As a college-age man, some married friends of mine tried to arrange for me to work with them at a summer residential camp for girls. I was FLATLY denied the opportunity because I was a single male with (assumed) heterosexual desires. No interview period. My married friend was allowed to work there. Granted that an overnight camp is more full of opportunities for wrong-doing than are available to BS Leaders, but BS Leaders are at times left to supervise Boy Scouts overnight or, at least, on extended trips away from home. Should I have sued? Or did the camp's objection seem reasonable though disappointing? ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
Brian, the issue isn't just about gay scout leaders, they also kick out kids who are gay. a lot of these kids are already without friends and then they are rejected again. gay teens are 3 times more likely to commit suicide than straight teens. the BSA is a private organization but if they want public money or use of public facilities they should have to play by the same rules as all other organizations. ------------------ [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited June 25, 2001).]
Tangential question to BK: 40 years ago, when racism was a bit more common and "accepted", would it have been wrong for PBS to broadcast a show about the evils of racism? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
BrianKagy: And racism was an issue of religion once upon a time as well. Scripture was interpreted to mean that "dark people" were generally inferior. I can see a bit of a difference, I suppose, in that homosexuality is something one practices, while race is a matter of birth. I think it's genetic. But I suppose that really is up for debate. I can't concievably understand though how it could be immoral. Who does it hurt? What's wrong with it? Saying "well God says it is" is an incredibly weak answer, if that's the only one there is. I assume that God isn't arbitrary or capricious. I also think following ANYTHING blindly is foolish. Why not try to think of reasons why it might be immoral? I don't think they exist. Until someone can explain to me how being gay is immoral in a rational manner, I'm going to consider homophobia the "new racism" and people who are intolerant of gays as simple bigots. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
Brian, I have a question now. Everyone knows why the BSA does not want homosexuals as leaders...because of religion. What more is there to say on that? I did not see the show, so have no idea what the kid really said, or anything, I am just curious how much you can really go into it. They focus on the boy and then say, however, the BSA feels that homosexuality is a sin and does not want their leaders to promote a sin-filled life style. OK, this is already known...what else do you say? ------------------ Squatting on old bones and excrement and rusty iron, in a white blaze of heat, a panorama of naked idiots stretches to the horizon. Complete silence-their speech centers are destroyed-except for the crackle of sparks and the popping of singed flesh as they apply electrodes up and down the spine. White smoke of burning flesh hangs in the motionless air. A group of children have tied an idiot to a post with barbed wire and built a fire between his legs and stand watching with bestial curiosity as the flames lick his thighs. His flesh jerks in the fire with insect agony.
outlaw/Achebe: I don't think they assumed I was a pedophile. Something inappropriate could have happened without my being a "pedophile." They were just being protective in a sweeping kind of way and I got swept out. This was 22 years ago when pedophiles had a very narrow stereotype, which of course has since been exploded. As a single male, I fit part of the stereotype anyway. I wasn't offended; I was disappointed, though because I would have enjoyed working with my friends in the rustic environment. I readily understood that they were cautious in protecting the girls and giving the parents peace of mind. Ironically, there was a single (at the time) lesbian woman on staff-- also a friend of ours! By the way, she is now married with children. How ironic! Should I go back and sue now? ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
BK, you actually didn't explain why homophobia and racism are different. You mentioned that racism is bad, b/c hell everyone already agrees that it's bad and that the jury is still out on homosexuality. I ask what material evidence is there for the jury to look at? Remember, we only look at empirical evidence in the jury of logic, and premises that beg questions to higher level beings are inadmissible. Don't you agree that one of the ways in which to get other people to agree w/ a viewpoint is by drawing analogies? (we've had a lot of weird situations around lately, having to argue the merits of analogies and counterexamples lately). That's why I suggest that homophobia and racism and sexism are all linked. Someone argues that some individual is a lesser being because of some habit. Well... prove it! Now after I write that I also have to write *down boy*, lol.
C'mon, shanna. I don't mind tangents, but that one is attempting to draw a further comparison between two subjects which I have already clearly demonstrated are not IMHO comparable. Quote from BK: I think we all recognize that there are some issues where we as a society can agree there is no worthy opposing view. Racism is one of those. However, I do not think that the idea of homosexuals becoming leaders within a private organization falls under the same category. Your argument, if I read correctly, was basically that racism is universally considered "bad", so its different than homosexuality, which has varying viewpoints. My question, then, is that would it have been OK for PBS to do a slanted segment against racism 40 years ago? The reason being 40 years ago, discrimination based on race was illegal but still accepted. The views on race 40 years ago were similar to that of homosexuality today. Thus, they are comparable situations. The other side of your point seems to be the private organization point. However, as numerous people have pointed out, they directly use public funds. Good job avoiding my question though ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Rimbaud, I could say the same thing about the position the TV show did take. Gays want to be Boy Scout troop leaders. What more needs to be said about that? Why couldn't PBS just make a documentary that spent most of its time explaining the virtues of preventing homosexual BSA troop leaders? I mean, they could throw in 20 or 30 seconds explaining that there are some gays who want to be scout leaders, right? Is either of those scenarios fair? There are (at least) two views on this. It's unfair to portray the issue differently.
