Gay Boy Scouts?

By: Mormon Heretic
February 11, 2013

A 2000 Supreme Court decision rules that because the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, they are within their rights to exclude gays, atheists, and agnostics from its membership ranks.  So why did the Boy Scouts of America reverse course and announce that local units now have the ability to choose whether to allow gay Boy Scout leaders and/or gay Boy Scouts to become part of their troops?

I was listening to “A Woman’s View” on KSL Radio Sunday morning.  The show is hosted by Amanda Dixon, and she asked her guests to weigh in on the latest Boy Scout controversy. One of her guests paraphrased the Boy Scout oath, stating that Boy Scouts only accept “morally straight” boys. The Boy Scout oath states:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight. (emphasis added)

Is that really what “morally straight” means?  I had to look it up.  According to Wiki answers:

Being morally straight means to live your life with honesty, to be clean in your speech and actions, and to be a person of strong character.

Even the official Boy Scout website doesn’t seem to refer to sexual orientation:

. . . and morally straight.

To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. Be clean in your speech and actions, and remain faithful in your religious beliefs. The values you practice as a Scout will help you shape a life of virtue and self-reliance.

Due to the controversy generated by the announcement, the BSA has decided to wait until May to allow time to discuss the issue and see if they will stick by the decision.  The LDS Church is the largest sponsoring organization with about 1/3 of the total Boy Scout membership, following by Methodists and Southern Baptists.

How do you think the Church should respond to the issue of gay Boy Scouts?

  • The Church should quit discriminating against gay Boy Scouts. (70%, 53 Votes)
  • The Church should support the status quo, preventing gays from joining. (13%, 10 Votes)
  • The Church should partner with other religious organizations and start a different scouting program to take the place of Boy Scouts. (9%, 7 Votes)
  • I don't know. (8%, 6 Votes)

Total Voters: 76

Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: , , , , , , ,

148 Responses to Gay Boy Scouts?

  1. Glenn Thigpen on February 11, 2013 at 2:18 AM

    I voted that the Church should support the sataus quo. This is not based upon a moral tandpoint, but on a privacy one. It is the same objection that I had/have towards gays in the military.
    As far as the morally straight part of the scout oath, I have never heard of scouts being kicked out because of sexual activity. But, at the same time, it would hardly be prudent to assign a girl and a boy together as tent mates. Nor would it be prudent to allow boys and girls to take communal showers together. But that is just the scenario that would apply if gay scouts were allowed in the scout organization.

    Glenn

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  2. Henry on February 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM

    If one of the directives is to stay morally clean, they should not change the policy.

    A gay man, no matter how nice or good, is not the opitmal role model for young boys.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  3. Henry on February 11, 2013 at 5:40 AM

    Optimal

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  4. dba.brotherp on February 11, 2013 at 7:22 AM

    I think the church will allow gay boy scouts. After all, there are already gay boy scouts, it’s just that they are not open about it.

    Glen, if privacy is your issue, that is easily solved and should not be a barrier.

    Henry, if “no matter how nice or good” is not optimal, then the only person that reaches that high bar you set is Jesus.

    My experience in the church is no one called to any position is optimal. They are only good people trying to do the best they can.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  5. anita on February 11, 2013 at 8:15 AM

    Add in another voting option: the church should separate from the BSA no matter what happens. A century is long enough, we don’t need to be part of this any longer.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 12

  6. hawkgrrrl on February 11, 2013 at 8:52 AM

    I too question the church’s long-standing affiliation with the BSA. We don’t do scouting in all countries. It’s definitely not a global program. It’s very expensive and unequal (there is no female equivalent for our YW that the church uses). But I think the church should not base its affiliation on this decision. Ideally, the church should not discriminate against homosexuals, even while requiring chastity for all. As to the ideal of being morally straight, the scoutmaster in my home ward was having an extramarital affair. Is he a better role model than a gay man? Is a gay man who is loyal to a partner less of one?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 13

  7. Howard on February 11, 2013 at 9:13 AM

    I grew up in a Mormon BSA troop in SoCal that included two gay scouts who liked to giggle and tickle each other and a gay leader. It was no big deal. I say get over it!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  8. Mike S on February 11, 2013 at 9:50 AM

    - Gay does not equal pedophile
    - Heterosexual does not equal chaste before marriage and faithful after marriage.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  9. Douglas on February 11, 2013 at 9:58 AM

    Egad…
    As long as the Church can maintain its standards within Scouting it should do so and have positive influence on BSA.
    My guess as to why BSA rolled on this is that they didn’t want to take on the current freak circus running the Justice Department, who’d rather expend the hard-earned monies of John and Jane Q taxpayer to pester everyone that might have offended the tender sensibilities of someone LGBT. A fine line between discretion versus cowardice.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  10. Mormon Heretic on February 11, 2013 at 10:43 AM

    Anita, I think option 3 is there “start a different scouting program to take the place of Boy Scouts.” Are you saying you’d like to do away with Scouting altogether?

