What ds learned at Boy Scouts this week...s*xually graphic content

[Jenny in Florida]

I am horrified at how many parents think that 13 yr olds "already know" about these "topics" and how many parents think name-calling is WORSE than serious talk of sexual impurity. Which provides more temptation to think on filthy things, or to sin? Which gives (a 13 yr old boy, for crying out loud!) a clearer "mental image"?

 

I don't care to have a big argument about it, but I just thought I'd represent the ultra-conservative Christian parents who think protecting your kid's mind is of utmost importance.

 

But, you see, from my point of view, knowing that people have sex is just, well, normal. I don't think it puts my child at risk.

 

On the other hand, calling any other human being a disgusting name does put that child -- and any person who stands by and says nothing -- at risk.

[HomeScholar]

What kids know and don't know at what age isn't the point, as every kid is different and every parent has different standards. The point is that sort of behavior has NO place at a scout meeting. Any boy who talks that way is not living up to his scout oath.

 

We recently had a similar experience during a troop camp out, both in name calling and descriptions of adult nature activities. The SM didn't deal with the situation, so our DS (and several others) moved to another troop. The difference between troops was night and day. The old troop was nothing like Scouting should be and it was (imo) a direct result of poor leadership. The higher-ups were made aware of the issue and hopefully will deal with it.

 

Consider finding a new troop. But please take the time to report the incident to your local council (if the SM isn't dealing with it someone else should). A bad troop gives all of scouting a bad name.

[katilac]

I said public school kids are "more immoral' date='" [/quote']

 

Oh, okay, you didn't call an entire class of people immoral, just more immoral. That makes so much more sense :rolleyes:

Edited March 9, 2012 by katilac

[Haiku]

Insulting a person by calling them a derogatory name used to put-down a group of people is more abhorrent than using a graphic sexual term.

 

While I agree with you about this, I am guessing that the boy in question didn't take aside his peers and say, "Hey, boys, we are friends and as such I feel it's my duty to let you in on this really amazing, pleasurable sex act called [fill in the blank]. Here is how you do it, and I really hope that my comments have been of service to you in enhancing your sex life."

 

I'm 99.9% willing to bet that the discussion was vulgar and filthy and probably included derogatory references to women. I have been around enough locker rooms to know how young boys talk if that kind of thing is the topic of their conversation. It's not polite and informative. It's gross and shocking. That's the point of it. To be shocking and "cool."

 

I'm quite sure this was not a benign conversation.

 

Tara

[Alessandra]

Wow, that would disturb me. My first reaction would be to get out of the troop asap. But, after sleeping on it, I would wait.

 

First of all, it is huge that your ds will talk to you so frankly. That is a great line of communication you've established. I would be very hesitant to pull ds out of the troop, if he could perceive that you are doing it because of something he said. Sort of like punishing children for admitting they took the cookies when you really should praise them for telling the truth. It would be a big priority for me to keep the lines of communication open, so that ds would not be afraid to tell about s*x, drugs, alcohol, as well as language.

 

I would probably talk to him about what was said (ugh, not a pleasant task). Maybe tell him (or show posts) that, for most people, what was talked about was way out there. Talk to ds about making fun of people's lifestyle choices. Those casual comments could have terrible consequences. For example, in my area there is a lot in the news about the Ravi trial -- a gay college studrnt committed suicide (google: Tyler Clementi).

 

Well.

 

We've had a lot of problems with this troop. Things like:

 

boys not supervised by any adults during meetings (hence the type of stuff that happened Tuesday)

boys using bad language (f*ggot, n*gger, nasty jokes, f*ck, etc.)

boys not supervised while chopping wood at camp (they got in trouble for swinging the axes around in a dangerous manner)

boys wearing inappropriate shirts to meetings (a girl with bare bOOks, swear words)

a lot of hateful talk amongst the boys about gay people and, sometimes, about blacks

 

I think dh doesn't want to talk about it because he was at the meeting and didn't do anything (which was not his fault, he didn't exactly what had been said, and he thought Scout Master took care of the problem). Dh was sitting inside with the other dads while the boys played outside. Ds went inside and told Scout Master that so and so was telling "dirty jokes" (he didn't tell him specifically what was said). Scout Master walked outside with ds (so dh assumed he would get onto the boy). Scout Master just stood there for a minute and walked back inside. This is how it usually goes: ds or one other boy tell Scout Master that there is a problem and Scout Master says that he'll take care of it but does nothing.

 

Dh did talk to a few of the other dads about the bad language a few months ago at a community BBQ. He said their attitude was that boys will be boys and that he was overreacting.

