Boy Scouts - Gay acceptance

[fix]

No one said they were ‘equal.’ What was stated was, promoting, either, homosexuality or heterosexuality has no place in scouting. Or is promoting heterosexual promiscuity an acceptable teaching?

Why is the only option promoting promiscuity? Certainly wholesome ordered sexuality is part of growing up and should be cultivated not placed in the same box as disordered inclinations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why is the only option promoting promiscuity? Certainly wholesome ordered sexuality is part of growing up and should be cultivated not placed in the same box as disordered inclinations.

Because, as I remember, sexuality was not a part of the scouts (back in the day).

 

[fix]

Because, as I remember, sexuality was not a part of the scouts (back in the day).

Well sexuality can mean different things. Certainly part of life is marriage and family. That cannot be separate from other realities including Scouting.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Neither Boy Scouts nor Girl Scouts is a sex club. Its activities are non-sexual, as is its mission. Therefore, private orientation is of zero relevance. Zero. Why would any boy or teenager, or the parents of said boy or teenager, want to enter a non-sexual organization for the express purpose of declaring one’s sexuality, talking about it, confronting others about, and other forms of “sharing?”

If a boy (or girl) needs to “share” that, he or she needs to do so in the proper venues: a counselor for that purpose, or a group for that express purpose. (Some of those exist in hgih schools, youth groups, etc.)

If I, a heterosexual, were to seek membership in any adult non-sexual group – say, a book club, a club for academic or intellectual interests, or an activity club, members of that club would be correct in criticizing me for inappropriately bringing my sexuality into it. In fact, for heterosexuals, it could be considered a form of sexual harrassment to do so.

This is a sick world which is so focused on sexual “identity” that someone not even yet an adult is so carried away with sexuality that he or she makes it a part of every facet of life.

Edited to add:
I have not been part of previous CAF conversations on the BSA, so I’m not sure if the either side on the issue considers it important to verify sexual orientation as a precursor to BSA membership. If sexual harrassment has been an issue in the past, then it seems to me that that is the issue, not the orientation. But I’m open for correction on that.

 

[Brendan]

The intent of the paragraph is clear. People are to be treated with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. No where does it teach an acceptance of the action, or sin.

As a boy would have no particular right to enter into any particular organization, the denial of such admittance would not be an unjust act.

So the previous policy was not an unjust discrimination.

 

[fix]

Neither Boy Scouts nor Girl Scouts is a sex club. Its activities are non-sexual, as is its mission. Therefore, private orientation is of zero relevance. Zero. Why would any boy or teenager, or the parents of said boy or teenager, want to enter a non-sexual organization for the express purpose of declaring one’s sexuality, talking about it, confronting others about, and other forms of “sharing?”

If a boy (or girl) needs to “share” that, he or she needs to do so in the proper venues: a counselor for that purpose, or a group for that express purpose. (Some of those exist in hgih schools, youth groups, etc.)

If I, a heterosexual, were to seek membership in any adult non-sexual group – say, a book club, a club for academic or intellectual interests, or an activity club, members of that club would be correct in criticizing me for inappropriately bringing my sexuality into it. In fact, for heterosexuals, it could be considered a form of sexual harrassment to do so.

This is a sick world which is so focused on sexual “identity” that someone not even yet an adult is so carried away with sexuality that he or she makes it a part of every facet of life.

I see your point but I would add that in many of the defenses of the new policy from Catholic sites I have noticed this push to lump all sexuality together as if one is as prohibited as another. Now I am not talking about discussion of genital sexuality but what about references to normal sexual issues like marriage and girl friends and dating and such. Have we come to a point where this is a prohibited issue too?

If we want to sanitize everything then we risk turning a group which claims to cater to boys in their formative years into a political group. Wait, the policy change has done just that. Never mind.

 

[fix]

As a boy would have no particular right to enter into any particular organization, the denial of such admittance would not be an unjust act.

So the previous policy was not an unjust discrimination.