    On my mission, a guy in my ward had 4 girls and no boys. He told me that the Church prohibited Girl Scouts from using church facilities because the GSA supported the Equal Rights Amendment. I don’t know if that is true, but it does seem that Girl Scouts are prohibited from using church buildings. Lucky for my friend, he had a cool bishop that allowed the Girl Scouts to meet in the church.

    There is an inequity for girls, IMO. Church sponsorship makes a big deal in the success of a program. Last year, some women in and out of my ward got together and started a Girl Scouts program that met in the elementary school. I encouraged my daughter to go, and she loved it. However, there was some sort of a dispute between the leaders (and I never understood the nature of the dispute), and they soon quit meeting. It was a real shame. I think the Church should sponsor Girl Scouts as well as Boy Scouts, and I like that option rather than dumping Boy Scouts altogether. Maybe if the Church separated from Boy Scouts, they could offer a Girl Scouts program and improve gender equity. Certainly there should be some sort of Girl Scout program to match the Boy Scout program.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  11. Nick Literski on February 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM

    The OP is in error, as the BSA has not “announce[d] that local units now have the ability to choose whether to allow gay Boy Scout leaders and/or gay Boy Scouts to become part of their troops.” Rather, they announced that they were considering such a change in policy. Then they punted any decision on such a change to the national convention in May.

    Glen, your concerns seem to be based on the assumption that there are currently no gay Boy Scouts. I’m confident that gay Boy Scouts have shared tents with other Boy Scouts (both gay and straight) many, many times during the history of Scouting. As for your comment about sharing communal showers, have public schools changed since I attended high school in the early 1980s? My experience was that every boy was required to shower at the end of PE class, and the showers were all communal. Again, gay young men have shared communal showers with other young men (gay and straight) for many, many years.

    While your comment suggests concern for the well-being of straight young men who might be victimized by gay young men in said communal showers, I’d invite you to consider another perspective. In my experience, it’s the gay young men who have been genuinely terrified of sharing communal showers with heterosexual boys. They’re scared to death that they might get caught noticing another boy, or even worse, that they might become aroused (something which happens all too easily for young boys, as I’m sure you know). They’re not only afraid of embarassment, but terrified that they’ll be subjected to ostracism and physical attacks from allegedly-straight boys who’ve been taught by their parents to hate and condemn their gay peers.

    Henry, your post is confusing to me. You seem to be saying that a gay man cannot be “morally clean,” at least under LDS guidelines. Can you please explain how a gay male virgin is less “morally clean” than a heterosexual male virgin? Or are you just making the ridiculously laughable assumption that being gay inherently involves being sexually active?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 10

  12. Will on February 11, 2013 at 12:54 PM

    Let’s get real. The church is not going to allow gay scout masters, and most likley the other major religions listed won’ t either. With this in mind, the Boy Scouts won’t commit financial sucide.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  13. Nick Literski on February 11, 2013 at 12:56 PM

    Will, that’s probably why the proposed BSA change specifically said they would leave it to the discretion of local troops and councils.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  14. Nick Literski on February 11, 2013 at 12:58 PM

    That said, the current position isn’t helping them financially, either. They’re losing many donors, including many large corporate donors, over their nationwide ban.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  15. Will on February 11, 2013 at 2:48 PM

    Nick,

    Getting to the real issue, you have to question the motive of gay men that want to be scout leaders of young men. To me it would be similar to questioning the motive of a male leader that wants to be a scout leader over teenage girls.

    Sleeping over with a group of people is a fairly intimate setting, especially when young people are showering in an open setting, like a lake or public shower with little or no privacy.

    It is just not a good idea to have a leader supervising a group where there is a physical attraction.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  16. Jeff Spector on February 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM

    The Boy Scouts have put themselves in a lose-lose situation.

    If they allow (openly, I suppose that really means) gay scouts and leaders, they will lose the Churches (SBC, for sure and maybe LDS and RC, which constitutes 70% of their chartered units.

    If they don’t allow Gay Scouts, they lose corporate funding, schools sponsoring units, and places to meet, etc.

    It could be the end of the Boy Scouts, either way.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  17. dba.brotherp on February 11, 2013 at 3:15 PM

    Will,

    Why do you assume a gay scout leader will be attracted to adolescent boys? If you’re worried about privacy, that is easily fixed.

    You don’t worry about the Young Women and meeting with their Bishop, so why all the worry?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  18. Neal on February 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    Will,

    There are plenty of gay Scoutmasters and leaders – I’m one of them. My Bishop asked me to serve in Scouts knowing full well I was gay. I reminded him of that fact when he called me. He said he didn’t care – that’s where the Lord wanted me.

    Scouts has a strict program of 2-deep leadership and other risk avoidance policies that make your homophobic fears unjustified. Leaders do not shower with kids or sleep in the same tents.

    And lets not forget that the BSA allows women and girls in the program – including in leadership positions. There are female Scoutmasters and many troops that are co-ed and yes, they go on campouts together.

