Friends of Scouting

[Capitalist_Oinker]

Regardless. Struggling with ANYTHING is consequential, and to say otherwise is naive. I struggle with many, many things. They are all VERY consequential.

 

So I stand by it. Overcome-able? yes. Inconsequential? Hardly.

 

 

Once again I'll remind you that I used the word "inconsequential" only in regards to our relationship with the Church and with God. "Personal struggles" and such are completely out of context.

 

Nevertheless, I don't disagree with what you've written.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

JAG, replace gay with girl.  There is NO WAY I am sending my teen-age kid to a campout where he shares a tent with girls.  NO WAY... even if people tell me they've shared a tent with 2 of them and Nothing.  Happened. and even if the girls are fundamentally good kids.  Same thing with gays.

 

 

I made a similar argument in a discussion with a gentleman in our stake who fully supports the decision to allow homosexual boys to participate in scouting.

His reasoning is this: 

As long as those individuals promise to keep the scout oath and promise to be "morally straight" we have to take them at their word. We can't pre-judge them.

 

I asked him to consider this: 

My 16 year old son is openly heterosexual . He admits to being attracted to girls. He carries a youth temple recommend and I take him at his word when he says he has never violated the law of chastity, nor will he. 

Having said that, would you be comfortable having him sleep in the same tent with your 16 year old daughter at girls camp? 

He said, "of course not---that's not the same thing." 

I asked him how it differed from allowing a homosexual boy to sleep in the same tent with someone HE was sexually attracted to?

He spit and sputtered and said it just wasn’t the same, and he didn’t want to discuss it any further. 

(A typical reaction when a person recognizes his argument is unsound.)

 

I believe the BSA decision will yet lead to a great number of unintended consequences, and as paracaidista508 pointed out, the Church (nor the BSA for that matter) have yet to offer any guidelines for handling the matter.

[yjacket]

JAG, replace gay with girl.  There is NO WAY I am sending my teen-age kid to a campout where he shares a tent with girls.  NO WAY... even if people tell me they've shared a tent with 2 of them and Nothing.  Happened. and even if the girls are fundamentally good kids.  Same thing with gays.

 

Bingo.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, replace gay with girl.  There is NO WAY I am sending my teen-age kid to a campout where he shares a tent with girls.  NO WAY... even if people tell me they've shared a tent with 2 of them and Nothing.  Happened. and even if the girls are fundamentally good kids.  Same thing with gays.

Sure; but in that type of scenario, the attraction would be mutual and the danger of hanky-panky would be, literally, doubled.  Now, if I thought my own kid were gay as well--yeah, I'd re-think things.

 

But as long as at least one party is biologically hard-wired to say "ew--NO!" and has the emotional/physical wherewithal to back that up, I can (reluctantly) reconcile myself to the prospect of a good kid who happens to be gay, going on an overnight campout with--and possibly even sharing a tent with--one of my own kids.

 

Besides--how many gay Mormon teenagers are going to allow their gender orientation to become common knowledge throughout the ward, anyways?

[yjacket]

He said, "of course not---that's not the same thing." 

I asked him how it differed from allowing a homosexual boy to sleep in the same tent with someone HE was sexually attracted to?

He spit and sputtered and said it just wasn’t the same, and he didn’t want to discuss it any further. 

(A typical reaction when a person recognizes his argument is unsound.)

 

I believe the BSA decision will yet lead to a great number of unintended consequences, and as paracaidista508 pointed out, the Church (nor the BSA for that matter) have yet to offer any guidelines for handling the matter.

 

Sometimes people are so blind with what they "feel" is right that they can't even attempt to understand that there will be unintended consequences-much less figure out what they would be.  And oftentimes in today's society what people "feel" is right is not driven by religious teaching, morality or principles.  What people "feel" is right today is simply driven by what some egghead on TV through either a media network, a show, reality tv, etc.

 

Considering that, society can't figure out the logical inconsistencies in the thought process-b/c principles aren't driving rightness, it's the madness of the crowd that is driving it.

[yjacket]

Sure; but in that type of scenario, the attraction would be mutual and the danger of hanky-panky would be, literally, doubled.  Now, if I thought my own kid were gay as well--yeah, I'd re-think things.

 

But as long as at least one party is biologically hard-wired to say "ew--NO!" and has the emotional/physical wherewithal to back that up, I can (reluctantly) reconcile myself to the prospect of a good kid who happens to be gay, going on an overnight campout with--and possibly even sharing a tent with--one of my own kids.