Since I didn't see the program I can't say for sure, but did anyone stop to consider that the BSA didn't have a comment for the documentarian? It wouldn't be the first time that an organization being questioned for its policies declined to comment. In any case, I don't think it's necessarily the responsiblity of a filmmaker to present both sides of an issue, particularly for a show that's called Point of View. And finally, PBS is not quite as publicly funded as everyone thinks. It is largely funded by member donations, foundations and corporate grants. From their web site, I gathered that about 30% of their funding is from local and federal government agencies. Hardly cause to think that millions of Americans are being slighted by one particular opinion piece. ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M.
haven: outlaw will be coming after you for your comment that homosexuality is a practice and not a condition of birth. Is homosexuality qualitatively different from dwarfism, big ears, webbed fingers, spina bifida, brown eyes, cerebral palsy, Down's Syndrome, big feet, Idiot Savantism, nice teeth, or being a California Girl? Annually we produce children with each of these differing characteristics. Homosexuals are certainly more antagonized by society than the rest of that group. California Girls are the most revered and celebrated. ------------------ "How far you go in life depends on you being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak. Because someday you will have been all of these."
Shanna, again, I don't think the two comparable, so speculation on how racism would have been handled in the past is irrelevant to me. The only reason they were compared at all was because Achebe was trying to equate the two in order to discredit the argument with which he disagreed. Racism is something that Americans almost universally agree is wrong. If Achebe was able to equate the two issues, it would completely undermine any argument against gays becoming Scout leaders. Which is why I started arguing in the first place. I don't consider them to be equivalent. And I don't think that 40 years ago, our feelings on racism were similar to our current feelings on gay Scout leaders. I don't think they're the same. So I don't see the point in comparing them. I think the only point in doing so is to attempt to appeal to people to change their views in order to avoid being equated with the least-respected segment of our society: racists.
Could somebody please tell me what our views are about Gay Scout leaders? I'm not asking the people that think homophobia is a bad thing... I'm asking the people that believe homosexuals are evil, why is it that homosexuals are bad people? And please, only empirical evidence. If there are only religious anecdotes to peruse, we could just as arbitrarily ask the Unitarians as the Taleban how to interact with homosexuals. As far as pure logic is concerned, homophobia is as immoral as racism, sexism, etc.
I don't think they're the same. What do you think is different about views towards racism 40 years ago vs views towards homosexuality today? * Both groups are not allowed to be discriminated against by the government * Both groups were considered at one time to be "wrong" or "bad" and outcasts. * Both groups have slowly become more accepted by society I'd argue the situations are virtually identical, except that we're 40 years further ahead in thinking on race vs. sexual-orientation. You keep bringing up the point that racism is universally accepted as a bad thing today -- my point is that it wasn't 40 years ago. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
bobrek, thanks for accepting my apology. I learned something about the ability to be self-critical in regards to one's own culture (and this interestingly enough ties into a conversation in the polygamy thread). Many times we joke in our own comfort zones (e.g. for me Catholicism, Episcopalians: 'all of the ceremony, none of the guilt', etc.) w/o seeing the harm in the statement.
I think Shanna's response is accurate. 40 years ago, there were few (if any) black leaders of predominantly non-black youth groups. I think the current reasoning behind the prejudice is different, however, it is still a prejudice. My guess is things will evolve in a good way within the next 10-20 years. Unfortunately it is a slow process. There is no good reason to NOT accept a gay scout leader. ------------------
RichRocket: I actually do think that being homosexual is biological. But these people don't carry distinct markers like race. Homosexuality is a life-activity; I think there's a prediliction for it... but it's still something you "do." ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st.
I'd argue the situations are virtually identical, except that we're 40 years further ahead in thinking on race vs. sexual-orientation. And I would not. I don't think being black makes a person a bad role model for a child. The BSA does think that being gay makes a person a bad candidate for leadership. That's the last I have to say about it. I think I've been more than clear in explaining my position here.
I agree with everything BK has said here, particularly about the attitudes of some on the board towards people with differing viewpoints. As for gays, I have no problem with them, but I think it's silly for the Boy Scouts to be attacked like they have been. It's kind of like politicians attacking tobacco and illegal immigrants -- we're not doing anything to make a difference, so let's attack these groups because they're easy targets, and make it look like we're accomplising something. Why is this even an issue? Why can't it be "don't ask, don't tell" like the military? Like haven said, being gay is something you do, not something you are. I don't consider being straight to be my defining characteristic. It's not like if there's one thing I want people to know about me, it's that I'm straight. As long as guys aren't telling kids, "I have sex with guys in my spare time", I don't see an issue. I would imagine there's more to a person than who he has sex with -- as long as that's not discussed in the boy scout arena, there shouldn't be a problem. As soon as it starts being discussed, though, there becomes an issue. But why would it ever be discussed? Don't ask, don't tell. I know many people that are gay, whom I know are gay, and they know that I know they're gay, but we just never talk about it. It's just not something that is ever discussed. Not that I would mind discussing it with them, but we just don't do it. I'm sure if I was in their "circle of trust", we'd talk about it, but we just don't. I imagine this is how it would be in a gay boy scout leader/boy scout relationship--not getting into discussions about private activities, i.e. sexuality. The reason why the don't ask, don't tell thing would be important in the boy scouts is because parents should be able to say that they don't want this organization talking to their kids about sex and homosexuality. Parents should have the right to shield their youngsters from adults openly talking about their sexuality in front of them, when they are paying for their child to be a part of this private group. I don't see any discrimmination in saying you can't talk about sex in front of my young child if I'm giving you money to be a part of your private organization. That, in a nutshell, is a perfectly logical defense of the boy scouts. I imagine if I had more time I could come up with one that was actually good as well.