    Gay people can serve in the Church in ANY capacity. I know gay Bishops and members of Stake Presidencies. Gay missionaries serve along side their straight companions every day. Worthiness is worthiness, no matter what your orientation. This puts the Church at direct odds with the discriminatory practices of the BSA. Participation by worthy gay men and boys should not be dictated by an organization outside the jurisdiction of the Church.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 8

  19. Nick Literski on February 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    #15:
    It is just not a good idea to have a leader supervising a group where there is a physical attraction.

    Will, are you talking about Baron Robert Baden Powell, the originator of the Boy Scouts, who (a) never married until he was 55 years old, to a 23 year old woman who agreed to bind/flatten her breasts and cut her hair short, (b) began to experience persistent migraines after his wedding, (c) was known to have a strong appreciation for photographs of nude adolescent boys, calling them “those marvelous photographs of yours” in a letter to one collector?

    Yeah, I wouldn’t be comfortable with him as a leader and example to adolescent boys, either.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  20. ji on February 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    This will affect LDS units — the supporters of the proposal DO NOT want local units to have any choice — they DO NOT want blue and red troops, so to speak — they want every troop, every chartering organization, to be forced to accept membership applications from prospective adult leaders without regard for sexual orientation.

    The current ban is not on homosexuality per se — it is a policy not to accept membership applications from “open or avowed” homosexuals. The current policy seems reasonable to me as a prudent youth protection measure and as a standard for leadership and values. If the organization feels there is no longer any need for the policy, it can choose to change it.

    Are all homosexuals banned? No, just the open and avowed.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  21. Nick Literski on February 11, 2013 at 4:35 PM

    Jj, so what you’re saying is you’re totally okay with secretive and closeted gay Boy Scouts and leaders, but you think the “open and avowed” ones are a danger to young men (i.e., you seem to assume they’re rapists and/or pedophiles)?

    Do you have any idea just how crazy that actually sounds?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  22. Neal on February 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM

    “Are all homosexuals banned? No, just the open and avowed.”

    That’s not true. Even faithful gay members who are not living in a gay relationship will be kicked out of Scouts if they find out they are homosexual. I know men this has happened to, and once the ‘cat is out of the bag’, there are no exceptions from the BSA.

    Your statement on ‘youth protection’ tells me you have the mistaken notion that homosexuals are a danger to youth. This has been soundly disproven, but persists as a homophobic urban myth. The fact is that most pedophiles who prey on both boys and girls are heterosexual.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  23. ji on February 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM

    No, Nick, you know that’s not what I’m saying.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  24. Neal on February 11, 2013 at 4:56 PM

    “This will affect LDS units — the supporters of the proposal DO NOT want local units to have any choice — they DO NOT want blue and red troops, so to speak — they want every troop, every chartering organization, to be forced to accept membership applications from prospective adult leaders without regard for sexual orientation.”

    This is also not true. You don’t speak for ‘the supporters of the proposal’. Most of my friends who ARE supporters and have written the Boy Scouts in favor of the change simply want them to let local units decide. You project your homophobia into every post you make…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  25. Nick Literski on February 11, 2013 at 5:23 PM

    jj, all I know is what you wrote. You specifically supported a policy where only “open and avowed” gay men were banned. You stated that you felt this was “reasonable” for the “protection” of young men and a “standard for leadership and values.” What else can anyone possibly think you’re saying, other than that you’re okay with closeted, secret gay scouts/leaders, but you believe “open and avowed” gays are a threat to the safety and values of adolescent scouts?

    If that’s not what you’re saying, then please do clarify.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  26. ji on February 11, 2013 at 5:48 PM

    Nick, I suppose there are many people of good will who could support your cause, except for the militancy and stridency that you and some on your side present in forums such as this. I’m one of them who could perhaps agree on the merits of the issue (but I’m not a voting member), but who is afraid of those who are advocating with such meanness. It is meanness for you to twist my words as you did in your no. 21.

    I’ll say again what I said before, and what I mean: The current policy (to deny membership applications of open and avowed homosexuals) seems reasonable to me as a prudent youth protection measure and as a standard for leadership and values. If the organization feels there is no longer any need for the policy, it can choose to change it.

    Neal (no. 24), I read this in the New York Daily News on the internet, saying that some do not want to allow for a local option but want a complete solution: “We don’t want to see Scouting gerrymandered into blue and red districts,” said Brad Hankins, campaign director of Scouts for Equality.
    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boy-scouts-vote-gay-membership-article-1.1256578#ixzz2KdoLQL5a

    Right now, I suppose there is no proposal on the table — just a notion to raise the issue in May — I don’t know what the specific wording of the proposal will be in May.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  27. Henry on February 11, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    Nick:
    There are many men who prey on young boys 12 13 14 15 and yes, who consider themselves exclusively gay. If you go for males exclusively no matter the age, you are intrinsically gay.
    If the Boys Scouts hold steady and do not change this policy, they will have an army of people ready to support them. Forget the corporations.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  28. Brian on February 11, 2013 at 6:04 PM

    “you have to question the motive of gay men that want to be scout leaders of young men”

    Kind of like how you have to question the motives of black men walking dark streets at night?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  29. Neal on February 11, 2013 at 6:10 PM

    Ji,

    Thanks for clarifying your statement that not all supporters of the ban want a ‘complete solution’ – only some do. I think its also important to point out that many opponents of the change are MORE than a little radical in their insistance that gays continue to be totally excluded from Scouting.