That is the sticking point. Cardinal Ratzinger clarified nicely. But, how many really care?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Neither Boy Scouts nor Girl Scouts is a sex club. Its activities are non-sexual, as is its mission. Therefore, private orientation is of zero relevance. Zero. Why would any boy or teenager, or the parents of said boy or teenager, want to enter a non-sexual organization for the express purpose of declaring one’s sexuality, talking about it, confronting others about, and other forms of “sharing?”

If a boy (or girl) needs to “share” that, he or she needs to do so in the proper venues: a counselor for that purpose, or a group for that express purpose. (Some of those exist in hgih schools, youth groups, etc.)

If I, a heterosexual, were to seek membership in any adult non-sexual group – say, a book club, a club for academic or intellectual interests, or an activity club, members of that club would be correct in criticizing me for inappropriately bringing my sexuality into it. In fact, for heterosexuals, it could be considered a form of sexual harrassment to do so.

This is a sick world which is so focused on sexual “identity” that someone not even yet an adult is so carried away with sexuality that he or she makes it a part of every facet of life.

Edited to add:
I have not been part of previous CAF conversations on the BSA, so I’m not sure if the either side on the issue considers it important to verify sexual orientation as a precursor to BSA membership. If sexual harrassment has been an issue in the past, then it seems to me that that is the issue, not the orientation. But I’m open for correction on that.

Thank you for your articulation. This is what I have been trying to explain.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As a boy would have no particular right to enter into any particular organization, the denial of such admittance would not be an unjust act.

So the previous policy was not an unjust discrimination.

That’s a matter of opinion, and one seemingly based solely on a ‘boy’s’ sexual orientation. I, personally, never have seen a ‘boy’, of the scouts average ages, express his orientation, one way or the other. At least I can’t remember any.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Neither Boy Scouts nor Girl Scouts is a sex club. Its activities are non-sexual, as is its mission. Therefore, private orientation is of zero relevance. Zero. Why would any boy or teenager, or the parents of said boy or teenager, want to enter a non-sexual organization for the express purpose of declaring one’s sexuality, talking about it, confronting others about, and other forms of “sharing?”

QUOTE]

One wonders why this was even done. Where, on an application for the scouts is there a question asking sexual orientation? Obviously, boys or young men with gender identity problems could have joined before, and undoubtedly some have. So, why this new policy?

It can only be analogous to repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military. One assumes one can now be openly homosexual in the scouts now without adverse consequences. Otherwise, the policy change is pointless. This is not to say the scouts have somehow changed policy with regard to sexual conduct in scouting events. One doubts they have.

And so, boys and their parents must now consider whether they want to be associated or have their children associated with an organization that is neutral on whether or not a scout openly announces himself as having homosexual inclinations; as “being gay”.

The experience of scouting in Canada suggests that it will have a negative impact on membership.

Whether it will also result in some “slippage” in toleration of at least some expressions of attraction among the members is another question. I can’t say about that. What I can say with certainty is that if, as a growing boy or young man, I had ever found myself in a campout or something with girls, I would have found total romantic non-engagement an impossible hill to climb, regardless of whatever “non-fraternization” rules they had.

 

[Brendan]

Neither Boy Scouts nor Girl Scouts is a sex club. Its activities are non-sexual, as is its mission. Therefore, private orientation is of zero relevance. Zero.

Not quite true, as fix noted,

1. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. Letter, no. 3) and evokes moral concern.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

And as the bishops at least, view these organizations as having a role in promoting virtue, homosexuality, being a moral concern, is something to be concerned with.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I see your point but I would add that in many of the defenses of the new policy from Catholic sites I have noticed this push to lump all sexuality together as if one is as prohibited as another. Now I am not talking about discussion of genital sexuality but what about references to normal sexual issues like marriage and girl friends and dating and such. Have we come to a point where this is a prohibited issue too?

If we want to sanitize everything then we risk turning a group which claims to cater to boys in their formative years into a political group. Wait, the policy change has done just that. Never mind.