 

I nagged dh for over a year to get him involved with ds and scouting. He's only been a leader for a few weeks. Perhaps he feels put on the spot?

 

I think he felt like ds went over his head, so to speak, by telling him the specifics in the car on the way home and then telling me, privately, about the issue when he got home. Dh thinks it's "weird" that ds confides in me. He thinks I should sort of butt-out because I'm a girl. He doesn't want me raising momma's boys that run to me for every little thing, which I'm not. My dh can be overly sensitive to this issue because he was not raised by his mother and has no real reference for how a mother and son interact.

 

This is disturbing. It's hard to tell if the axe thing was a one event that was punished -- although the impression I get is that this troop is out of control. It would be interesting to look at the numbers -- adult/kid ratio on campouts for example. My ds's troop has about 1 adult (or more) for every 3 campers.

 

Can you let ds make a decision about whether or not to stay in the troop. Talk to him about adults changing jobs -- difficult to search, to go to the unknown job, but so often people say that it was a great move. Maybe counsel ds to leave, but let him make the final decision? Or, if you decide he should leave, make sure ds understands it is because of overall lack of supervision (safety) and not simply a reaction to what he told you.

 

Oh, and about confiding in you being "weird"? All the advice I've ever heard is that it is essential to establish open communication. A kid who never talks about relatively little things (like bad language) is not going to tell you about alcohol, drugs, bullying, s*x gamers at parties, drunk driving, etc. IMO, you are doing a great job by being concerned -- and obviously trusted by your ds.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Alessandra

[Joanne]

While I agree with you about this, I am guessing that the boy in question didn't take aside his peers and say, "Hey, boys, we are friends and as such I feel it's my duty to let you in on this really amazing, pleasurable sex act called [fill in the blank]. Here is how you do it, and I really hope that my comments have been of service to you in enhancing your sex life."

 

I'm 99.9% willing to bet that the discussion was vulgar and filthy and probably included derogatory references to women. I have been around enough locker rooms to know how young boys talk if that kind of thing is the topic of their conversation. It's not polite and informative. It's gross and shocking. That's the point of it. To be shocking and "cool."

 

I'm quite sure this was not a benign conversation.

 

Tara

 

Oh, I agree. My original response in the thread detailed that I found the whole scene awful and have personally left a cub scout den for under-supervised children.

[TranquilMind]

TaraTheLiberator: While I agree with you about this, I am guessing that the boy in question didn't take aside his peers and say, "Hey, boys, we are friends and as such I feel it's my duty to let you in on this really amazing, pleasurable sex act called [fill in the blank]. Here is how you do it, and I really hope that my comments have been of service to you in enhancing your sex life."

 

 

LOL. Tara, that was funny, the way you worded that. Um, yeah...I'm thinking that is not how it went down either!

 

I'm 99.9% willing to bet that the discussion was vulgar and filthy and probably included derogatory references to women. I have been around enough locker rooms to know how young boys talk if that kind of thing is the topic of their conversation. It's not polite and informative. It's gross and shocking. That's the point of it. To be shocking and "cool."

 

I'm quite sure this was not a benign conversation.

 

 

Yes, ma'am. Thought that would be obvious to all myself. But then I have a boy that age and I've heard an earful.

[garddwr]

What kids know and don't know at what age isn't the point, as every kid is different and every parent has different standards. The point is that sort of behavior has NO place at a scout meeting. Any boy who talks that way is not living up to his scout oath.

 

We recently had a similar experience during a troop camp out, both in name calling and descriptions of adult nature activities. The SM didn't deal with the situation, so our DS (and several others) moved to another troop. The difference between troops was night and day. The old troop was nothing like Scouting should be and it was (imo) a direct result of poor leadership. The higher-ups were made aware of the issue and hopefully will deal with it.

 

Consider finding a new troop. But please take the time to report the incident to your local council (if the SM isn't dealing with it someone else should). A bad troop gives all of scouting a bad name.

:iagree:especially with the bolded.

 

Quote from the official Boy Scouts website on their guidelines for such situations:

 

 

Member Responsibilities

All members of the Boy Scouts of America are expected to conduct themselves in accordance with the principles set forth in the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Physical violence, hazing, bullying, theft, verbal insults, and drugs and alcohol have no place in the Scouting program and may result in the revocation of a Scout’s membership in the unit.

If confronted by threats of violence or other forms of bullying from other youth members, Scouts should seek help from their unit leaders or parents.

Unit Responsibilities

Adult leaders of Scouting units are responsible for monitoring the behavior of youth members and interceding when necessary. Parents of youth members who misbehave should be informed and asked for assistance.