    I suggest you read this piece from the Salt Lake Tribune, which includes comments from Mormons Building Bridges – an organization I support. The original proposal from the BSA is more closely aligned with current Church policy on gays than many may be aware of, and we are respectfully petitioning the BSA to move forward with the proposed changes. Allowing local units to decide policy will allow Priesthood leaders the flexibility they need to meet the needs of all young men in the Church. The Gospel of Christ is a gospel of love and inclusion – not exclusion. The current BSA policy is destined for the dustbin of history.

    http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55718242-78/church-scouts-units-lds.html.csp#disqus_thread

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  30. Brian on February 11, 2013 at 6:37 PM

    “The Gospel of Christ is a gospel of love and inclusion – not exclusion.”

    See gay couple attend ward social. See gay couple holding hands. See nice bishop approach gay couple holding hands. See nice gay couple leave ward social still holding hands. Listen to ward members, holding hands, talk about how wonderful and inclusive their church is.

    Having a gay son, I have seen and heard how inclusive the church is. No matter how loud and often you say it, it ain’t so. As long as gays stay away, they are welcome.
    That has been my experience.

    Not welcome kissing at Temple Square, not welcome holding hands at a ward social. Not welcome on their terms, only on the terms who proclaim themselves to be spokesmen of god telling gays that what they are isn’t good enough. And I am okay with that. It tells gays to stay away. Something I chose to do myself.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  31. Neal on February 11, 2013 at 7:05 PM

    Yes, Brian – I said the Gospel of Christ – not the Church. The Church has a ways to go before it fully practices the Gospel. Baby steps, sadly.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  32. Jaramiah on February 11, 2013 at 7:07 PM

    If the church says that we want gay members to stay and receive full fellowhip (even if it means a requirement to live a life of celibacy) then it seems like they have obligated themselves to say, “Yes, worthy gay adult men and youth can partipate in scouting if they are living the standards of the church.” To say anything else seems openly hippocritical.

    Could they say that worthy gay men can serve as Executive Secretaries, Elder’s Quorum Presidents, Sunday School Teachers, but say you cannot serve in the Young Men’s program/scouting? I guess they can with a BSA-wide ban, but if individual units can make the decisions, the church’s newer approach toward gay members would appear to be above that–or it is just smoke.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  33. Neal on February 11, 2013 at 7:14 PM

    Henry,

    Please don’t make homophobic or distorted statements about homosexuals. There is plenty of research that shows you are gravely mistaken in your views. You’re perpetuating a myth. The fact is that heterosexual males do most of the molesting to children of both sexes.

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/18/903178/-Gays-are-pedophiles-No-Here-s-the-proof

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  34. Henry on February 11, 2013 at 7:38 PM

    Neal:
    Plenty of research suggests otherwise.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  35. Henry on February 11, 2013 at 7:42 PM

    http://emaso.com/links/ref-articles/ref7e/ref7e.htm

    Protect the Boy Scouts.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  36. Howard on February 11, 2013 at 8:01 PM

    Henry,
    That site uses faulty logic and contaminated thinking in place of studies and evidence: If heterosexuals were indeed more likely to be pedophiles, it follows that certain occupations and activities should be reserved for the homosexuals. Homosexuals should be the ones who work with our children in nurseries, take the boy scouts on overnight camping trips etc. to decrease the likelihood of child molestation. But if the opposite is true it’s of course the other way around.

    No, sorry it does not follow due to society’s long term and ingrained bias against homosexuals. Even as open mindedness progresses on this issue society will be slow to change.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  37. Nick Literski on February 11, 2013 at 10:22 PM

    jj, I’m really not trying to twist your words at all, but we’re obviously talking past one another, causing you a great deal of frustration. So please help me understand what you truly mean to say. If you believe the ban is a reasonable “protection” for scouting youth, then exactly what do you believe the ban protects them from?

    Henry, I’m well aware that there are gay men who are pederasts or pedophiles. I’m also well aware that there are heterosexual men who are pederasts or pedophiles. By sheer population numbers, teenage boys are far more likely to encounter a heterosexual predator than a gay predator. Why do you only see gay men as a threat, and not heterosexual men? Your implication that “gay = pedophile” is not just offensive, but ridiculously inaccurate.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  38. Hedgehog on February 12, 2013 at 1:12 AM

    Hawkgrrrl #6
    Yup. No scouting at church in Britain. As a parent I like it that way. It was tried, briefly, back when the eldest of my brothers were in the younger age range for scouting, and was a big failure.

