Church maintains association with BSA

[MarginOfError]

Wrong! Even with venture scouts, the girls aren't sleeping in the same tent with the boys.

You're right, they don't. And so consideration may have to be given to who you allow to tent together. (It already has in many circles). But that's an argument for knowing what's going on in the lives of your youth, not excluding them.

But there's plenty of hand holding and and boyfriend-girlfriend coupling going on in venturing (I won't even begin on some of the shenanigans I witnessed and even participated in within the venturing program).

[MarginOfError]

The #2 evidence in addition to the name is their reluctance to admit gay scouts until now.

You don't need to specify... this is training for boy gender role when traditionally, all you have to say is BOY and everybody knows what THAT means.

That may be how it is in the Philipines (I wouldn't know, not being from there), but that's not a valid assumption in the United States.

I will no longer be responding to arguments founded on this line of thought unless you can provide documented evidence that the BSA's mission includes training youth to follow traditional gender roles.

Also, to counter your point, girls participate in the Boy Scouts of America in both Venturing and Exploring. Explorer posts aim specifically to help train boys and girls for future careers. How does that fit into your gender role argument?

[Wingnut]

moe, this makes sense. Although, venturing is normally 17 years old right? Would those 12 to 16 pose different challenges?

14-21

[Guest]

This is insufficient evidence. Go look through the BSA's website. Look through it's documents, trainings, and informational materials and find anything that talks about training boys to fill traditional gender roles. Go ahead...let me know what you find.

MOE... WAIT... DON'T RESPOND YET... I'm talking to my husband on this (he's a Scouting guy)... he is giving me some correction. I'll report back when I've finished talking with him...

[Guest]

I will no longer be responding to arguments founded on this line of thought unless you can provide documented evidence that the BSA's mission includes training youth to follow traditional gender roles.

Just a quick note...

I'm not ARGUING. I'm posting my understanding. If you think it's wrong, Correct it. I will challenge you if I don't get it. So, if you are not interested in this discussion, don't bother replying. I'm not interested in making this an argument where everybody just sits in their corner throwing darts at each other. It's a waste of my time and I don't have much of it today. I'm trying to wrap my brain around this thing.

[MarginOfError]

Just a quick note...

I'm not ARGUING. I'm posting my understanding. If you think it's wrong, Correct it. I will challenge you if I don't get it. So, if you are not interested in this discussion, don't bother replying. I'm not interested in making this an argument where everybody just sits in their corner throwing darts at each other. It's a waste of my time and I don't have much of it today. I'm trying to wrap my brain around this thing.

:sigh:

There's that thing about proving a negative that applies here.

[Guest]

Okay, my husband doesn't have much time either... so we weren't able to talk about it much. But this is what I understood from what he told me:

There's a difference in LDS-Scouts and BSA in general.

Everything I said about gender roles is only true in LDS-Scouts, not BSA in general.

In BSA, the goal for all Youth - male or female - is the same. (He listed all the qualities developed, I can't remember them... I remember citizenship, leadership, and something about "values"). But the programs are separated into Boy and Girl Scouts as Boy Scouts use activities that lend to strengths and qualities inherent in the male gender whereas Girl Scouts use activities that lend to strenghts and qualities inherent to the female gender. He said that doing activities that are not "boy-oriented" will make it difficult to teach the character-development lessons to boys. They would either lose interest and drop out or try but fail.

I actually understand this because my friend is involved with Girls on the Run and they tried to apply the same program to boys calling it Boys on the Run and it fell flat on their faces. Boys were not "getting it". So, my friend created a different program tailored specifically to boys and so far, it's working although it's in pilot stage right now (changing the program design as she goes to make it boy-better).

Okay, that said, he did say he doesn't know much about gays' inherent strengths and qualities to make a determination on whether Boy Scouting will be appropriate for gays. We discussed that there must be a difference between gays and boys otherwise, why would gays want to be identified as a whole person by just their sexual orientation? Why can't they just identify themselves as boys, period? Because, boys and girls don't identify themselves as straight because who they are attracted to is just a small part of who they are. We both have the same experience with our exposure to gays - you can tell they are gay by just the way they are - they're just different from boys - they have different interests, have different actions, emotions, etc. Yes, they're more like girls in that sense. So, my husband believes strongly that the BSA program as it is designed today is working well for boys and he doesn't want it changed to accomodate the different characteristics of gays (if there's even any).

So, I asked him if he thinks there should be a different scouting program for gays. He says, that would be a perfect case scenario then it can be made to be a hybrid of Girl and Boy Scouts, or however the program would work best, but says it will be a political nightmare for the BSA because the LGBT folks will consider this as another form of rejection.

Edited May 24, 2013 by anatess

[Guest]

:sigh:

There's that thing about proving a negative that applies here.