The BSA does not permit the use of corporal punishment by unit leaders when disciplining youth members.

The unit committee should review repetitive or serious incidents of misbehavior in consultation with the parents of the child to determine a course of corrective action including possible revocation of the youth’s membership in the unit.

If problem behavior persists, units may revoke a Scout’s membership in that unit. When a unit revokes a Scout’s membership, it should promptly notify the council of the action.

The unit should inform the Scout executive of any violations of the BSA’s Youth Protection policies.

Each Cub Scout den and Webelos Scout den and each chartered Cub Scout pack, Boy Scout troop, Varsity Scout team, and Venturing crew shall have one leader, 21 years of age or older, who shall be registered and serve as the unit or den leader. The head of the chartered organization or chartered organization representative and the local council must approve the registration of the unit or den leader on the appropriate form.

 

 

Bullying or harassment of any kind are not appropriate within a scout troop (nor anywhere, of course). This needs to be addressed.

[Spy Car]

 

Bullying or harassment of any kind are not appropriate within a scout troop (nor anywhere, of course). This needs to be addressed.

 

Bullying and harassment may not be allowed (thank goodness) but bigotry and discrimination is institutional policy in the BSA. The adult leadership sets a poor example for children.

 

Bill

[FriedClams]

.

[Lady Florida.]

Bullying and harassment may not be allowed (thank goodness) but bigotry and discrimination is institutional policy in the BSA. The adult leadership sets a poor example for children.

 

Bill

 

.

 

I started to quote you SWM, but you deleted it before I was finished. However, Bill is not wrong. Discrimination is written into BSA's policies.

 

From BSALegal.org

 

Policies ● Youth and Adult Volunteers

Boy Scouts of America believes that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. Accordingly, youth members and adult volunteer leaders of Boy Scouts of America obligate themselves to do their duty to God and be reverent as embodied in the Scout Oath and the Scout Law. Leaders also must subscribe to the Declaration of Religious Principle. Because of its views concerning the duty to God, Boy Scouts of America believes that an atheist or agnostic is not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law for adolescent boys. Because of Scouting’s methods and beliefs, Scouting does not accept atheists and agnostics as members or adult volunteer leaders.

 

 

 

 

BSA also believes you can't be gay and still be "morally straight". Their definition of morally straight is quite clearly religious. Another discrimination that is part of their official policy.

[6packofun]

Knowing that "most kids" have to carry the unnecessary weight of sexually explicit information is not a comfort or consolation AT ALL for those of us who want better for our children and teens. I never understand why "typical teens know that" is even a response for stuff like this. Does anyone truly think that being sexualized and socialized like every other kid is something positive? :confused:

[justasque]

Bullying and harassment may not be allowed (thank goodness) but bigotry and discrimination is institutional policy in the BSA. The adult leadership sets a poor example for children.

 

Bill

 

On the one hand, you are absolutely correct, and I think it's wise to consider this.

 

On the other hand, the policy of the national group towards gay/athiest scouts and leaders does not reflect the on-the-ground, day-to-day actions or beliefs of many individual troops/leaders, not all of whom agree with national policy (especially since such issues rarely come up in actual practice; over the years I've met quite a few kids who enjoy scouting but would not pass muster with the national policy).

 

Nor is it an excuse for the kind of behavior the OP describes in her troop, both from the boys and from the men in leadership. None of what she described would be acceptable as per BSA. The boys' behavior is unscoutlike, the men's behavior is both potentially dangerous and counter to BSA training/policy.

[Spy Car]

On the one hand, you are absolutely correct, and I think it's wise to consider this.

 

On the other hand, the policy of the national group towards gay/athiest scouts and leaders does not reflect the on-the-ground, day-to-day actions or beliefs of many individual troops/leaders, not all of whom agree with national policy (especially since such issues rarely come up in actual practice; over the years I've met quite a few kids who enjoy scouting but would not pass muster with the national policy).

 

Nor is it an excuse for the kind of behavior the OP describes in her troop, both from the boys and from the men in leadership. None of what she described would be acceptable as per BSA. The boys' behavior is unscoutlike, the men's behavior is both potentially dangerous and counter to BSA training/policy.

 

I take all your points as valid ones. Nonetheless the national organization has explicit policies of bigotry and discrimination. Kudos to those who ignore the policy, but until it is changed the BSA leadership sets a very poor example. It is hard to set a moral example when one behaves hypocritically.

 

Bill

[Haiku]

Bullying and harassment may not be allowed (thank goodness) but bigotry and discrimination is institutional policy in the BSA. The adult leadership sets a poor example for children.

 

 

True dat.

