I don't think being black makes a person a bad role model for a child. The funny thing is that 40 years ago, many people did think that. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets. <font size=1 color=white> [This message has been edited by shanna (edited June 25, 2001).]
But the BSA is not a don't ask, don't tell organization. They're pretty explicit in their exculsion of homosexuals. Is that okay? According to the documentary web site, not only does the BSA expel gays, it also seems to expel heterosexuals who support them. "Now retired at 71, Dave Rice has collected every patch he ever earned in Boy Scouts, including some from 1941. He can tell you the names of each scout in his first cub pack, and remembers the songs his den mother taught him 60 years ago. His love of scouting and scouting ideals is unwavering and he has continued to volunteer as a Scoutmaster and Assistant Scoutmaster in his hometown troop until, at the age of 69, he was expelled from the Scouts for openly challenging their anti-gay policy. Although heterosexual himself, Rice went on to co-found "Scouting for All," a non-profit organization working to overturn the Scouts' ban on gays. " Is it okay to ban this guy too? ------------------ Brought to you by the letter M. [This message has been edited by AhPook (edited June 25, 2001).]
My only concern is that the Boy Scouts have identified gay men as people who are a threat to young boys. If they were not, there wouldn't be a problem. That notion is like saying I'm a threat to 10-year-old girls simply because I am heterosexual. It is a paranoid delusion based on lack of understanding. I think I would have less of a concern if the Boy Scouts weren't basically a monopoly of sorts. There are no other organizations of their equal in the US where people can serve their volunteer time in such a way. Eventually, I feel like they will make changes on their own but it is disheartening to think that they are so reactionary about this. To be honest, based purely on statistics, it is more dangerous to be a Catholic altar boy than it is a Boy Scout if you are concerned about molestation of young boys. ------------------ Things do not change; we change. - Henry David Thoreau
so what if one of the scouts asks the troop leader about his personal life? is he just supposed to lie? and as I said before but no one has addressed, the ban doesn't just affect troop leaders, it is a ban on gay kids as well. and it doesn't stop there. the scouts are teaching these kids that it's ok to discriminate against someone based on their sexuality and they will continue to believe it is ok for the rest of their lives. ------------------
What would these kids be asking? How old are these kids, anyway? I'm picturing elementary school-aged kids. Scout: "Are you married?" Leader: "No". Scout: "Do you have a girlfriend?" Leader: "No". How hard is that? Scout: "Have you ever done two guys at the same time?" Leader: "That's a personal question son, that I don't want to answer." Seriously, what are you thinking they would ask the guy? I just don't see the topic coming up, but I guess I've never been a boy scout, so I couldn't say.
AhPook, Of course the website doesn't give the other side of the story, that it is good to discriminate against people who raise an issue with the organization. What would that teach the boys if he was allowed to stay? ------------------ 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.
well what if they ask why he isn't married. or who does he live with. or what did you do last night? or do you want kids of your own? sexuality does not necessarily mean sex ------------------
cub scouts are for boys in 2nd to 5th grade. boy scouts are for boys 11-17. boys 11-17 are very curious about sex. anyone remember the Adam Sandler SNL character "Canteen Boy" and his over-affectioante scout master played by Alec Baldwin? [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited June 25, 2001).]
My understanding is that being guy is not about practices, but about beliefs (attraction to the same sex)-albeit somewhat biologically linked deep seeded ones. Some heterosexual persons don't have physical relations, some gay people don't have physical relations. If the boys scouts said "no leader shall have physical relations with another person unless married, nor talk about such physical relations to young persons through scouting"--they would have a leg to stand on (though still a weak leg for other reasons). But that is not what their policy said, and thus I can't see how their policy would not be viewed as simply bigoted. Think about it this way, as a "private organization", would a substantial proportion of Americans support it if it said "only same race leaders of same race troops are allowed", or "only Fundamentalist Christian leaders are allowed" or "you must be married to be a boy scout leader". I don't think Americans would support this. I don't see much differences between any of these and saying "if you are attracted to men you are not allowed to be a Boy Scout", it is just enough persons haven't thought logically and fairly enough about it. The policy wasn't addressing sexual behavior among adults, let alone the more serious matter of sexual behaviors toward youths, but merely was about excluding persons because they are gay. Bigotry is bigotry, and under no circumstances should it be condoned in American institutions, or organizations aided and facilitated by such institutions. Just as most of us have found ways to get over our prejudices against those of different religions, races, and sexes (or at least we don’t accept these beliefs to be publicly accepted), one day we will be over this one as well.
weren't you at all offended that you were just assumed to be a pedophile just because of your sexual orientation? ------------------
[edit:]sorry for the redundancy outlaw. RichRocket, I'm intrigued by the notion that someone of any sexuality is also a pedophile. The notion that you, as an adult male, wouldn't be allowed to supervise girls is ludicrous. Did you have the right to sue? I guess if they're using public facilities such as elementary schools, army bases, etc... sure. I happen to not be too concerned w/ whether or not someone is suing the BSA though. I'm more interested in fairness. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 25, 2001).]