I have no idea what you mean. If you ever figure out how to mind-meld, let me know. I'll let you into my brain so you know exactly what I'm trying to accomplish here without having to figure out how to say it so you'll understand me or me you.

Edited May 24, 2013 by anatess

[carlimac]

You're right, they don't. And so consideration may have to be given to who you allow to tent together. (It already has in many circles). But that's an argument for knowing what's going on in the lives of your youth, not excluding them.

But there's plenty of hand holding and and boyfriend-girlfriend coupling going on in venturing (I won't even begin on some of the shenanigans I witnessed and even participated in within the venturing program).

Oh DO tell. Might give us some more ammo.

Ok so you're saying that because of this new shift they might actually have to have gay boys in a separate tent? For pity sake!! This is all so ridiculous. What else do we need to do to placate them?

Maybe we should have the obese, zitty and dweeb boys in a separate tent too, so they don't get teased. In fact, lets be sure to make a separate and public policy naming every possible variation of "boy" and set up special protections and inclusions for every little thing that insults them so they don't get left out or hurt.

Edited May 24, 2013 by carlimac

[Anddenex]

I will no longer be responding to arguments founded on this line of thought unless you can provide documented evidence that the BSA's mission includes training youth to follow traditional gender roles.

Challenge accepted.

I would like to buy a box of Boy Scout cookies, please.

[MarginOfError]

Oh DO tell. Might give us some more ammo.

Ok so you're saying that because of this new shift they might actually have to have gay boys in a separate tent? For pity sake!! This is all so ridiculous. What else do we need to do to placate them?

Maybe we should have the obese, zitty and dweeb boys in a separate tent too, so they don't get teased. In fact, lets be sure to make a separate and public policy naming every possible variation of "boy" and set up special protections and inclusions for every little thing that insults them so they don't get left out or hurt.

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was we may have to give consideration about who we let tent together. But guess what...we already do this. One of the most important things we do every year in our troop leadership meetings is review the patrols to minimize the potential for bullying, trouble making, and unpleasantness. This just adds one more thing to the many dimensions we already have to consider.

There doesn't need to be a blanket policy on this. As I've said, it's an argument for knowing your boys and what's going on in their lives, not for excluding anyone.

[LittleWyvern]

I would like to buy a box of Boy Scout cookies, please.

I think you misspelled "popcorn."

[carlimac]

Just one little bit supporting Anatess. Here is a quote from President Kimball when he was receiving a scouting award of some sort:

"I deeply appreciate this recognition and this act of courtesy on the part of the Boy Scouts of America. I have enjoyed a long and respectful relationship with Scouting. I believe in its potential to motivate young men to live with effectiveness and integrity and to help them prepare for their manhood. " (Bolded by me.)

I'm sure there are many more quotes that can be found by Church leaders, especially President Monson who is big on scouting. ( I just don't have time to look them all up). Granted they aren't necessarily BSA leaders but as leaders the Church, they interpret for us the purpose of the Church even being a part of the scouting program.

MOE, you really can't deny that the scouting program's purpose is to help make men out of boys. To do so is to enter that etherial, fuzzy realm of relativity where there are no definitions of gender or morality which goes directly against the doctrines of the Gospel.

[Soulsearcher]

K so after i finished laughing i figured i'd post a little. So what exactly do people think gay men want or do with their lives? What gender roles do we need to fit into that we don't? And why on earth are we lumped into one group instead of viewed as individuals like the rest of humanity lol.

About myself and a number of gay men i know. We love camping and back packing. Love martial arts, and physical activity. I'm not such a huge sports fan as a spectator but i like playing soccer, swimming and a few other sports. A few of my gay friends and i love going shooting, and i spent most of my youth as a competition shooter, knife and axe thrower and archer. I do yard work, but don't tend to garden. When i was in scouting my interests really didn't vary much from the rest of the scouts and really i was a bit more ahead of them in some of the more "manly" pursuits because of the way my family was. Most people still tend to see me as the manly man at work and i'm usually the intimidating gruff one that it takes a while for my staff and co workers to get used to.

On the flip side i'm a trained chef who enjoys cooking and baking. I love working with kids and am the only male nanny i have ever known and i was able to handle 5 kids full time with no problem from the age of 20-about 25, the youngest being only a year. I love to sing, enjoy dancing, not a huge fan of show tunes though i enjoy a few from plays i really enjoy. Hate chickflicks for the most part, but love my action and sci fi movies. I don't sew much but wish i did because it's a great skill to have.

So explain to me which gender role i do/don't fit in to and why so i can figure out exactly where i should be. If we are looking at teen age boys, exactly what gender role specifics are we trying to teach them that we think gay boys won't appreciate or benefit from?

I'm still curious exactly what makes me not a man or less of one exactly?

