of my last few Eagle required badges by 16), but still to reach First Class in a week?! I didn't see that kid again because for some reason the diocese wanted to do something else instead of summer camp idk...

I also know the youngest Eagle Scout from the Great Trails Council (Akron, Ohio/Summit County), the kid earned his eagle right around 13yrs old (right around the earliest you can earn it). This kid had a "bright" future in scouting. The kid went to the local National Youth Leadership Training program, and was kicked out because he was a hassle for the staff, the other campers, and didn't know basic scouting skills (like knots and lashings, things you need to know to earn your tenderfoot, second class, and first class ranks). So I have major problems with kids that are pushed through the program and are churned out like an Eagle rank factory. Do I believe the addition of Gay scouts cheapens my badge? Feth no! I worked hard to get it, and a gay scout is now just a scout, and if he works hard to get his badge I have no problem with him.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Got some interesting reactions talking to a guy I know when the ban was lifted. He said something along the lines of "I feel my Eagle has been cheapened. A major point of being a scout is being religious (he's a christian) Homosexuality is explicitly forbidden as part of my faith and allowing it while saying a scout can still be reverent feels like hypocrisy." And as much as I hate it, he has a point. Not that I agree with it, but it's one you're going to be hearing a lot over the next few days I'd bet.

The thing is, thats a BS excuse. Most Christian groups (at a high enough level to think about these things) say "I don't care what your sexuality is, just don't go having sex with your own sex". Just the same as they say "don't go having sex outside marriage". IMO they are on the same level but people get so much more angry about one than the other. From my point of view it seems that the religious argument is nothing more than an excuse to hang your homophobia on.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Boy Scouts is a private organization, and regardless of how religious your troop may have been, it is a religious organization as a whole. Would you force the Catholic Church to allow homosexual men to be the pope, because it's discriminatory to deny them?

Don't know about popes (kind of a limited data pool), but there are plenty of homosexual priests. It used to be the job of choice for intelligent gay men 100+ years ago. Or at the very least gay sons were encouraged to become priests.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

In the eyes of people who opposed lifting the ban, allowing homosexuals or atheists into the scouting program erodes the mission of what scouting tries to accomplish, and to be brutally honest, they're right (partly). How are you reverent when you ignore a clear rule of your god (homosexuality is a sin)? How can you be reverent if you don't believe in god at all? Religion is an incredibly important part of scouting, regardless of how religious an individual troop may have been. It's part of the Scout Law, and the code all scouts are expected to live by.

In the eyes of some people letting catholics in is wrong... As I found out in one of the troops I was in when I was young. I was clearly told that I would not be able to stay in the troop if I did not attend the various CofE services they held... On a Sunday... when I was at Church...

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
This has less to deal with homosexuality, and more of people believing that the BSA should stick to its values no matter how much pressure society puts on them.

The problem is, though, in my mind that it is based on a poor implementation. IMO they should keep out of it or ban people who are cohabiting from being leaders and start asking about everyones sex life.

Too many people have a hang up about being gay yet never stop to look at the context. The BSA should really have a "Sex has no place in the BSA, gay, strait or otherwise." attitude like the girl scouts do.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Motyak: it seems to mean less now for no reason that has to do with gays. Instead it seems to be more of just a general indifference to scouting in general. I imagine that would have something to do with the drop off in membership and the fact that sadly, many kids experience with scouting ends up like hotsauceman's or SlaveToDarkness's.

@HotSauceman, he got off lucky if that's true. You're supposed to do a heck of a lot more than just put up a bench. You sure he didn't do anything else?

Also realize that I'm just playing devil's advocate here when I'm arguing guys. I'm very happy the ban was lifted, and hope that more progress is made soon. Just trying to explain why you're even seeing resistance to this in the first place. Otherwise the ban would've lifted a long time ago.

Nothing else but a bench.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
@Motyak: it seems to mean less now for no reason that has to do with gays. Instead it seems to be more of just a general indifference to scouting in general. I imagine that would have something to do with the drop off in membership and the fact that sadly, many kids experience with scouting ends up like hotsauceman's or SlaveToDarkness's.

@HotSauceman, he got off lucky if that's true. You're supposed to do a heck of a lot more than just put up a bench. You sure he didn't do anything else?