    #32, agreed.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  39. hawkgrrrl on February 12, 2013 at 2:00 AM

    Of course, the church is suspicious of all men in primary and all women holding meetings with no priesthood present. I’m not clear whom we are trying to protect exactly when we don’t suspect adult males behind a closed door asking teenage girls about their sex lives. Perhaps we only trust leaders, and everyone else is presumed guilty.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 7

  40. Hedgehog on February 12, 2013 at 3:40 AM

    #39 Yes.
    In primary we can’t have men teaching without a woman present. And we can’t have women teaching one child on their own.

    I think some of this reflects society and covering ones back, as there are similar (though not quite so stringent- we do have male teachers) rules in place in some schools in this country. And there are frequent debates/arguments about adults requiring CRB (criminal record bureau) checks before being permitted to volunteer to help with children and vulnerable persons. A couple or so years ago the government pulled back from legislation that would have made such checks mandatory in all cases (and which would have made church callings very complicated as they would have been required to comply).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  41. Henry on February 12, 2013 at 5:27 AM

    There is a radical segment of the gay demogaphic that is extremely interested in transforming society. They want society to view that way of life as normal and good. Radical changes are on the way. In a Colorado University, a man is allowed to be in the female locker room because he believes he is female. Changing the definition of marriage for one group changes it for everybody. If they can infiltrate the Boys Scouts, this is their dream come true. Someone mentioned one time that if this is the case, they are going to demand that the Boy Scouts be required to watch drag queen shows. This doesn’t seem too far fetched based on what is happening in society. But people are just standing by in the name of political correctness and doing nothing. Once evil is entrenched, it’s very hard to root out.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  42. hawkgrrrl on February 12, 2013 at 5:38 AM

    Henry: “Someone mentioned one time” Well, obviously that’s a reliable source.

    When we look at homosexuality as a “way of life” it seems optional. What gay people want is to be accepted for who they are, not forced to be second hand citizens. Working with the boy scouts is hard work and requires a commitment to helping boys learn skills and esteem. Why can’t a gay man do this as well as a straight one? Do you know any actual gay people? Your comments make me wonder.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  43. Dara on February 12, 2013 at 8:28 AM

    Hawkgrrl:
    How do you know it’s who they are? Seems like many of us are being deceived by the master deceiver.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  44. Nick Literski on February 12, 2013 at 8:49 AM

    #41:
    If they can infiltrate the Boys Scouts, this is their dream come true. Someone mentioned one time that if this is the case, they are going to demand that the Boy Scouts be required to watch drag queen shows.

    ROTFLMAO!!! Thank you, Henry, for my morning chuckle—I can’t even be offended at your comment, because it’s just so bizarre! It reminds me of the days when certain credulous Southerners literally believed that Mormons grew horns—the sort of thing that no person with at least a sixth grade education can even begin to take seriously.

    Henry, it’s pretty clear that you think you know more about homosexuality than actual gay men do. Believe it or not, however, not all gay men appreciate drag shows. I know that flies in the face of the stereotypes that you’ve so studiously memorized, but it’s true. Shocking as it may be to you, most gay men are attracted to men, not men who dress up as women.

    Here are a few other facts which I’m sure will surprise you:

    (1) We’re not all hair stylists and interior decorators.

    (2) We don’t all speak with a lisp.

    (3) Some of us watched the Super Bowl, and not just for Beyonce’s halftime show.

    (4) Some of us enjoy working on cars.

    (5) The vast majority of us never wear dresses, or high heels, or fishnet stockings.

    (6) Some of us are big, burly, “macho” men, who with a mere glance could terrify emasculated, boot-licking LDS priesthood serfs like yourself.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  45. hawkgrrrl on February 12, 2013 at 9:06 AM

    Dara, so you think gay people aren’t really attracted to their own sex? Try this little experiment. Imagine the situation is reversed. How easily can you be convinced to live as a homosexual rather than a heterosexual? What if that was the only acceptable relationship – same sex? If you think it’s a deception, it should be easy to adapt our “choices” in both directions.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  46. Jaramiah on February 12, 2013 at 11:19 AM

    I’ve visited chat rooms that are intended for men who are attracted to men. Many of them are married/closet bisexual man, so even though it may be labeled a “gay” chat room, that term is misleading. There are those there that are trying to pursue a cyber version of the sexual activities that this topic of conversation is bringing up. They often identify themselves as “Young Dad”, indicating that they have relatively young children, at least in their online personas. Yes, there are those out there who would perpetrate this evil and use our youth to satisfy their lusts. No, this is not going to be a man that is openly gay to his ward community, held to an LDS standard that is very difficult to achieve, and watched closely by the ward because he is an unusual commodity in a ward that will stand out.