[Guest]

K so after i finished laughing i figured i'd post a little. So what exactly do people think gay men want or do with their lives? What gender roles do we need to fit into that we don't? And why on earth are we lumped into one group instead of viewed as individuals like the rest of humanity lol.

About myself and a number of gay men i know. We love camping and back packing. Love martial arts, and physical activity. I'm not such a huge sports fan as a spectator but i like playing soccer, swimming and a few other sports. A few of my gay friends and i love going shooting, and i spent most of my youth as a competition shooter, knife and axe thrower and archer. I do yard work, but don't tend to garden. When i was in scouting my interests really didn't vary much from the rest of the scouts and really i was a bit more ahead of them in some of the more "manly" pursuits because of the way my family was. Most people still tend to see me as the manly man at work and i'm usually the intimidating gruff one that it takes a while for my staff and co workers to get used to.

On the flip side i'm a trained chef who enjoys cooking and baking. I love working with kids and am the only male nanny i have ever known and i was able to handle 5 kids full time with no problem from the age of 20-about 25, the youngest being only a year. I love to sing, enjoy dancing, not a huge fan of show tunes though i enjoy a few from plays i really enjoy. Hate chickflicks for the most part, but love my action and sci fi movies. I don't sew much but wish i did because it's a great skill to have.

So explain to me which gender role i do/don't fit in to and why so i can figure out exactly where i should be. If we are looking at teen age boys, exactly what gender role specifics are we trying to teach them that we think gay boys won't appreciate or benefit from?

I'm still curious exactly what makes me not a man or less of one exactly?

You're not less than a man. But, a scout identifying himself as GAY instead of BOY makes a statement of what he wants to be. Because, what does it really mean to be identified as openly GAY? I've never heard of people identifying themselves as openly straight. So it must mean you are willing to let yourself be identified as a whole person by your sexual orientation. So it means that there must be something different to a gay person as a whole person than as a boy.

What gender role we fit in is a choice we all make. But, the problem is - the gay movement wants to do away with gender roles period and this is something our belief system as LDS is not good with.

By the way, just because you like this and don't like that doesn't make you more a boy than anybody else and it really makes me mad when somebody calls my kid a sissy because he won't climb a tree.

Edited May 24, 2013 by anatess

[carlimac]

I'm still curious exactly what makes me not a man or less of one exactly?

It's subtle Soul. I'm not saying gay men can't be manly- as in possession of 6 packs and can bench 200. But part of "manhood" by Church standards is to become husbands (of women), fathers (with their wives), leaders of families and priesthood holders. It's all the small things boys learn about responsibility, doing hard things, following through, learning skills that will help them in those roles. Gay boys can absolutely benefit from all of this, too.

But the assumption is that unless homosexual young men can commit to deny their same gender attraction and marry a woman and have a family with her, they aren't going to be taking on those traditional roles of "manhood". Even if they "marry" a man and adopt children, it's counterfeit.

In no way am I trying to offend all those extremely brave and wonderful homosexual men who chose to stay chaste and single their whole lives. Or even the hetrosexual men who desired to be married but for some reason were unable to. They are just as much a "man" as those who marry a woman.

Yes, I am saying that, in my opinion, marrying or hooking up with same gender dilutes either your manhood or womanhood in the most fundamental way. Again, it's subtle and something that I believe requires the Holy Ghost and a whole hearted belief and acceptance of Gospel principles to understand. It's connected to the goal of moving toward Godhood.

You've professed your disbelief in LDS doctrine so I don't expect you to understand or accept what I'm saying. In fact I fully expect you to scoff and argue the point. I even expect MOE and a few others to argue my opinion, too.

Edited May 24, 2013 by carlimac

[Wingnut]

It's subtle Soul. I'm not saying gay men can't be manly- as in possession of 6 packs and can bench 200. But part of "manhood" by Church standards is to become husbands (of women), fathers (with their wives), leaders of families and priesthood holders. It's all the small things boys learn about responsibility, doing hard things, following through, learning skills that will help them in those roles. Gay boys can absolutely benefit from all of this , too. But the assumption is that unless homosexuals young men can commit to deny their same gender attraction and marry a woman and have a family with her, they aren't going to be taking on those traditional roles.

In no way am I trying to offend all those extremely brave and wonderful homosexual men who chose to stay chaste and single their whole lives. They are just as much a "man" as those who marry.

Yes I am saying that, in my opinion, marrying or hooking up with same gender dilutes either your manhood or womanhood in the most fundamental way.

So, just to be clear then, straight men who never marry or have children are also diluted men?

[Soulsearcher]

You're not less than a man. But, a scout identifying himself as GAY instead of BOY makes a statement of what he wants to be. Because, what does it really mean to be identified as openly GAY? I've never head of people identifying themselves as openly straight. So it must mean you are willing to let yourself be identified as a whole person by your sexual orientation. So it means that there must be something different to a gay person as a whole person than as a boy.

