Boy Scout New Policy

[Someone]

The Boy Souts of America have recommended a policy that allows gay teens to be scouts but gay adults can't be scout leaders.

 

Their rational for this distinction is explained as follows: _______________________. It turns out, they don't ever explain their rational.

 

The scouts do point to morality as a virtue they require from their leaders. Below is a list of other morality violations that from this point forward will exclude an adult from being a scout leader:

1. Divorce
   
2. Tattoo(s)
   
3. Obesity or gluttony
   
4. loss of virginity before marriage
   
5. extra-marrital affair
   
6. drunkenness
   
7. being behind on your federal, state or local taxes
   
8. viewing porn
   
9. having a mortgage or other forms of borrowing
   
10. Failure to love one another
    

On a related note, 99% of all scout leaders fail the morality standard.

 

Make plans now to attend the first ever de-advancement ritual where perfectly worthy Eagle Scouts who have served as leaders and mentors to younger scouts as required by their code, are told that they are now old enough to be unworthy to continue to serve in a leadership role with scouts from this day forward.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

Scout numbers have declined greatly in my hometown since I did it 10 years ago. Im not sure about other areas, but it seems like in the areas I have been there hasnt been much participation.

[JJ Husker]

The Boy Souts of America have recommended a policy that allows gay teens to be scouts but gay adults can't be scout leaders.

 

Their rational for this distinction is explained as follows: _______________________. It turns out, they don't ever explain their rational.

 

The scouts do point to morality as a virtue they require from their leaders. Below is a list of other morality violations that from this point forward will exclude an adult from being a scout leader:

1. Divorce
   
2. Tattoo(s)
   
3. Obesity or gluttony
   
4. loss of virginity before marriage
   
5. extra-marrital affair
   
6. drunkenness
   
7. being behind on your federal, state or local taxes
   
8. viewing porn
   
9. having a mortgage or other forms of borrowing
   
10. Failure to love one another
    

On a related note, 99% of all scout leaders fail the morality standard.

 

 

 

Make plans now to attend the first ever de-advancement ritual where perfectly worthy Eagle Scouts who have served as leaders and mentors to younger scouts as required by their code, are told that they are now old enough to be unworthy to continue to serve in a leadership role with scouts from this day forward.

 

Do you have a link to these "official" morality standards or, are we just supposed to take your word for it? Some of these are a pretty good idea but I have trouble believing something like having a mortgage is an official disqualifier. Edit- After a bit of research I am going to assume this is BS until some sources are linked. I could find nothing of the like on any official scouting site.

[Landlord]

Boy Scouts going all Old Testament style.

[Someone]

Scout numbers have declined greatly in my hometown since I did it 10 years ago. Im not sure about other areas, but it seems like in the areas I have been there hasnt been much participation.

The Boy Souts of America have recommended a policy that allows gay teens to be scouts but gay adults can't be scout leaders.

 

Their rational for this distinction is explained as follows: _______________________. It turns out, they don't ever explain their rational.

 

The scouts do point to morality as a virtue they require from their leaders. Below is a list of other morality violations that from this point forward will exclude an adult from being a scout leader:

1. Divorce
   
2. Tattoo(s)
   
3. Obesity or gluttony
   
4. loss of virginity before marriage
   
5. extra-marrital affair
   
6. drunkenness
   
7. being behind on your federal, state or local taxes
   
8. viewing porn
   
9. having a mortgage or other forms of borrowing
   
10. Failure to love one another
    

On a related note, 99% of all scout leaders fail the morality standard.

 

 

 

Make plans now to attend the first ever de-advancement ritual where perfectly worthy Eagle Scouts who have served as leaders and mentors to younger scouts as required by their code, are told that they are now old enough to be unworthy to continue to serve in a leadership role with scouts from this day forward.

There numbers are indecline in most places.

 

Do you have a link to these "official" morality standards or, are we just supposed to take your word for it? Some of these are a pretty good idea but I have trouble believing something like having a mortgage is an official disqualifier.

Your sarcastic detector is broken again, I see.

 

Just for fun, tell us which ones you believe are "pretty good" reasons to exclude a person from a leadership position in Boy Scouts.