 

Tara

[garddwr]

Bullying and harassment may not be allowed (thank goodness) but bigotry and discrimination is institutional policy in the BSA. The adult leadership sets a poor example for children.

 

Bill

 

BSA policy does not call for bullying or harassment of those who do not follow their moral code. The term bigotry implies extreme and hateful behavior and is used almost exclusively as an insult, and to use it here is to reduce yourself to the practice of name-calling. BSA seeks to adhere to and requires members to adhere to a moral code that it believes is in the best interest of the boys it serves. You also doubtless seek to follow a moral code in which you believe, and perhaps it is one that condemns the code BSA follows. Such condemnation of beliefs or morals that you disagree with is no less discrimination than BSA's condemnation of morals it disagrees with. Perhaps the word discrimination has taken on too narrow and one-sided a meaning in our society--at its root it means to differentiate between one thing and another, and by extension to make value judgments and choices based on what we find--we could not navigate life without engaging in such behavior on a daily basis.

[Spy Car]

BSA policy does not call for bullying or harassment of those who do not follow their moral code. The term bigotry implies extreme and hateful behavior and is used almost exclusively as an insult, and to use it here is to reduce yourself to the practice of name-calling. BSA seeks to adhere to and requires members to adhere to a moral code that it believes is in the best interest of the boys it serves. You also doubtless seek to follow a moral code in which you believe, and perhaps it is one that condemns the code BSA follows. Such condemnation of beliefs or morals that you disagree with is no less discrimination than BSA's condemnation of morals it disagrees with. Perhaps the word discrimination has taken on too narrow and one-sided a meaning in our society--at its root it means to differentiate between one thing and another, and by extension to make value judgments and choices based on what we find--we could not navigate life without engaging in such behavior on a daily basis.

 

BSA follows policies of official discrimination. I certainly consider their policies extreme and hateful. I'm sure I'm alone on that front. It sounds like many members of the BSA itself disagree with its policies and ignore them in practice.

 

But that is not really enough.

 

Bill

[Joanne]

BSA follows policies of official discrimination. I certainly consider their policies extreme and hateful. I'm sure I'm alone on that front. It sounds like many members of the BSA itself disagree with its policies and ignore them in practice.

 

But that is not really enough.

 

Bill

 

Not alone. I believe that being against homosexuality is hate. I think institutionalization of that view - especially in an organization designed to teach children - is institutionalizing hate.

[TheHomeScientist]

Not alone. I believe that being against homosexuality is hate. I think institutionalization of that view - especially in an organization designed to teach children - is institutionalizing hate.

 

Bill is certainly not alone. I will have nothing to do with BSA, which I consider a hate group. I'm not gay, but I fully support equal rights for gays. I am an atheist, which by BSA policy excludes me anyway.

[nmoira]

 

BSA policy does not call for bullying or harassment of those who do not follow their moral code. The term bigotry implies extreme and hateful behavior and is used almost exclusively as an insult, and to use it here is to reduce yourself to the practice of name-calling.

I'm not familiar with this definition of bigotry. This would render the phrase "extreme bigot" redundant, no? I was under the impression bigotry is intolerance toward people with different ideas, traits or practices than one's own.

[saraha]

But getting back to the OPs original post, how is she supposed to pull her son out if she begged her husband to take him to scouts for a year, he finally relented and even became a (new)leader in this troop? I couldn't just grab my kid and walk away while my husband was the leader, and talking to him about it shows that they don't agree about how the situation should be handled. It is tough to be in that position. The easy answer is to leave the troop, but how do you do that when your husband has just commited himself to be a leader and doesn't see things your way?

[LBS]

Getting back to the original issue. I've been in Scouting a long time, and I vote for both of the parents going to the Scoutmaster and talking to him, if husband will do so. I even wonder if the first best step (I did not read every single post because of all the paths off subject, so aplogize if I am repeating) is for the Scout to go to his Scoutmaster and make a complaint. If Dad or Mom have already given SM a head's up, so he'll know to take this complaint seriously, then the Scout will be empowered, about taking care of an issue himself. If SM does not have the knowlege or training to deal with this situation, he needs to go to his committee chairman. He has further help in his unit commissioner. When things like this happen, I like to see parents not just telling me how things are bad or what is wrong, but I want to see them offering to help, offering to get training, help with meetings,too. I think having the husband being an active leader already, says that clearly. There are several things that can be done to help with the disgusting behaviour, but its not seeming to be about Scouting, but more about that kid individually, and the adult leaders are volunteers, albeit trained.

