manwithblackhat User Profile

I agree with most of what you're saying, but not with who's to blame:

"The major cases... have been those in which open or 'avowed' homosexuals have come forward to test the policy." -(BSALegal.org)

Think about it; who has something to prove here? Not the national office. I'm the first one to agree that some of them are out of touch with the grassroots (a sentiment dating back to Ernest Thompson Seton), but not this time.

I mean what I say, and I say what I mean.

My "twisted logic" on bigotry amounted to the reading of a definition, and the necessary conclusion from that definition. Obviously, you're under the impression that I have to prove anything here.

In the standard rules of debate, the onus is not on the status quo, but upon the challenger. This affirms what the English writer G K Chesterton called "the democracy of the dead." For example, if there is a fence along the road, or a building which I want to tear down, it is prudent to determine why that fence or that building is there to begin with. Things are the way they are for a reason, and to change them is to first determine the real reason, as opposed to unfounded speculation.

As to my own convictions regarding homosexuality, I am not under the impression that I am any more obliged than you are to change. I certainly haven't been convinced by anything you've written.

Nor have you explained any connection with BSA policies, and the fact that the World Jamboree has been held in other countries for the last few decades. How often do we have world jamborees? How many other countries besides the USA are deserving of hosting one?

Also the largest in terms of youth membership, and among those which has stayed closest to the original concept of advancement (as many associations, even the UK, have long dispensed with Tenderfoot/Second Class/First Class and so on).

This can be verified, which is more than can be said for most of what you have written.

...and, by your own admission, to those who would disagree as well. So we have one set of bigots versus the other. One is unlikely to change for the other. The Boy Scouts should change because they're bigots if they do not. Their opponents should be free to be bigots, for reasons left unanswered.

You then resort to inconclusive science and a sophomoric view of history. Both may "preach to the choir;" neither is persuasive.

To have an inclination towards homosexuality does not require having to act on it. Nor does it require any adult to be identified primarily by the intimate details of his sex life. You would allow children to be the backdrop for such an effort, all the while claiming moral superiority.

You cite studies concerning the safety of boys around homosexual males in comparison to heterosexual males. Presumedly this comfort zone would exist as men wear their sex lives on their sleeves. There are also studies refuting your claims as well. Which is the BSA to believe? One that violates long-held tenets, or disputed studies touted by those who insult them?

Slavery was not "moral until the Civil War." Several countries of Europe had already outlawed it by the early nineteenth century, by which time several Popes had already decried it for centuries before. Even the USA had outlawed it in the early 19th century (a little known fact), but disputes with the states, and an entrenched economy which relied on indentured servitude, made it difficult to enforce. Small wonder that a civil war arose from the controversy, if only in part.

You then claim the BSA has been "hijacked" by conservatives. Who? When? Was there a sudden change of policy, or of the Scout Oath and Law, of which seasoned veterans of Scouting are mysteriously unaware, as they are being led down the garden path by unseen executives in the Southwest? And while some men were able to keep their sexual proclivities quiet at the local level, was it not their public display of such proclivities, that brought their exclusion upon them? Wouldn't the answer to that be found in the legal cases themselves?

Finally, what is so "inclusive" about a policy that would inevitably result in the departure of 20 to 30 percent of the current membership, who have no difficulty with the status quo?

That, and choosing to make an issue of it amongst the children (a matter which opponents of the BSA policy appear unwilling or unable to address)?

"We need restore the core values of the Boy Scouts, which does not include bigotry."

The "core values" of the Boy Scouts are summarized in the Scout Oath, which is in no need of restoration, as it has never been suppressed. It is clear that a refresher is in order:

"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."

I highlighted the parts that may have been missed in this discussion.

Now, if we're going to toss around accusations like "bigotry," at people whom we don't know, and who are under no obligation to change their convictions to suit us, let's at least determine the meaning of that word.

"The act of partiality to one's own group, religion, race, or politics, and the intolerance of those who differ."

So you see, the term could apply just as easily to one point of view, as it could to the contrary. Now, a movement that predates a particular social phenomenon (that is, the acceptance of a "gay" lifestyle) has consistently held to a set of convictions, with some apparent measure of success over the long term. Under what obligation are they to change for a relatively new and relatively untested set of convictions, at the risk of a loss of innocence of an entire age group numbering in the millions?

If you cannot answer that, you are in no position to accuse anyone of anything, for any reason.

Bill:

We're dealing with beliefs in this matter, with closely held convictions, not with what we "feel." As such, they are difficult to dismiss in the name of placating those who do not hold those beliefs. They are spelled out in the Scout Oath and Law, and further defined by those responsible for its care. They are, quite simply, what it is to be a Scout.

The question, then, is not why can't the Boy Scouts cannot include atheists, but why an atheist would want to be a Boy Scout.

The BSALegal.org website (which I would urge you to review) details its policy concerning homosexuals, in particular those whose behavior is "known" or "avowed." "'Known' is what is known about you. 'Avowed' is what you say about yourself. 'Known' focuses on cases where someone has engaged in conduct in the community which makes it clear that he or she engages in homosexual conduct. The major cases, however, have been those in which open or 'avowed' homosexuals have come forward to test the policy."

The question here, then, is not why an openly homosexual person cannot be in Scouting, but why they would want to belong to an organization, which states from the offset that their public conduct is immoral.

One would also have to question the motives of anyone who would use children as the backdrop for an ideological battle. Why can't they prove their point somewhere else?

I am an Arrowman since 1969, and an Eagle Scout since 1971. After a long hiatus, I returned to the uniform three years ago, and now serve as a local Scout Commissioner. In this forum, I speak strictly for myself, unless indicated otherwise.

The BSA's alleged position regarding gays is that "homosexual conduct is not compatible with the aims and purposes of Scouting and that a known or avowed homosexual does not present a desirable role model for the youth in the Scouting program." (from the website BSALegal.org) Those who choose to make a public issue of their sexuality among youth, in a manner pre-determined to be a liability, only bring disqualification upon themselves. The indulgence of a few would decimate the ranks, the majority of whom are within their rights to take exception.

Another misunderstood policy is the one concerning belief in God. The ranks of the BSA have included those of many faiths, including Buddhists (who do not believe in a personal God per se), the Latter-Day Saints (whose concept of God diverges markedly from mainstream Christianity), even followers of a spiritual leader named Meher Baba (who claimed during his lifetime to be an incarnation of God). Clearly, the BSA makes no attempt to define the notion of a Higher Power for any of its members, only the requirement to acknowledge that there is one, as understood within the realm of one's own conscience.