[JJ Husker]

How about you explain the purpose of this thread you started. If you were being sarcastic with your 10 moral disqualifiers, it sure didn't seem to be presented in that manner. So, what's the point? You don't like the Scouts having any moral standards? Or, you think their standards are not stringent enough? And, since you asked, I think "viewing porn" would be an excellent disqualifier for a person responsible for the safety and moral education of young people.

[Someone]

How about you explain the purpose of this thread you started. If you were being sarcastic with your 10 moral disqualifiers, it sure didn't seem to be presented in that manner. So, what's the point? You don't like the Scouts having any moral standards? Or, you think their standards are not stringent enough? And, since you asked, I think "viewing porn" would be an excellent disqualifier for a person responsible for the safety and moral education of young people.

I am so sorry that my post sailed right over your head.

 

Purpose:

To inform about the new scout policy.

To point out that no rational was provided re: allowing gay teens but not gay adults.

To suggest that 'gayness' isn't the only morality violation that adults might be guitly of but it is the only non-criminal morality violation that causes them to draw a line in the sand re: adult leaders.

To suggest that the moment when a gay Eagle Scout because an adult doesn't change his leadership ability, which was admired prior to a certain birthday but deemed unworthy after, all based on a date on a calendar.

 

It is quite interesting that you don't seem to be able to reconcile that an adult can view porn on one day and been a good leader of young kids on another day.

[JJ Husker]

I am so sorry that my post sailed right over your head.

 

Purpose:

To inform about the new scout policy.

To point out that no rational was provided re: allowing gay teens but not gay adults.

To suggest that 'gayness' isn't the only morality violation that adults might be guitly of but it is the only non-criminal morality violation that causes them to draw a line in the sand re: adult leaders.

To suggest that the moment when a gay Eagle Scout because an adult doesn't change his leadership ability, which was admired prior to a certain birthday but deemed unworthy after, all based on a date on a calendar.

 

It is quite interesting that you don't seem to be able to reconcile that an adult can view porn on one day and been a good leader of young kids on another day.

Well, it is a bit easier to understand once you explain it and specify that your 10 moral points were offered in a sarcastic tone. (which btw, is sometimes quite hard to decipher in writing on a message board). I understand that it is somewhat illogical to accept gay scouts up to a certain age and then deem them unworthy to lead after that age. I find it quite interesting that, without further specificity, you would have no concerns about your childs scout leader having an extra-marital affair, being a drunk, and/or viewing porn. Are those the kind of role models you would seek out for your child to learn from? Is it the sign of a better role model and leader if they engage in all 3 of those things? Interesting indeed.

[Someone]

I am so sorry that my post sailed right over your head.

 

Purpose:

To inform about the new scout policy.

To point out that no rational was provided re: allowing gay teens but not gay adults.

To suggest that 'gayness' isn't the only morality violation that adults might be guitly of but it is the only non-criminal morality violation that causes them to draw a line in the sand re: adult leaders.

To suggest that the moment when a gay Eagle Scout because an adult doesn't change his leadership ability, which was admired prior to a certain birthday but deemed unworthy after, all based on a date on a calendar.

 

It is quite interesting that you don't seem to be able to reconcile that an adult can view porn on one day and been a good leader of young kids on another day.

Well, it is a bit easier to understand once you explain it and specify that your 10 moral points were offered in a sarcastic tone. (which btw, is sometimes quite hard to decipher in writing on a message board). I understand that it is somewhat illogical to accept gay scouts up to a certain age and then deem them unworthy to lead after that age. I find it quite interesting that, without further specificity, you would have no concerns about your childs scout leader having an extra-marital affair, being a drunk, and/or viewing porn. Are those the kind of role models you would seek out for your child to learn from? Is it the sign of a better role model and leader if they engage in all 3 of those things? Interesting indeed.

I don't expect any scout leader to be drunk while actively leading a scout hike or looking at porn while holding pinewood derby races or having an affair while on a scout camping trip. What they do on their own time in private is not likely to influence the scouts.

 

That being said, if we exclude 100% of the current scout leaders that have ever been drunk, had an affair or looked at porn, how many leaders would be forced to resign, in your opinion? What is your best guess?

[Landlord]

I don't expect any scout leader to be drunk while actively leading a scout hike or looking at porn while holding pinewood derby races or having an affair while on a scout camping trip. What they do on their own time in private is not likely to influence the scouts.