 

The worst that can happen is for this to give your son a dislike for Scouting. You say you're moving soon, so you can carefully select a new troop. I'd suggest a smaller troop, with lots of parent involvement, with trained leaders. Visit a lot of them before choosing.

 

I'm not sure my two-cents here is helpful, but hoping it might be.

[Haiku]

But getting back to the OPs original post, how is she supposed to pull her son out if she begged her husband to take him to scouts for a year, he finally relented and even became a (new)leader in this troop?

 

I begged my husband for a year to take me to visit a volcano. He finally agreed to and even bought me a brand new house beside the volcano. I have noticed that the children and I are getting splashed with burning hot lava, but I can't move my children because I begged my husband to bring me to a volcano.

 

:D

 

Sorry if that's weird, I just woke up and when I read this, that's what popped into my mind.

 

I think it's simply a matter of telling dh, "This troop is not in line with our values. Let's find one that is."

 

Tara

[LarrySanger]

Bill is certainly not alone. I will have nothing to do with BSA, which I consider a hate group. I'm not gay, but I fully support equal rights for gays. I am an atheist, which by BSA policy excludes me anyway.

 

This is just silly. I'm an agnostic and support gay rights generally, but I also support the BSA. Radical progressives are wrong to attack a very positive influence in the lives of boys. I mean, it's your right to criticize it on political grounds, by all means, but you earn my contempt by doing so. Neither I nor many others here are going to feel bad about supporting scouting.

 

Sorry to keep the discussion off point, but I didn't want that going unanswered.

[Spy Car]

This is just silly. I'm an agnostic and support gay rights generally, but I also support the BSA. Radical progressives are wrong to attack a very positive influence in the lives of boys. I mean, it's your right to criticize it on political grounds, by all means, but you earn my contempt by doing so. Neither I nor many others here are going to feel bad about supporting scouting.

 

Sorry to keep the discussion off point, but I didn't want that going unanswered.

 

One need not be a "radical progressive" (I'm not one) to know the difference between right and wrong, or to recognize discrimination when one sees it. You may be unaware Larry but you would not be allowed to be a scout leader given your professed lack of faith.

 

Bill

[Haiku]

Neither I nor many others here are going to feel bad about supporting scouting.

 

 

And neither are I nor others going to feel bad about opposing the Boy Scouts for their discriminatory practices.

 

Tara

[scrappyhappymama]

Not alone. I believe that being against homosexuality is hate. I think institutionalization of that view - especially in an organization designed to teach children - is institutionalizing hate.

 

This is such a slippery slope.

 

There are absolutely people who are against homosexuality morally and express their beliefs in hateful and immoral and hypocritical ways. But there are people who believe homosexuality to be immoral or sinful who do not express their beliefs hatefully. Some of those folks in fact believe strongly that we are all sinners and that one person's variant of sin is no worse than my own, so it is illogical to express contempt for others sins, and completely counterproductive to act hatefully toward others.

 

Once we start defining other people's moral values as inherently hateful, we all lose our freedom of expression and to worship the ways we best see fit. It is not the same thing as disagreeing with one's beliefs. One can disagree on moral or theological issues without cultivating hate in their hearts towards those who hold other views. But, when anyone allows their beliefs to cause them to act hatefully or immorally or illegally toward someone else, THEN they have given us something to judge. I think we should throw the book at anyone who commits a crime or bullies someone who is homosexual, no question; but these folks should not be lumped in with those who have genuine moral reservations on the issue.

[TXBeth]

This is such a slippery slope.

 

There are absolutely people who are against homosexuality morally and express their beliefs in hateful and immoral and hypocritical ways. But there are people who believe homosexuality to be immoral or sinful who do not express their beliefs hatefully. Some of those folks in fact believe strongly that we are all sinners and that one person's variant of sin is no worse than my own, so it is illogical to express contempt for others sins, and completely counterproductive to act hatefully toward others.

 

Once we start defining other people's moral values as inherently hateful, we all lose our freedom of expression and to worship the ways we best see fit. It is not the same thing as disagreeing with one's beliefs. One can disagree on moral or theological issues without cultivating hate in their hearts towards those who hold other views. But, when anyone allows their beliefs to cause them to act hatefully or immorally or illegally toward someone else, THEN they have given us something to judge. I think we should throw the book at anyone who commits a crime or bullies someone who is homosexual, no question; but these folks should not be lumped in with those who have genuine moral reservations on the issue.

 

:iagree: Beautifully expressed!

[Spy Car]

This is such a slippery slope.