I see your point, too. But here’s the thing, fix: Why does every facet of life have to be the other extreme, either? If some people (boys, in this case) want to talk about girlfriends and dating, why should anyone demand that boys get to talk about feeling hot for other boys, just because some conversation is being heard or overheard? You see, in the former example, there’s no sexual harrassment involved, because girls are excluded, whereas in the case of boys/boys, there is the possibility of making others uncomfortable (one of the legal criteria for sexual harrassment).

And I will add that in some coed activities & clubs, wise supervisors don’t allow a lot of opportunity for idle discussions on matters not pertinent to the club or activity. And if there are attempts to arrange (other-sex) dates with other members, that is discouraged during club/activity time. It is not discouraged because gays or lesbians might “feel bad” (“excluded”). It is discouraged because these are not social clubs, dating clubs, or sex clubs. If the disclosure of orientation is accidental (such as a conversation about dating someone overheard), then the purpose of the club has not been violated.

 

[fix]

One wonders why this was even done. Where, on an application for the scouts is there a question asking sexual orientation? Obviously, boys or young men with gender identity problems could have joined before, and undoubtedly some have. So, why this new policy?

It can only be analogous to repeal of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military. One assumes one can now be openly homosexual in the scouts now without adverse consequences. Otherwise, the policy change is pointless. This is not to say the scouts have somehow changed policy with regard to sexual conduct in scouting events. One doubts they have.

And so, boys and their parents must now consider whether they want to be associated or have their children associated with an organization that is neutral on whether or not a scout openly announces himself as having homosexual inclinations; as “being gay”.

The experience of scouting in Canada suggests that it will have a negative impact on membership.

Whether it will also result in some “slippage” in toleration of at least some expressions of attraction among the members is another question. I can’t say about that. What I can say with certainty is that if, as a growing boy or young man, I had ever found myself in a campout or something with girls, I would have found total romantic non-engagement an impossible hill to climb, regardless of whatever “non-fraternization” rules they had.

Good common sense. It is as if they changed the policy and the Catholics look at the change and then find every way possible to claim it is ok as long as we interpret it to mean just what we want it to mean regardless of what it really means.

 

[fix]

I see your point, too. But here’s the thing, fix: Why does every facet of life have to be the other extreme, either? If some people (boys, in this case) want to talk about girlfriends and dating, why should anyone demand that boys get to talk about feeling hot for other boys, just because some conversation is being heard or overheard? You see, in the former example, there’s no sexual harrassment involved, because girls are excluded, whereas in the case of boys/boys, there is the possibility of making others uncomfortable (one of the legal criteria for sexual harrassment).

Yes, that is a good point.

And I will add that in some coed activities & clubs, wise supervisors don’t allow a lot of opportunity for idle discussions on matters not pertinent to the club or activity. And if there are attempts to arrange (other-sex) dates with other members, that is discouraged during club/activity time. It is not discouraged because gays or lesbians might “feel bad” (“excluded”). It is discouraged because these are not social clubs, dating clubs, or sex clubs. If the disclosure of orientation is accidental (such as a conversation about dating someone overheard), then the purpose of the club has not been violated.

Yes, that is fine. I was just pointing out we seem to be making heterosexuality a thing to be proscribed simply to make a type of false equality.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Not quite true, as fix noted,

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19920724_homosexual-persons_en.html

And as the bishops at least, view these organizations as having a role in promoting virtue, homosexuality, being a moral concern, is something to be concerned with.

Brendan, I don’t disagree with the bishops. But again, this is an issue if homosexuality is being promoted, openly discussed. Call me old-fashioned, but why is sexual activity in the teen years even a focus for BSA? There should be an assumption of a goal of chastity for both hetero- and homosexuals. BSA is not there to affirm sexual activity; therefore, the orientation is also moot, unless boys have experienced sexual harrassment in the form of being approached, or in the form of sexuality being discussed. And in that case, harrassment is the issue, and the audience is an issue. (Which is why “equality” is immaterial. The group is of one sex, not coed.)

 

[april32010]

What we have in the OP is a letter writer at odds with Church teaching.

most Presbyterian pastors are at odds with Church teaching .