Also realize that I'm just playing devil's advocate here when I'm arguing guys. I'm very happy the ban was lifted, and hope that more progress is made soon. Just trying to explain why you're even seeing resistance to this in the first place. Otherwise the ban would've lifted a long time ago.

Nothing else but a bench.

I painted a room. Granted it was for the 1st graders and kindergarden students of the elementary school attached to our charter organization (a Catholic churg with a k through 8 school attached to it) after the professional painters came in and fethed it up! Granted it was a large room, and they haven't had to repaint it in the 8 years since I did it, and shouldn't have to do it for at least another 12

I'm ambivalent toward this.

On one hand, sexuality has no place in Boy Scouts. There's no logical reason why someone should be loudly declaring how homosexual or not they may or may not happen to be. Sexuality has nothing to do with community service, knots, camping, or any of the other awesome things the Boy Scouts are about.

On the other hand, sexuality has no place in Boy Scouts. Whether or not one of the kids is into dudes or women isn't a reason to ostracize him. Sexuality has nothing to do with community service, knots, camping, or any of the other awesome things the Boy Scouts are about.

In short, do whoever or whatever makes you happy, seriously, whatever you want, just don't make me have to hear about it, because I don't give a damn.

 daedalus wrote:
I'm ambivalent toward this.

On one hand, sexuality has no place in Boy Scouts. There's no logical reason why someone should be loudly declaring how homosexual or not they may or may not happen to be. Sexuality has nothing to do with community service, knots, camping, or any of the other awesome things the Boy Scouts are about.

On the other hand, sexuality has no place in Boy Scouts. Whether or not one of the kids is into dudes or women isn't a reason to ostracize him. Sexuality has nothing to do with community service, knots, camping, or any of the other awesome things the Boy Scouts are about.

In short, do whoever or whatever makes you happy, seriously, whatever you want, just don't make me have to hear about it, because I don't give a damn.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. I was watching World New Tonight last night, and they had a father say, "Now we have to teach boys as young as 6 about homosexuality." I was yelling at the TV, "NO YOU DON'T YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!" It just means that instead of straight scouts and gay scouts we now just have scouts... Time to move on and get some merit badges. Also if anyone is interested I am a merit badge counselor for the Game Design Merit Badge

Now see we always did the lame merit badges at my troop,, Not the cool ones.
Why did i have to learn basket weaving? WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 Alfndrate wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I'm ambivalent toward this.

On one hand, sexuality has no place in Boy Scouts. There's no logical reason why someone should be loudly declaring how homosexual or not they may or may not happen to be. Sexuality has nothing to do with community service, knots, camping, or any of the other awesome things the Boy Scouts are about.

On the other hand, sexuality has no place in Boy Scouts. Whether or not one of the kids is into dudes or women isn't a reason to ostracize him. Sexuality has nothing to do with community service, knots, camping, or any of the other awesome things the Boy Scouts are about.

In short, do whoever or whatever makes you happy, seriously, whatever you want, just don't make me have to hear about it, because I don't give a damn.

That's pretty much how I feel about it. I was watching World New Tonight last night, and they had a father say, "Now we have to teach boys as young as 6 about homosexuality." I was yelling at the TV, "NO YOU DON'T YOU BLITHERING IDIOT!" It just means that instead of straight scouts and gay scouts we now just have scouts... Time to move on and get some merit badges. Also if anyone is interested I am a merit badge counselor for the Game Design Merit Badge

Yea I don't get that.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Now see we always did the lame merit badges at my troop,, Not the cool ones.
Why did i have to learn basket weaving? WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You missed out big time. One year at summer camp for me was rifle shooting, archery, motorboating, swimming, and climbing (on the new rock tower they just built).

Best year ever.

I read motorboating completely out of context there.

 daedalus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Now see we always did the lame merit badges at my troop,, Not the cool ones.
Why did i have to learn basket weaving? WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You missed out big time. One year at summer camp for me was rifle shooting, archery, motorboating, swimming, and climbing (on the new rock tower they just built).

Best year ever.

Well i had some cool ones, But i tend to went towards the intellectual ones rather then really physical(I love the one where we learned about nature and went diviing) They had Rifleshooting, But this is cali remember?

 daedalus wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Now see we always did the lame merit badges at my troop,, Not the cool ones.
Why did i have to learn basket weaving? WHY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You missed out big time. One year at summer camp for me was rifle shooting, archery, motorboating, swimming, and climbing (on the new rock tower they just built).