    As for gay scouts, the early teens are years where boys will be bursting with curiousity and the temptation for same gender sexual exploration is not going to be exclusive to scouts with a homosexual orientation. All scouts need to be taught sexual restraint. An openly gay scout leader who is living the standards required by the church could be a very helpful resource to young men in teaching restraint.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  47. Fred Jones on February 12, 2013 at 12:27 PM

    A man or boy inserting his penis and ejaculating into another man or boys rectum for sexual pleasure is unnatural, filthy and disgusting. You have defined morally straight as “clean in speech and actions.” It should be pretty obvious that homosexual behavior then is not morally straight.
    I’m sorry to be so graphic but I think sometimes we lose track of exactly what homosexual behavior is. Am I homophobic?? Yes! Very much so. It literally makes me want to vomit.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  48. Fred Jones on February 12, 2013 at 12:43 PM

    …and the sad thing is, forcing their way into the BSA and marriage and everything else in society is not going to take away the feeling, that they all have, deep down inside, that something is wrong in their life. You can’t do whats wrong and feel right.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  49. Nick Literski on February 12, 2013 at 1:22 PM

    Yet Fred mentions no objection to a man or boy inserting his penis and ejaculating into a woman’s rectum, which is far more common than he likely imagines. According to the CDC’s 2005 study, 40% of American men and 35% of American women, between the ages of 25 and 44, have engaged in heterosexual anal intercourse. Ironically, a number of heterosexual women imagine this somehow preserves their “virginity,” in that it doesn’t involve vaginal penetration. (Oh…and that doesn’t even address the practice of heterosexual women inserting a phallic-shaped instrument into the rectum of their heterosexual male partners for the purpose of prostate and nerve stimulation!)

    Of course, Fred doesn’t even get it right when he attempts to define “exactly what homosexual behavior is.” The National Institutes for Health, together with the British Medical Journal, has found that two-thirds of gay men have engaged in anal intercourse at some time in their lives. Other sources suggest up to three-fourths of gay men have done so.

    “Sorry to be so graphic,” friends, but if Fred is going to spend his time obsessing/fantasizing about gay sex, he should at least get some of his facts right.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  50. Fred Jones on February 12, 2013 at 2:55 PM

    Nick, Your first two paragraphs were helpful and thought provoking. But the hateful, personal attack in the third paragraph undermines your credibility. When you attack me it makes it much harder for me to try to see this issue from your perspective…but I’m still trying to.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  51. Howard on February 12, 2013 at 3:44 PM

    It literally makes me want to vomit. Sure, the first time I saw two men embrace I felt instant revulsion but that feeling left me later because I got to know them and began to understand that the love they felt for one another paralleled the love a heterosexual couple feels for each other.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  52. Nick Literski on February 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM

    Fred, I apologize if I seemed hateful–that really wasn’t my intent. I unfairly lumped you in with some prominent religious figures I’ve encountered, who go on and on about truly bizarre things (no, I won’t list them here) they’ve imagined gay men do in the bedroom, for no other reason than to get their congregations riled up (and donating) to physically and/or politically attack gay men.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  53. Freed Jones on February 12, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    No apology necessary Nick. I know it is a very emotional issue on both sides. Looking back at my two post’s I realize they have a bit of a mean edge to them too.
    I’ve always felt that it’s good to do battle with ideas but not with people. Idea’s don’t deserve any respect. They should be debated, stretched, looked at from every angle and challenged. But people should be treated with kindness and respect.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  54. Will on February 12, 2013 at 8:23 PM

    As for the Boy Scouts, they need to side with the group that has their best interest in mind and the best interest of the boys; and need to dismiss the groups with a political agenda. In the end, the group with the political agenda will dump them when the next hot political issue arises.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  55. Henry on February 13, 2013 at 5:34 AM

    There will always be plenty of people that disagree with you in life so it makes me wonder why they are so eager to get into this oganization.
    My hope is that the radical homosexual elements does not infiltrate the Boy Scouts.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  56. Nick Literski on February 13, 2013 at 8:13 AM

    “Radical homosexual,” Henry? Is that like “uppity n*****r” fifty years ago?

    Scratch that—your type is calling the President and First Lady of the United States by such names, even today. Seems the people you don’t like just need to “know their place” and consent to being treated as cattle.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  57. Brian on February 13, 2013 at 8:42 AM

    I don’t think gays “are so eager” to get into Boy Scouts as they are eager to not be excluded.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  58. graceforgrace on February 13, 2013 at 7:43 PM

    The church supports gay members..it just doesn’t condone the sexual act. So as long as the gay boy scouts are focusing on scouting and not on any agenda to promote the act of homosexuality, I see no reason why boy scouts who are gay shouldn’t be allowed.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  59. Henry on February 13, 2013 at 9:37 PM

    Response 58
    Problem is, they don’t see it like that. They want full recognition of what they do and want society to see it as wholesome and natural.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  60. hawkgrrrl on February 14, 2013 at 12:41 AM

    Henry: You keep talking about “what they do” but being homosexual is who they are. If you substituted “women” or “black people” I hope you could see how it sounds. Of course gay people want to be accepted. Of course they want to be seen as wholesome and natural. Don’t you?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  61. Henry on February 14, 2013 at 5:32 AM

    Referring to gay sex as wholesome doesn’t make sense when it is, by definition, unwholesome.

    Sexual preference is not the same thing as skin color or gender.

    Nice try.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  62. hawkgrrrl on February 14, 2013 at 5:51 AM

    Sexual orientation is inherent like skin color or one’s biological sex (which is also on a spectrum). Gender is cultural. What dictionary uses the word “unwholesome” in reference to gay sex?