 

[Brendan]

Brendan, I don’t disagree with the bishops. But again, this is an issue if homosexuality is being promoted, openly discussed. Call me old-fashioned, but why is sexual activity in the teen years even a focus for BSA? There should be an assumption of a goal of chastity for both hetero- and homosexuals. BSA is not there to affirm sexual activity; therefore, the orientation is also moot, unless boys have experienced sexual harrassment in the form of being approached, or in the form of sexuality being discussed. And in that case, harrassment is the issue, and the audience is an issue. (Which is why “equality” is immaterial. The group is of one sex, not coed.)

The point is, chastity, to Catholics, includes more than just sexual activity. If I, for example, shared tent space with an unrelated woman who was not my wife, that is a violation of chastity. Even if no sexual activity took place.

Likewise if a boy and girl tented together, or shared shower space. That too is a violation of chasity

In the BSA, male Venture Scouts and female Venture Scouts are generally not permitted to tent nor shower together. It doesn’t matter if they swear on a stack of Scout handbooks they there will be no hanky-panky, they are still not permitted to tent or shower together. It doesn’t matter if there is a presumption of chastity, the very act of a boy and a girl sharing shower space is a VIOLATION of chastity.

From everything I read so far ( and I will freely admit that the implementation guides for the new policy change have not been produced) , there is no equivalent requirement for homosexual boys, to tent and shower apart from other boys.

So yes, my heartfelt desire is for the BSA to have a presumption of chastity and to act to preserve modesty and near occasions of sin.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The point is, chastity, to Catholics, includes more than just sexual activity. If I, for example, shared tent space with an unrelated woman who was not my wife, that is a violation of chastity. Even if no sexual activity took place.

Likewise if a boy and girl tented together, or shared shower space. That too is a violation of chasity

In the BSA, male Venture Scouts and female Venture Scouts are generally not permitted to tent nor shower together. It doesn’t matter if they swear on a stack of Scout handbooks they there will be no hanky-panky, they are still not permitted to tent or shower together. It doesn’t matter if there is a presumption of chastity, the very act of a boy and a girl sharing shower space is a VIOLATION of chastity.

From everything I read so far ( and I will freely admit that the implementation guides for the new policy change have not been produced) , there is no equivalent requirement for homosexual boys, to tent and shower apart from other boys.

So yes, my heartfelt desire is for the BSA to have a presumption of chastity and to act to preserve modesty and near occasions of sin.

While I could be wrong, I think the scouts are finished. I think the membership drop in Canada was 50% immediately after their scouts did this. In the U.S., one would expect a greater drop since Canada has had homosexual promotion longer than we have. On the other hand, it might simply turn into an all-gay organization without much loss in membership overall.

 

[JimG]

While I could be wrong, I think the scouts are finished. I think the membership drop in Canada was 50% immediately after their scouts did this. In the U.S., one would expect a greater drop since Canada has had homosexual promotion longer than we have. On the other hand, it might simply turn into an all-gay organization without much loss in membership overall.

Or it might turn into just another aspect of the general culture wherein homosexuality is equated with heterosexuality as equal norms. That is perhaps the worst outcome.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Or it might turn into just another aspect of the general culture wherein homosexuality is equated with heterosexuality as equal norms. That is perhaps the worst outcome.

I agree. And to some extent I don’t doubt that will happen.

But there is also the natural repugnance most have for the unnatural. I suspect we’ll end up with something similar to what we now have politically. There will be perhaps 25% of the population that really has convinced itself that homosexuality is “normal” and equally to be desired for their children with heterosexuality. Then there will be the 40% or so who will actively oppose it and try to preserve their children from it actively, but are careful about expressing it to others the more it’s defined as “hate speech” and persecuted. Another 20-30% will actively “believe” in the normality of homosexuality because they have been taught that way and want to be perceived as “tolerant”, but who will still dread and avoid it for their children.

The remainder will be confused, as usual, but still won’t want their children to be homosexual.