 

There are absolutely people who are against homosexuality morally and express their beliefs in hateful and immoral and hypocritical ways. But there are people who believe homosexuality to be immoral or sinful who do not express their beliefs hatefully. Some of those folks in fact believe strongly that we are all sinners and that one person's variant of sin is no worse than my own, so it is illogical to express contempt for others sins, and completely counterproductive to act hatefully toward others.

 

Once we start defining other people's moral values as inherently hateful, we all lose our freedom of expression and to worship the ways we best see fit. It is not the same thing as disagreeing with one's beliefs. One can disagree on moral or theological issues without cultivating hate in their hearts towards those who hold other views. But, when anyone allows their beliefs to cause them to act hatefully or immorally or illegally toward someone else, THEN they have given us something to judge. I think we should throw the book at anyone who commits a crime or bullies someone who is homosexual, no question; but these folks should not be lumped in with those who have genuine moral reservations on the issue.

 

How about when they deny children and/or parents equality of opportunity because one of the two is homosexual or isn't religious? In my book that is hateful behavior.

 

Bill

[pqr]

I'm not familiar with this definition of bigotry. This would render the phrase "extreme bigot" redundant, no? I was under the impression bigotry is intolerance toward people with different ideas, traits or practices than one's own.

 

So using your definition someone who constantly, loudly and aggressively expressed disdain, nay even hatred, towards a group of "people with different ideas traits or practices" than the individual who expresses this contempt is a bigot.

 

Thereby what you are saying and what you would believe we are seeing in this thread is biggotry towards the boyscouts who demonstrably maintain "different ideas traits or practices."

 

Interesting.... I would disagree with you. I do think that people may hold different beliefs without the need to be shrill and throw around the term "bigot." I think the attacks on the boyscouts are less a sigh of bigotry than an inability to discuss the topic as the position held obviously can not stand up to reasoned discussion.

 

Bigotry against the scouts,? No

 

Intolerance of their beliefs? Yes

 

Inability to discuss in a reasoned manner? Certainly.

Edited March 10, 2012 by pqr

[treestarfae]

:grouphug:

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I can't quite wrap my mind around how every thread related to Boy Scouts ends up in a hate fest.

 

First, I guess I'll never fully understand why there can no longer be a First Ammendment. Are we no longer permitted to gather with like minded people, even if other folks disagree with our beliefs? Why must Boy Scouts or any other organization be open to or tolerate everyone's beliefs? If this were the case, surely we couldn't have both PETA and hunting organizations as legitimate groups in the same place.

 

Secondly, I just don't see the hate in Scout meetings. My son's multifaith troop doesn't seem to express or tolerate hate.

 

I remain puzzled by these debates.

[Joanne]

This is such a slippery slope.

 

There are absolutely people who are against homosexuality morally and express their beliefs in hateful and immoral and hypocritical ways. But there are people who believe homosexuality to be immoral or sinful who do not express their beliefs hatefully. Some of those folks in fact believe strongly that we are all sinners and that one person's variant of sin is no worse than my own, so it is illogical to express contempt for others sins, and completely counterproductive to act hatefully toward others.

 

Once we start defining other people's moral values as inherently hateful, we all lose our freedom of expression and to worship the ways we best see fit. It is not the same thing as disagreeing with one's beliefs. One can disagree on moral or theological issues without cultivating hate in their hearts towards those who hold other views. But, when anyone allows their beliefs to cause them to act hatefully or immorally or illegally toward someone else, THEN they have given us something to judge. I think we should throw the book at anyone who commits a crime or bullies someone who is homosexual, no question; but these folks should not be lumped in with those who have genuine moral reservations on the issue.

 

I said "hate", not hate crime. To me, being gainst homosexuality is no different than being against African Americans, women, or Asians.

[*********]

I said "hate", not hate crime. To me, being gainst homosexuality is no different than being against African Americans, women, or Asians.

 

Ah.

 

See, to *me*, being against homosexuality is no different than being against lying, or stealing, or adultery, or blasphemy, or anything else the Bible says is a sin.

 

To *me*, there is no comparing homosexuality to being a different race or gender.

[Haiku]

Are we no longer permitted to gather with like minded people, even if other folks disagree with our beliefs?

 

Of course we are. And we are also permitted to publicly air our concerns/disagreements with those beliefs.

 

Secondly, I just don't see the hate in Scout meetings. My son's multifaith troop doesn't seem to express or tolerate hate.

 

If everyone at your son's meetings was sweet as pie but the national charter said that disabled kids or Asian kids weren't welcome, everyone would see that as discrimination.

 

But gay people are pretty much the last group that it's acceptable to openly discriminate against. Basically because the Bible says it's a sin. As is gluttony. But fat people aren't barred from joining.