 

So what . . . regardless it is not just for the heter. child to sleep in the same tent as the homo. child.  One is putting a teenager into a situation that they should never have to deal with. Let's say on a campout the boy had to sleep in the same tent as the ugliest girl teenager... i.e. someone they would automatically say NO to.  It still isn't a situation that adults should be putting a child into. That's why we are the adults, to see wisdom in understanding when a child should not be in awkward situations.

 

Besides--how many gay Mormon teenagers are going to allow their gender orientation to become common knowledge throughout the ward, anyways?

 

Oh right now . . .not too many.  But as homosexuality in the church becomes more and more accepted, you can bet more and more will make it known.  And there certainly is a shift in the church that homosexuality is more accepted . . . not the behavior but the supposed homosexual identity. The same thing has happened in modern culture.  As the homosexual lifestyle becomes more accepted it becomes much easier for individuals to be "loud and proud".

Edited March 6, 2015 by yjacket

[Just_A_Guy]

So what . . . regardless it is not just for the heter. child to sleep in the same tent as the homo. child.  One is putting a teenager into a situation that they should never have to deal with. Let's say on a campout the boy had to sleep in the same tent as the ugliest girl teenager... i.e. someone they would automatically say NO to.  It still isn't a situation that adults should be putting a child into. That's why we are the adults, to see wisdom in understanding when a child should not be in awkward situations.

 

Well, hang on--please don't assume that I'd tell my kids "yes, you must share a tent with Robbie even though you know he's gay".  As with anything else, informed consent and actual agency on the parts of all parties involved, are key.  So, on that basis, I'd reject the implicit assertion that adults are "putting a child into" anything. 

 

MoE talked, earlier in this thread, about how in his Scouting experience the kids usually pick their own tent-mates anyways.  To me, in general, we're talking about situations where a kid says "Dad, I want to bunk with Freddie; is that OK?" and I'd quietly reply "well, Just_A_Kid, you need to be aware that Freddie is attracted to boys.  I know you don't share that attraction, and I know you're committed to the Church's and our family's standards on chastity.  If you think sharing a tent with Freddie won't be a problem, I'll respect your judgment.  But you need to know that x, y, and z are not okay, and if he starts anything like that I want you to call me right away--I'm just a tent away." 

 

As for your "ugly girl" scenario--I'd still be leery; because frankly--any girl can become attractive under the right circumstances; especially for a typical hormonal male teenager.  But if my kid is having same-gender attractions, hopefully I've built the sort of relationship with him so that he feels comfortable disclosing that to me long before the campout ever happens--and, that being the case, I'll probably just tag along and share a tent with him myself.

 

Oh right now . . .not too many.

 

I don't think the Church's cultural shift thus far is a bad thing (though, to be sure, we need to be careful not to go too far).  My point was--we can come up with as many complex scenarios about "the gay kid" on the campout as we wish; but the bottom line is--in the vast majority of cases, we just aren't going to know about it; and I think setting up a rigidly inquisitorial "are you now, or have you ever been, attracted to a member of the same sex?" regimen could well be a "cure" that's worse than the disease.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

Once again I'll remind you that I used the word "inconsequential" only in regards to our relationship with the Church and with God. "Personal struggles" and such are completely out of context.

 

Nevertheless, I don't disagree with what you've written.

 

 

I understand that from your clarification. But I was merely explaining what I meant.

[The Folk Prophet]

But as long as at least one party is biologically hard-wired to say "ew--NO!" and has the emotional/physical wherewithal to back that up

 

If you truly believe that impressionable kids cannot be influenced, that there is no decision in the process, or even that a kid might think he has one proclivity but simply hasn't discovered the other until it's placed before him...then maybe the first part of this might make sense. As far as the second part....um......teenagers and emotional wherewithal?

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think the Church's cultural shift thus far is a bad thing

 

I find this surprising.

[Capitalist_Oinker]

My point was--we can come up with as many complex scenarios about "the gay kid" on the campout as we wish; but the bottom line is--in the vast majority of cases, we just aren't going to know about it...

 

 

The issue isn't about finding out who is and who is not homosexual. No doubt there have always been homosexual boys (and leaders) participating in the program.

The issue now is in regards to those who OPENLY proclaim their homosexuality. That is the new paradigm, and obviously we are "going to know about it"

 

The question that hasn't been addressed by the Church or the BSA is "how do we deal with it?"