What gender role we fit in is a choice we all make. But, the problem is - the gay movement wants to do away with gender roles period and this is something our belief system as LDS is not good with.

I think this is one of the huge misunderstandings. People knowing I'm gay isn't about me wanting to be gay before anything, it's so i can get on with everything else. People don't have to come out as straight because it's mainly assumed. People assume i'm straight, so if i show up with a boy friend it can really lead to a bad situation if they are not prepared for it. I'm in this boat right now. I have a steady boy friend, mom knows about me so she knows about him. dad doesn't know about me so he doesn't know about him. Dad asks where i am I lie, mom asks we talk about how my date was. Do i like lying about things to dad, not really, but until i'm able to get the courage to tell him and prepare him then i have to lie. Once people know I'm gay I'm able to be just a man. I really don't think people get the whole idea again of the weight of the straight assumption.

I'm not sure where the idea that gays want to do away with gender roles comes from exactly but i guess i agree with some of it. I don't want to be told there's a set list of things i have to do or not do to conform to someones idea of gender roles. I like being able to expand beyond a confined role and grow more as a person. Also in reality i'm not sure the full gender role thing is quite as important to the LDS as it used to be, or not in the way it was. While some of it is still there, it's allowed for expansion. Women and men have moved into others roles quite a bit to fit the needs of their families and lives and it's lead to some good, and possibly some bad.

[Anddenex]

So, just to be clear then, straight men who never marry or have children are also diluted men?

Do these statements really correlate? The man who seeks to be married but is unable to find a partner, or unable to have children if married, due to infertility (either spouse), and an openly gay individual who chooses to "come out of the closet"?

An openly gay man/woman, and a single man/woman who choose to remain single would be a better comparison (I assume more clarification)

Yes, they will be "diluted" men in the life hereafter. They will not obtain a fullness from the Father if they have openly rebelled against him and his commandments.

Although, God nor man, has not made them less, or diluted, but through their individual choice they have chosen to, as you say, "dilute," themselves.

[Wingnut]

IPeople assume i'm straight, so if i show up with a boy friend it can really lead to a bad situation if they are not prepared for it. I'm in this boat right now. I have a steady boy friend, mom knows about me so she knows about him.

Hey, congratulations! You haven't been around much lately, so I didn't know. :)

[Wingnut]

Do these statements really correlate? The man who seeks to be married but is unable to find a partner, or unable to have children if married, due to infertility (either spouse), and an openly gay individual who chooses to "come out of the closet"?

An openly gay man/woman, and a single man/woman who choose to remain single would be a better comparison (I assume more clarification)

Yes, they will be "diluted" men in the life hereafter. They will not obtain a fullness from the Father if they have openly rebelled against him and his commandments.

Although, God nor man, has not made them less, or diluted, but through their individual choice they have chosen to, as you say, "dilute," themselves.

Carlimac posited that a gay man who doesn't marry or become a father is a diluted form of a man. I just want to know if she's being fair and saying also that straight men who don't marry or become fathers are also diluted men. I didn't say anything about it...I just want to know if she's going to use broad brush strokes.

[Soulsearcher]

Hey, congratulations! You haven't been around much lately, so I didn't know. :)

Been together almost a month :) fingers crossed, but things seem to be going well so far, except i'm allergic to his dog and bunny lol

[Anddenex]

Carlimac posited that a gay man who doesn't marry or become a father is a diluted form of a man. I just want to know if she's being fair and saying also that straight men who don't marry or become fathers are also diluted men. I didn't say anything about it...I just want to know if she's going to use broad brush strokes.

I think Carlimac answered your question with this statement:

In no way am I trying to offend all those extremely brave and wonderful homosexual men who chose to stay chaste and single their whole lives. They are just as much a "man" as those who marry.

Yes I am saying that, in my opinion, marrying or hooking up with same gender dilutes either your manhood or womanhood in the most fundamental way.

I am not seeing a broad brush myself. I think Carlimac clearly mentioned, those who actively come out and begin entering into same gender relationships.

Just my thoughts on her statements.

[carlimac]

Carlimac posited that a gay man who doesn't marry or become a father is a diluted form of a man. I just want to know if she's being fair and saying also that straight men who don't marry or become fathers are also diluted men. I didn't say anything about it...I just want to know if she's going to use broad brush strokes.

You obviously didn't read the whole thing. I clearly stated that chaste men who for some reason don't marry or become fathers are also MEN.

I'm saying clearly that homosexuals dilute their gender by involving themselves sexually with the same gender.

[selek]

Hey, congratulations! You haven't been around much lately, so I didn't know. :)

And this is why the agenda is pernicious.

Here we have a self-avowed Latter-day Saint on a Mormon discussion board congratulating someone for deliberately living a life contrary to eternal law and Church teachings.

And hardly anyone blinks at the tacit endorsement...