 

Tara

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Of course we are. And we are also permitted to publicly air our concerns/disagreements with those beliefs.

 

I completely agree. It is the part where there seems to be a demand that a group change its beliefs to suit other people that gives me pause for thought. The problem isn't in public discussion about concerns or disagreements, it is the implied demand that private groups change or go against their beliefs to suit others that puzzles me.

 

If everyone at your son's meetings was sweet as pie but the national charter said that disabled kids or Asian kids weren't welcome, everyone would see that as discrimination.

 

 

 

But gay people are pretty much the last group that it's acceptable to openly discriminate against. Basically because the Bible says it's a sin. As is gluttony. But fat people aren't barred from joining.

 

I have to disagree. I see that it is becoming, if not legally, socially acceptable to discriminate and lob hateful statements against Christians and occasionally social conservatives.

 

Tara

 

.

[Lady Florida.]

Some of those folks in fact believe strongly that we are all sinners and that one person's variant of sin is no worse than my own,

 

Ah.

 

See, to *me*, being against homosexuality is no different than being against lying, or stealing, or adultery, or blasphemy, or anything else the Bible says is a sin.

 

 

 

Why then, do Boy Scouts and certain Christian denominations only openly discriminate against the "sin" of homosexuality? It's no different from any other sin, right?

[Pretty in Pink]

I just wanted to say thanks to those who offered their input on my original post. I saw a few more responses to my situation in and amongst the rabbit trails. I don't usually follow the Boy Scout threads and didn't realize that this one would take the turn that it did when I posted, which is fine. I'm not complaining.

[sheryl]

Wow! Well, fwiw, even though it may be typical among some teens, it would not be acceptable with mine, nor with her friends.

 

It was FANTASTIC that your teen shared this with you....we always want our kids to feel comfortable sharing any and everything. Now that doesn't mean we approve or that they might not receive a consequence of some sort.

 

If kids don't share with their parents, unfortunately they do turn to their peers, etc. for counsel, insight.

 

(Gently here), I'm confused about your dh's reaction to this. He seemed reticent. And, what did you do that warranted you were in the wrong? You certainly do not come across as offensive and I just can't "see" that.

 

It's important that you and dh are "united" on this topic in front of your son and BEFORE your dh will address this at the next meeting.

 

Stretching even further in situations like these, I do turn it into a "teachable moment" and discuss our beliefs on given topics. I'm sure you already do that.

 

No idea if we would pull a child or not from this. The leaders were not teaching/talking on this subject, right? It came from the mouths of his peers. Perhaps the leaders having a "meeting" with parents of offending teens would prove helpful.....review policies, etc.

 

HTH!

[FiveOaksAcademy]

I just wanted to say thanks to those who offered their input on my original post. I saw a few more responses to my situation in and amongst the rabbit trails. I don't usually follow the Boy Scout threads and didn't realize that this one would take the turn that it did when I posted, which is fine. I'm not complaining.

 

You are right. This really isn't a Boy Scout thread. The reality is that your son found out some very explicit and immoral information and you are rightly upset about it. I don't like name calling either, but the most damaging was the explicit information. Name calling is a reality, and while we have discussed and led our children in how to handle name calling and how to stick up for people, getting too much information at too young of an age can be damaging.

 

Corrie ten Boom talked about how, as a child, she asked her father about some adult information. Her father tried to get her to carry his big suitcase, and when she couldn't carry it he told her that there is some information that she needed to let him carry until she was older. I think things like this fall into that category. There is some information, even now, that I wish I did not know. There is information I found out as a kid that was just too much for me to carry. It was damaging. You are not wrong, nor is your son, for being upset about having had this stuff thrown upon him in such a way. So sorry this happened. I would consider either taking my child out or being really, really involved.

[FiveOaksAcademy]

Ah.

 

See, to *me*, being against homosexuality is no different than being against lying, or stealing, or adultery, or blasphemy, or anything else the Bible says is a sin.

 

To *me*, there is no comparing homosexuality to being a different race or gender.

 

 

This!

[*********]

Why then, do Boy Scouts and certain Christian denominations only openly discriminate against the "sin" of homosexuality? It's no different from any other sin, right?

 

Kathy, I know this is a bit off topic from the OP, but you ask a good question and I wanted to address it.

 

First of, I'll answer your second question; the one I bolded.

 

No, the sin of homosexuality is no different from any other sin in that it separates us from God and its punishment is ****ation if we do not repent. However, scripture does say that sexual sin (fornication, which means all sin outside of marriage; that would include adultery, sex before marriage, and homosexuality) is different than all other sins in that all other sins are commited OUTSIDE one's body, but sexual sin is commited against one's own body. 1 Corinthians 6:18 says:

 

"Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body." - KJV

 

Now like I said, all sin is equal in the eyes of God, in that they all incure the same punishment when not repented of and forgiven. But there is a distinction made here that sexual sins are a different 'class', if you will, of sin, in that one sins against their own body when commiting sexual sin.