Achebe I tried to do a "reply/quote" on your post but things appear hosed when I try. Anyway, you posted the following: "The Catholics aren't very accepting, though most of their leaders are homosexual." I find this an offensive statement*. Please cite your source as to how you determined that "most of their leaders are homosexual". In addition, the official stance from The Vatican is that homosexuals ARE accepted and are not judged. It is the sexual act by homosexuals that is not accepted, just as the sexual act by non-married heterosexuals is not accepted. *There is obviously a lot of news whenever a priest (or any person of religious leadership) engages in homosexual behavior. The statement you make appears to encourage the notion that Priests prey (no pun intended) on young boys. Otherwise, why else would you say that most[/i] of the Cathloic leadership is homosexual? ------------------ [This message has been edited by bobrek (edited June 25, 2001).]
Outlaw: Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled (a week ago) that exclusive religious clubs are now allowed on school campuses after hours? I'd assume that means the Boy Scouts have been thoroughly legitimated . Good news though: the BSA is having extreme problems raising money. Many of their normal sponsors are now refusing to help out. Boston College used to sponsor several troops, but has ceased to do so until their discrimination against homosexuals ceases. They published a really pathetic sounding letter in our student newspaper begging for funding to be re-instated, that the BSA is "good as a whole" and that the college should "take the good with the bad." I don't understand why the same logic doesn't apply to homosexuals. heh heh. I'm totally with Achebe on this one. Discriminating because of a sexual preference that seems to be a biological condition is totally and completely wrong; no debates necessary. ------------------ Newbiehad... coming to a bbs near you, October 31st. [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 25, 2001).]
[edit:]bobrek(oops), that was a bad bad joke w/o a little smilie behind it. Thanks for the clarification though. It's good to see that yet another church renounces homophobia. [This message has been edited by Achebe (edited June 25, 2001).]
Didn't I just get done saying I did not see a comparison between racism and the BSA forbidding gays from being scout leaders...? I thought I did. And I thought I did a good job of explaining why I didn't think those two things were comparable. Indulge me for a moment here. If I DID do that, as I think I did, why would anyone make a post asking me further questions about those two issues as though they were similar...? 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. Achebe, you said: If that's the case-- if you really don't KNOW what the opposing viewpoint is, don't you find it a bit close-minded to assert that it shouldn't be included in an exploration of the issue? The opposing viewpoint, quite simply, is that the BSA does not think that homosexuals make good role models for boys. The BSA's vision of a leader of young men does not include homosexuality. The truth is, Achebe, I have not decided my position on this issue. But I can appreciate that there are valid, differing opinions on the matter. This is the gist of the problem. Yes, Achebe, I am serious. The millions and millions of Americans who think that homosexuality is a sin are serious, too. You can casually dismiss them as idiots or bigots if you like-- you can even pretend that there is absolutely no way any one should hold a viewpoint that differs from yours-- but that does not make you right, and it does not mean that no one actually does oppose you. It seems to me that this is exactly what PBS has done here. No one could be against gays being Scout Troop leaders! No one! And if they ARE against it, they're insane. **** me, we don't have to consider their viewpoint! I can appreciate the fact that you have a strong opinion on this matter, but I do not think there is any justification for you to equate the opposition to gay Scout Leaders to racism. This society has made up its mind about racism: it's bad. People that like it are bad. We as a people have not come to a similar conclusion about gays being Scout Leaders, and I do not think that we ever will because the primary reason for opposing gay Scout Leaders is religious in nature. There are two sides to this issue. If you don't want to accept that, fine-- it will not be the first time you've tried to marginalize a conservative belief rather than confront it. But PBS is a publicly-funded entity, and because so much of that public does believe that there is more than one way that people can think on this subject, the documentary should reflect the variety of opinions on the matter. ------------------ "It's a funny thing, 'friends' You got beginnings and you got ends I guess I'll see you when we're ashes again-- Chris Robinson
huh? so since gay marriage isn't accepted in the Catholic Church, Dope John Paul expects us to stay celibate for the rest of our lives? I don't think so! ------------------