    Given the historical treatment of gays, why would anyone choose to be gay if they could instead choose acceptance and not being bullied?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  63. Hom on February 14, 2013 at 7:59 AM

    I’ve watched this discussion from afar, but I’m amused at how all of the “gay” people are routinely castigated for sex, defined by sex/intercourse.

    Just look at #61′s response to #60. Hawkgrrrl is clearly referring to gay people wanting to be seen as wholesome, and yet #61 refuses to go along…instead reminding us all that gay people = gay sex.

    5, 10 or 15 years from now we’re going to look back at the way we treat “gays” as being tantamount to the way women used to be treated as property or how whites treated blacks – a scar on our society that no amount of apologies will do away with.

    It’s the vitriol inherent in comments like #61 or #47 or #48 or several others which show our charity for our own kind.

    For those interested, I’d point to this relatively new song about this very struggle (not the Boy Scouts, but the way society demonizes those radical gay homosexuals that some feel threatens their very way of life and, surely, you are just certain that they can’t be happy when, deep down, they know what they’re doing is wrong… ).

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlVBg7_08n0

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  64. Henry on February 14, 2013 at 5:35 PM

    Hawkgrrl:
    It’s not good members of the church to enocurage others to live this way. Not good at all. If you encourage someone in this way of life and they never repent, what do you think will happen at the great and last day? It will come up that you encouraged indulgence and not repentance. BY doing so, you put your exaltation in jeopardy. Ask youe bishop. Tell him that you totally disagree with the scriptures and the brethren and you think that gay sex is totally okay and that you are encouraging people to pursue it. I would be interested in what his answer is.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  65. Henry on February 14, 2013 at 6:15 PM

    Homosexual “marriage” does not impact anybody? Or does it?

    The homosexual lobby always lied about the lack of impact when it comes to homosexual “marriage”. We all know that is a blatant lie. One bad law creates more bad laws and moronic decisions. Here are a few “impacts” that happened:

    1 – mandatory homosexual education in K thru 12 in several states
    2 – men (who believe they are women) using the women facilities (lockers, public bathrooms, etc.) and vice versa.
    3 – forced to participate in homosexual parades and events against your conscience (firemen in San Franscisco are suing).
    4 – trying to changing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts at the local level.
    5 – lowering the age of consent (happened Canada and Europe, so why not here)
    6 – homosexual “marriage” domestic violence surges.
    7 – Churches being vandalized and parishoners assualted.
    8 – doctor not being able to give informed medical advise for fear of terminations.
    9 – sex change operations for children.
    10 – paying for sex change operations via tax payer dollars.
    11 – preferential treatment of homosexual in some states that really violates equal protections.

    The homosexual lobby lacked any moral fiber once they used lies in their propaganda. They will continue. When a homosexual activist say something, ignore it, it is a lie.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  66. Brian on February 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM

    Illinois state senate voted today to legalize same-sex marriage, Henry. Thought you’d want to know. Go celebrate.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  67. hawkgrrrl on February 14, 2013 at 7:01 PM

    I have to conclude Henry is not serious after his last few remarks.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  68. Henry on February 15, 2013 at 5:34 AM

    Hawkgrrl
    Very serious.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  69. mh on February 15, 2013 at 7:12 AM

    Henry, you are off topic now. Please talk about the boy scouts.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  70. Nick Literski on February 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM

    #61:
    Referring to gay sex as wholesome doesn’t make sense when it is, by definition, unwholesome.

    Only by your definition, Henry. What you really mean to say is that your religion teaches that sexual activity between partners of the same sex is forbidden. That doesn’t make it “by definition” anything at all. Your religion says that “hot drinks” (interpreted as coffee and tea) are not for the belly. Would you then try to say that “hot drinks are not for the belly, by definition?” Of course not.

    Sexual preference is not the same thing as skin color or gender.

    Good thing nobody is talking about “sexual preference” here. I’m guessing your “sexual preference” is something along the lines of “lights out, man on top, woman thinking of England.” Your alleged sexual orientation, on the other hand, is heterosexual. Learn the grownup terms, and maybe you can converse intelligently with grownups.

    #65:
    We all know….

    Henry, this is perhaps at the root of your problem. You genuinely think that “we,” meaning humanity at large, all think exactly the way you do. Believe it or not, Henry, we live in a diverse world with varying opinions.

    But since you’ve decided that all gays and lesbians are “liars,” let’s take a look at the things you just stated as supposed “affects of” marriage equality:

    1 – mandatory homosexual education in K thru 12 in several states

    What, exactly is “homosexual education, Henry? How is it required? In what states? You have no idea, do you? That’s because you’ve just copied and pasted this from some anti-gay ranters, some of whom literally claim that we’ll be teaching kindergarden children how to have “gay sex.” Either you know this is complete bullshit, or you’re just outrageously gullible.

    2 – men (who believe they are women) using the women facilities (lockers, public bathrooms, etc.) and vice versa.