 

Now, regarding your first question about why the boy scouts and certain Christian denominations only openly discrminate against the sin of homosexuality.

 

Well, I imagine there are lots of reasons. The first being that homosexuality is a sin that is increasingly being accepted in our society. You don't see too many people saying 'Oh, it's ok to steal if that's what makes you feel good. Besides, God made you with the desire to steal. Of course he wouldn't want you to be unhappy, therefore you should steal.' But you DO see those sorts of arguments regarding homosexuality being 'ok' or not a sin.

 

There are also those groups who act in the 'name' of Christianity, but really aren't Christians at all. Rather, they use that as a 'cover' of sorts to spread their hate of homosexuals. These people do harm to the name of Christ.

 

I have much more I could say, but I'll leave it here.

[Lady Florida.]

Kathy, I know this is a bit off topic from the OP, but you ask a good question and I wanted to address it.

 

 

 

Thank you for explaining that.

[AdventureMoms]

Ah.

 

See, to *me*, being against homosexuality is no different than being against lying, or stealing, or adultery, or blasphemy, or anything else the Bible says is a sin.

 

To *me*, there is no comparing homosexuality to being a different race or gender.

 

People choose to lie, steal, cheat, etc. People do not choose their sexual orientation, race, or gender. That is the basic difference. I did not choose to be gay. I am gay. I did not choose to be white. I am white. I did not choose to be a woman. I am a woman. I can choose not to lie, cheat, etc, but I cannot choose to be straight. Being "against" homosexuality IS like being "against" black people.

[DawnM]

This is the basis of the argument though isn't it?

 

Some say one is born gay

Some say it is a choice

 

Whatever you believe about the above will determine your view.

 

Dawn

 

People choose to lie, steal, cheat, etc. People do not choose their sexual orientation, race, or gender. That is the basic difference. I did not choose to be gay. I am gay. I did not choose to be white. I am white. I did not choose to be a woman. I am a woman. I can choose not to lie, cheat, etc, but I cannot choose to be straight. Being "against" homosexuality IS like being "against" black people.

[AdventureMoms]

This is the basis of the argument though isn't it?

 

Some say one is born gay

Some say it is a choice

 

Whatever you believe about the above will determine your view.

 

Dawn

 

Scientific studies have made it clear that being gay is not a choice. Historical records clearly indicate that homosexuality exists in all cultures and in several other species. Gay people (myself included) KNOW that it isn't a choice. Because, you know, we live with it every day.

 

Those who say it is a choice are looking to justify their beliefs.

[Renthead Mommy]

People choose to lie, steal, cheat, etc. People do not choose their sexual orientation, race, or gender. That is the basic difference.

 

Being "against" homosexuality IS like being "against" black people.

 

:iagree:

[Lady Florida.]

Scientific studies have made it clear that being gay is not a choice. Gay people (myself included) KNOW that it isn't a choice. Because, you know, we live with it every day.

 

Those who say it is a choice are looking to justify their beliefs.

 

Yep. I didn't choose to be straight. I just am. Gay people don't choose to be gay. They just are.

[garddwr]

This is the basis of the argument though isn't it?

 

Some say one is born gay

Some say it is a choice

 

Whatever you believe about the above will determine your view.

 

Dawn

 

The etiology of homosexuality seems to be complex, with no single variable (such as genetics) responsible. This wikipedia article outlines many of the studies that have been done and their results

 

Most homosexual individuals do not experience their sexual orientation as a choice. What many fail to recognize, however, is that if homosexual behavior is a sin, having a strong inclination towards such behavior is not justification. I might be born with a natural tendency towards violence (and there are in fact genetic studies that show such a tendency can be inherited), but that would not justify violent behavior. It would just mean that avoiding such behavior would be a lot more difficult for me than for some others.

 

If humanity did not have inclinations to commit sinful behaviors, God would never have had to forbid those behaviors. A prohibition against any sin indicates that at least some portion of the population is going to be tempted to commit that sin.

 

Now, that argument will obviously hold water only to those who believe that a) God exists; b) God gives commandments to govern the behavior of men; and c) among these commandments are proscriptions against a variety of sexual behaviors, including homosexual acts.

Edited March 10, 2012 by thegardener
fix a typo

[DawnM]

.

Edited March 10, 2012 by DawnM