 

 

Character reflects in action. Good character permeates through in all areas of daily life, just as bad character does. Sometimes it's obvious, most times it's not. What they do in their own private time isn't likely to influence what they do with their scouts, but what they value is very likely to tangibly affect their scouts.

[Someone]

I don't expect any scout leader to be drunk while actively leading a scout hike or looking at porn while holding pinewood derby races or having an affair while on a scout camping trip. What they do on their own time in private is not likely to influence the scouts.

 

 

Character reflects in action. Good character permeates through in all areas of daily life, just as bad character does. Sometimes it's obvious, most times it's not. What they do in their own private time isn't likely to influence what they do with their scouts, but what they value is very likely to tangibly affect their scouts.

can you give me an example?

 

also, if we exclude 100% of the current scout leaders that have ever been drunk, had an affair or looked at porn, how many leaders would be forced to resign, in your opinion? What is your best guess?

[JJ Husker]

 

I don't expect any scout leader to be drunk while actively leading a scout hike or looking at porn while holding pinewood derby races or having an affair while on a scout camping trip. What they do on their own time in private is not likely to influence the scouts.

 

That being said, if we exclude 100% of the current scout leaders that have ever been drunk, had an affair or looked at porn, how many leaders would be forced to resign, in your opinion? What is your best guess?

Well said Landlord. And Someone- there is a difference between drunkenness, having an extra-marital affair,and viewing porn (which suggests ongoing behavior) and having engaged in one of these activites, one time or in the past, or in a very limited fashion. Character begets actions whether or not you want to believe that is your choice. You started this straw man argument. You (not the Scouts) created this list of moral disqualifiers which you now apparently want to argue as being just as flawed as not allowing gay scout leaders. I won't be answering your questions until you answer mine; So, your childs scout leader was drunk last night as he engaged in an extramarital affair and viewed porn, you have no reservations about this upstanding fellow leading your childs scout outing today? And we wonder how kids get screwed up.... Do us a favor, don't have children or please at least have someone else involved in their formation.

[Landlord]

I don't expect any scout leader to be drunk while actively leading a scout hike or looking at porn while holding pinewood derby races or having an affair while on a scout camping trip. What they do on their own time in private is not likely to influence the scouts.

 

 

Character reflects in action. Good character permeates through in all areas of daily life, just as bad character does. Sometimes it's obvious, most times it's not. What they do in their own private time isn't likely to influence what they do with their scouts, but what they value is very likely to tangibly affect their scouts.

can you give me an example?

 

also, if we exclude 100% of the current scout leaders that have ever been drunk, had an affair or looked at porn, how many leaders would be forced to resign, in your opinion? What is your best guess?

 

 

As far as the second question, I don't know the answer, nor do I care. I'm not in agreement with legalism because it doesn't work and isn't conducive to good organizational health. I wouldn't exclude in those ways.

 

As far as examples, someone else would be better suited to offer specific hypotheticals, but here's ideas of principles. If a scout leader, or a male leader in any capacity, habitually views pornography, it speaks towards a valuing of women as objects; a degradation. That degradation of women would manifest in more subtle ways as well, whether it be in seemingly "harmless" jokes or crude remarks, the praising of beautiful famous women and the slandering of less physically attractive women, encouraging the boys they're leading to pursue obtaining women as objects, etc. etc. etc. We are all products of our environments, and these things play out in so many different ways.

 

 

What I'm trying to say is that these things, drunkenness, pornography, etc., are not diseases or defects on their own, but rather that they are symptoms of deeper issues.

[Someone]

Both of you seem to have a tit for tat issue.

 

Viewing porn does not = objectifing women or making jokes about fat women.

 

Some porn might be about that.

 

It is interesting that being gay is just as bad as excessive drinking. Being gay is not an action. A person might have lustful feelings for a person of the same sex or the opposite sex. That doesn't mean they act on those feelings.

 

The scouts want to exclude based not on actions but emotions. Do gay people have 'deeper issues' Landlord?

[Landlord]

Viewing porn does not = objectifing women or making jokes about fat women.

 

"Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification.Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience."

 

It's the pursuit of the viewer (95% of the time a man) obtaining pleasure from a visual sight or physical object, depending on how you want to word your semantics, of a woman. What is pornography other than this exact thing?

 

 

 

Do gay people have 'deeper issues' Landlord?

 

Absolutely they do. Heterosexual people do too. Homosexual people don't have any more or less deeper issues; just different ones.