[Crypto]

I think this topic also misses incidental homosexual experience and homosexual attraction. Something that comes up in the Kinsey scale. (whether or not such a scale is valid) 
 

Also as for the 'eww gross' idea, I don't think it applies at all...regardless of guy or girl or the gender pairing. A socialized behavior doesn't make a situation any better...

It is wise to avoid the temptation of sin.

[Just_A_Guy]

I find this surprising.

I'm talking about the officially sanctioned cultural shift, whereby leaders talk more openly about compassion and set up websites like Mormonsandgays.org. I'm certainly not talking about the closet-libertines who tend to dominate the bloggernacle; whom I believe to be a very loud tail trying (largely unsuccessfully) to wag the dog.

If you truly believe that impressionable kids cannot be influenced, that there is no decision in the process, or even that a kid might think he has one proclivity but simply hasn't discovered the other until it's placed before him...then maybe the first part of this might make sense. As far as the second part....um......teenagers and emotional wherewithal?

Some can, some can't. I'd rather take these things on a case-by-case scenario, than impose a one-size-fits-all solution that presumes from the outset that a twelve-year-old is a sexual predator.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

The issue now is in regards to those who OPENLY proclaim their homosexuality.

Like people who openly proclaim their kleptomania, or substance/porn addictions?

It's one thing to quietly acknowledge a personality trait that gives challenges; but when I hear terms like "openly proclaim"--that, to me, connotes a situation where the person doesn't see the trait as a challenge at all. That in turn connotes pride and no repentance, which would place the person squarely outside the hypothetical I've been posing.

The question that hasn't been addressed by the Church or the BSA is "how do we deal with it?"

Well, to be wise and cautious, obviously; but for Pete's sake--they're not lepers. :)

Edited March 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

whom I believe to be a very loud tail trying (largely unsuccessfully) to wag the dog.

 

I, on the other hand, see success, day by day, bit by bit, influence won, thinking changed, etc. The dog, little by little, is responding to the tail.

[Guest]

Some can, some can't. I'd rather take these things on a case-by-case scenario, than impose a one-size-fits-all solution that presumes from the outset that a twelve-year-old is a sexual predator.

 

Just so I understand you... you are okay with boys camping out with girls?

[MarginOfError]

Just so I understand you... you are okay with boys camping out with girls?

 

I, for one, don't have much of an issue with an openly homosexual male sharing a tent with an openly homosexual female.

[Just_A_Guy]

Just so I understand you... you are okay with boys camping out with girls?

 

Sharing tents?  No, I'm not OK with it, for the reasons I described in responding to yjacket's ugly-girl scenario.

 

On the other hand--growing up, my ward had annual "super-activities" that involved camping, where the boys' tents had to be set up at least 100 feet away from the girls' tents and we were policed pretty tightly.  I have no problem with that sort of scenario.

[Guest]

Sharing tents?  No, I'm not OK with it, for the reasons I described in responding to yjacket's ugly-girl scenario.

 

On the other hand--growing up, my ward had annual "super-activities" that involved camping, where the boys' tents had to be set up at least 100 feet away from the girls' tents and we were policed pretty tightly.  I have no problem with that sort of scenario.

Okay, I think I understand you now.

So your position is it's okay to have openly homosexuals in boy scout camps as long as they are in separate sleeping areas (e.g. set up at least 100 feet away from each other) and policed tightly. Right?

I'm ok with that too as far as camp outs are concerned.

I'm not okay with the implication that practicing homosexuality is morally straight. That's my main concern with the homosexual issue and BSA.

Edited March 6, 2015 by anatess

[Just_A_Guy]

No, Anatess, that's not my position either.  If you're making a rhetorical argument that I should treat the relationship between straight Gospel-observing boys and gay Gospel-observing boys the way I'd treat the relationship between straight Gospel-observing boys and straight Gospel-observing girls--no, I would not do that; and I've tried to explain my reasoning for that in this thread already. 

 

I agree with a general rule that we try not to put youths who may be sexually attracted to each other, together.  I think a partial exception to that general rule may exist where one youth is gay, but nevertheless committed to living the Gospel; and another youth of the same gender is straight and similarly committed to living the Gospel while understanding the situation and being especially resistant to temptations of that sort.  I think that's preferable to a policy of "identify the gay kid, isolate him, and make darned sure everyone knows he's different and not to be trusted, regardless of his track record of Gospel obedience".