Best year ever.

GC has a scuba diving badge. Way cool.

Also if you got Basket Weaving before it became more than 2 requirements, you have every right to brag about that ridiculously easy badge .

Surprisingly I didn't have half the merit badges I taught. I taught First Aid, Emergency Prepardeness, Camping, Hiking*, Cooking, Pioneering*, Rifle*, Archery, Backpacking*, Wilderness Survival*, Photography, Citizenship in the Nation... there were probably a few more that I taught... and I guess also technically Game Design... but I haven't taught that one yet.

* - Denotes a badge Alf taught but did not earn!

Edit: Frazz, is GC a GS or is she a part of Venturing?

 Alfndrate wrote:
Also if you got Basket Weaving before it became more than 2 requirements, you have every right to brag about that ridiculously easy badge .

Surprisingly I didn't have half the merit badges I taught. I taught First Aid, Emergency Prepardeness, Camping, Hiking*, Cooking, Pioneering*, Rifle*, Archery, Backpacking*, Wilderness Survival*, Photography, Citizenship in the Nation... there were probably a few more that I taught... and I guess also technically Game Design... but I haven't taught that one yet.

* - Denotes a badge Alf taught but did not earn!

Edit: Frazz, is GC a GS or is she a part of Venturing?

I cant remember, But it took me two years(Two different camps)
NEver did get fishing though, No fish grow big enough to eat around here.

 Alfndrate wrote:
Also if you got Basket Weaving before it became more than 2 requirements, you have every right to brag about that ridiculously easy badge .

Surprisingly I didn't have half the merit badges I taught. I taught First Aid, Emergency Prepardeness, Camping, Hiking*, Cooking, Pioneering*, Rifle*, Archery, Backpacking*, Wilderness Survival*, Photography, Citizenship in the Nation... there were probably a few more that I taught... and I guess also technically Game Design... but I haven't taught that one yet.

* - Denotes a badge Alf taught but did not earn!

Edit: Frazz, is GC a GS or is she a part of Venturing?

Girl Scout.

Wow, I actually misunderstood what they were voting on, so I appreciate this posting of the OP.

If it is simply to allow scout, not leaders, to be homosexual then I see absolutely no issue with them allowing it (my personal opinion, of course!).

The thing I have been personally grappling with is whether or not the boy scouts should allow homosexual leaders. For some of you, maybe this is a no-brainer "yes", but as others have stated it's a private organization with religious ties.

One of the things I really cherish in this country is freedom of religion. Most churches do not allow homosexual ministers because their teachings forbid it, and that's 100% their right in this country. In a similar way, the boy scouts may choose not to have homosexual troop leaders and that is their right.

So, to get back to where I started- I did not realize this was only on whether or not the scouts themselves could identify as homosexuals. I think that makes it a lot easier "yes" vote, just as it is easier for churches to have homosexual members (who, if the church does not believe in homosexuality, they are obviously trying to change the mind of just as they would be with a heterosexual couple having sex out of wedlock) than to have homosexual leaders / ministers.

Anyway, as the OP said, they're a bit screwed either way, but they'll have to make the best of it!

 Soladrin wrote:
I read motorboating completely out of context there.

Were you thinking of the Girl Scouts, or the Boy Scouts and moobs?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
I read motorboating completely out of context there.

Were you thinking of the Girl Scouts, or the Boy Scouts and moobs?

Actually, the motorboating instructor WAS one of the ((very attractive) female) lifeguards at the lake there...

 RiTides wrote:
Wow, I actually misunderstood what they were voting on, so I appreciate this posting of the OP.

If it is simply to allow scout, not leaders, to be homosexual then I see absolutely no issue with them allowing it (my personal opinion, of course!).

The thing I have been personally grappling with is whether or not the boy scouts should allow homosexual leaders. For some of you, maybe this is a no-brainer "yes", but as others have stated it's a private organization with religious ties.

One of the things I really cherish in this country is freedom of religion. Most churches do not allow homosexual ministers because their teachings forbid it, and that's 100% their right in this country. In a similar way, the boy scouts may choose not to have homosexual troop leaders and that is their right.