 

Making fifty young men camp one hundred feet away from fifty young women, humiliates no one.  But making a gay kid set up camp a hundred feet away from the rest of the kids, or telling him he can't go at all--that's gonna leave a psychological mark; and I don't think we should do that to good kids who happen to be gay.  (Yeah, we sort of do the same thing with the adult males who attend YW Girls' Camp as "priesthood leadership", knowing that every other person at the camp is watching them like a hawk for the first sign of misconduct--but these are grown men, and they can take the awkwardness.)

 

As for "practicing homosexuality"--that is not at all what I've been saying.  I have tried (apparently, not very lucidly; and for that I apologize) to make it clear that my position applies to youths with same-sex attraction who acknowledge that attraction but are nevertheless committed to the gospel generally, to the law of chastity in particular, and have an established history of adhering to those standards.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Bini]

Is it required for a non-sexually active youth, to declare his sexual preference, upon being apart of scout troop? So in simpler terms, a young man that is attracted to males but is chaste, must he declare his preference to a leader? I don't know what the moral code is for scouts (I know that they're not all LDS, right?) but if you are not sexually active, I lean towards it not being an issue. I know my opinion on that is not popular. Saying this, if the moral code requires that young men/boys practice celibacy, then anyone who breaks their chastity (homosexual or heterosexual) is at risk for being booted?

[Just_A_Guy]

Is it required for a non-sexually active youth, to declare his sexual preference, upon being apart of scout troop? So in simpler terms, a young man that is attracted to males but is chaste, must he declare his preference to a leader?

 

Under the old policy, gay kids were not eligible--but there was no requirement for a specific affirmation of straight-ness, so it was basically a de facto "don't ask, don't tell".  Under the new policy, as far as I know, there's still not a formal policy of asking kids what their orientation is--but even openly gay kids can be members.

 

 

I know my opinion on that is not popular. Saying this, if the moral code requires that young men/boys practice celibacy, then anyone who breaks their chastity (homosexual or heterosexual) is at risk for being booted?

 

As I recall, when the BSA changed their policy within the last year or two, the Church said they were going along with it on the understanding that BSA would also re-emphasize moral behavior and belief in God generally.

 

That said:  I think it will be a cold day in Hades before the BSA ever drums a kid out for unchastity, regardless of the gender of his partner.

Edited March 6, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Bini]

I think it's good that the scout programme has leniency because it can positively impact so many young men, even if they don't have a squeaky clean record, the experience can help guide them.

[MarginOfError]

I agree with a general rule that we try not to put youths who may be sexually attracted to each other, together. 

 

I think a partial exception to that general rule may exist where one youth is gay, but nevertheless committed to living the Gospel; and another youth of the same gender is straight and similarly committed to living the Gospel while understanding the situation and being especially resistant to temptations of that sort.  

 

These two statements are really saying the same thing; a gay youth and a straight youth of the same gender aren't usually sexually attracted to each other.  

 

In other words, what JAG is trying to get at is that a comparison of straight-boy/gay-boy tenting isn't exactly on the same level as straight-boy/straight-girl tenting.

[MarginOfError]

I'm not okay with the implication that practicing homosexuality is morally straight. That's my main concern with the homosexual issue and BSA.

 

But the morality of homosexuality varies across religious declarations.  Some are okay with it, some are not.  And the BSA is fairly clear on its policy that "morally straight" is supposed to be defined between the youth, his/her parents, and his/her religious leaders (emphasis on the youth's religious leaders, not the troop's chartering organization).

 

Until you get to the membership rule, at which point only a religious conviction that rejects homosexuality is acceptable.  (and now, only if you are younger than 18 and not a Venturer, or younger than 21 and a Venturer).

 

Is it required for a non-sexually active youth, to declare his sexual preference, upon being apart of scout troop? So in simpler terms, a young man that is attracted to males but is chaste, must he declare his preference to a leader? I don't know what the moral code is for scouts (I know that they're not all LDS, right?) but if you are not sexually active, I lean towards it not being an issue. I know my opinion on that is not popular. Saying this, if the moral code requires that young men/boys practice celibacy, then anyone who breaks their chastity (homosexual or heterosexual) is at risk for being booted?

 

Actually, BSA policy is quite clear that sexuality is not an appropriate discussion for scout leaders to have with the youth.  They are supposed to refer them back to parents and religious leaders.  And as I said above, morally straight isn't defined by troop leaders anyway.  Much like our temple recommend interviews, absent objective evidence, a youth is living a morally straight life if he says he is.