So, to get back to where I started- I did not realize this was only on whether or not the scouts themselves could identify as homosexuals. I think that makes it a lot easier "yes" vote, just as it is easier for churches to have homosexual members (who, if the church does not believe in homosexuality, they are obviously trying to change the mind of just as they would be with a heterosexual couple having sex out of wedlock) than to have homosexual leaders / ministers.

Anyway, as the OP said, they're a bit screwed either way, but they'll have to make the best of it!

Here is the thing, It isnt the government enforcing this or anything like this, the court has upheld that it is their right to ban gay members. Freedom of religion is not applicaple here because the GOVT isnt enforcing this, it is the orginization itself.

 daedalus wrote:
Actually, the motorboating instructor WAS one of the ((very attractive) female) lifeguards at the lake there...

Did she run in slow motion?

 RiTides wrote:
Wow, I actually misunderstood what they were voting on, so I appreciate this posting of the OP.

If it is simply to allow scout, not leaders, to be homosexual then I see absolutely no issue with them allowing it (my personal opinion, of course!).

The thing I have been personally grappling with is whether or not the boy scouts should allow homosexual leaders. For some of you, maybe this is a no-brainer "yes", but as others have stated it's a private organization with religious ties.

One of the things I really cherish in this country is freedom of religion. Most churches do not allow homosexual ministers because their teachings forbid it, and that's 100% their right in this country. In a similar way, the boy scouts may choose not to have homosexual troop leaders and that is their right.

So, to get back to where I started- I did not realize this was only on whether or not the scouts themselves could identify as homosexuals. I think that makes it a lot easier "yes" vote, just as it is easier for churches to have homosexual members (who, if the church does not believe in homosexuality, they are obviously trying to change the mind of just as they would be with a heterosexual couple having sex out of wedlock) than to have homosexual leaders / ministers.

Anyway, as the OP said, they're a bit screwed either way, but they'll have to make the best of it!

Letting homosexual leaders be open in the boy scouts is 5 to 10 years down the road, if that. Especially once you start having the first major crop of openly gay scouts start hitting 18 and want to help volunteer for their troop after they "age out".

 Steve steveson wrote:
Don't know about popes (kind of a limited data pool), but there are plenty of homosexual priests. It used to be the job of choice for intelligent gay men 100+ years ago. Or at the very least gay sons were encouraged to become priests.

The incitement of religious hatred of homosexuals in general, and gay males in specific (the cultural concept of homosexual females barely even existed until fairly recently; the idea that "it isn't real sex unless a man's involved" is sadly still prevalent to some extent in how lesbians are treated), is a lot more recent than many folk would readily admit-- while it began as a political tool of certain Byzantium politicians against their political enemies, it really only started to take off in the Victorian era more than a thousand years later, and was escalated up to its current extreme by Puritans. It was certainly not present during the time of the writing of the books, at the very least not in any form that modern Christians might find recognizable.

Humanity, suffice it to say, has issues. Not all of them are ancient. Based off of what I have read from historical accounts, including accounts of modifications made to the Bible, I believe that there is no hatred of homosexuals promulgated by the original Christian texts, and that the texts have been modified and mistranslated over the years to include them as the Christian culture changed over the years. In many ways, our focus is far different than the original writers likely would have intended.

This is something that the Scouts in the US have to get past.
This has been a non-issue in the UK Scouting for quite some time.
I've worked with quite a few openly gay scout leaders over the years without any problems.
Parents largely didn't care, scouts didn't care either.
Also, Scouting in the UK is growing, we have waiting lists for most groups.
It should be an inclusive movement, not an exclusive one.
At the international camps I've been to, mixing with scouts all over the world, most express dismay about how backwards BSA are over this issue.
This is a step in the right direction.

Welcome to the 21st Century BSA!

Now onto allowing openly Gay leaders.....

Well, I'd assume that now that there will be gay members gay leaders are just around the corner. Now that the organization legitimately recognizes them as members they are a lot harder to ignore.

 Goliath wrote:
So now, rather than "Love your neighbor as yourself. There is no commandment greater than these.”, the more important teachings of christianity are "Eww Gays"?

Really?

Welcome to the American version of Christianity. 'Love thy neighbor' is passe. "Hate the gay and all his works" is the modern golden rule.

Because God and America obviously have nothing more important to do than to extend their morality into every single bedroom in America. Much more important than things like cure cancer or forment global peace or prevent people from starving...