    You’re referring to gender identity, Henry, not homosexuality. How is this an “affect of” marriage equality? Are you really so ignorant as to believe that gay men “believe they are women?” Again, either you know this is bullshit, or you’re laughably gullible in your copy-and-paste credulity.

    3 – forced to participate in homosexual parades and events against your conscience (firemen in San Franscisco are suing).

    Try a bit of Googling, Henry, and you’ll find just how confused you are. The case you speak of is from San Deigo, not San Francisco, These particular firefighters have already won their lawsuit, and with good reason. Up until this particular incident, the city had always sought volunteers for participation in the local pride parade (what is a “homosexual parade,” anyway–a parade that has sex with other parades??). In this particular incident, the firefighters in question did not volunteer, and the city violated their own policy by requiring them to jump in. Notice that the law protected the firemen in their employment rights! Further, how is this remotely related to marriage equality, since it happened in 2007, prior to the existence of marriage equality in California? Again, either you know it’s bullshit to say that this was “an affect of” marriage equality, or you’re just laughably gullible.

    4 – trying to changing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts at the local level.

    How is this an “affect of” marriage equality? How are gays and lesbians trying to change the Girl Scouts, which has always been inclusive? Why should gays and lesbians be denied the right to lobby a group for change in its policies? Nobody is forcing the BSA to do anything, but you rail against anyone trying to bring about change. Don’t you have any respect at all for the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech, etc.? Did you even think about this before you gullibly cut-and-pasted it here?

    5 – lowering the age of consent (happened Canada and Europe, so why not here)

    Once again, Henry, how is this an “affect of” marriage equality? Did you stop to ask that question before you gullibly cut-and-pasted it here?

    6 – homosexual “marriage” domestic violence surges.

    Please provide a reference to us, giving legitimate statistical studies to show any increase in domestic violence coincident with the enactment of marriage equality. Further, if you can find any evidence to support such a correlation, show us how it proves causation in any manner. Did you know this was bullshit when you cut-and-pasted it, or were you just too gullible to think twice, so long as it sounded “bad about dem dar gays?”

    7 – Churches being vandalized and parishoners assualted.

    Please give us news reports about churches being vandalized, or parishoners assaulted,as a result of the enactment of marriage equality. Either you know it’s bullshit to say this is an “affect of” marriage equality, or you’re just too gullible to think twice before you cut-and-paste.

    8 – doctor not being able to give informed medical advise for fear of terminations.

    Again, how is this an “affect of” marriage equality, Henry? Furthermore, show us any actual reports of such an incident. Either you know this is bullshit, or you were simply too gullible to question it when you cut-and-pasted your little list.

    9 – sex change operations for children.

    Sigh…again, Henry, how is this an “affect of” marriage equality? How many “children” have received sex change operations as a result of marriage equality? Are you still so confused about the difference between gender identity (which can lead to seeking sex change operations) vs. sexual orientation? I’m beginning to think you really don’t know your list items are bullshit, and you really are just gullible beyond imagination.

    10 – paying for sex change operations via tax payer dollars.

    Again, how is this an “affect of” marriage equality? Again, this is about gender identity, not sexual orientation. Gullible, gullible, gullible.

    11 – preferential treatment of homosexual in some states that really violates equal protections.

    Can you get any more vague than that, Henry? What “preferential treatment?” Give us examples–specific ones, from states where marriage equality is the law. After all, how else can we determine whether your cut-and-paste nonsense is an “affect of” marriage equality?

    Sadly, I’m guessing that none of my questions will get through to you at all. You’ll be so determined to believe whatever extremist website you cut-and-pasted from, that your brain will just shut out any effort whatsoever to get you to think for a moment about the lies and gossip you’re spreading. THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, HENRY. Or don’t you think that commandment applies, when it comes to “dem fa***ts?”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  71. Mormon Heretic on February 15, 2013 at 9:56 AM

    Nick, I know you felt that needed a rebuttal, and it probably did. But this is where the debate between you and Henry should end. This topic is NOT about gay marriage or sex. It IS about Boy Scout policy. If we are going to continue to derail the conversation away from whether the potentially new Boy Scout policy is good or bad, then perhaps I will have to close the comments. Please quit derailing the conversation.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  72. Nick Literski on February 15, 2013 at 10:22 AM

    Understood, MH. Yes, I did feel that list of nonsense needed a rebuttal, but I’m happy to steer the conversation back to the BSA, where it belongs. Sadly, some of the groups placing pressure on the BSA to continue its discriminatory ban are the very groups promulgating Henry’s silly list. Those groups also know that such claims are bullshit, but they give just enough illusion to help thoughtless people rationalize what is ultimately their habitual disdain toward fellow human beings.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  73. Douglas on February 15, 2013 at 12:55 PM

    Well, I will not refrain from conveying my personal disgust at the PRACTICES of homosexuals (I levy no judgement as to mere inclination), said disgust being imbued long before I became LDS. I don’t defy myself by my sexual proclivities and those that do, frankly, creep the hell out of me. Back to the “closet”, you gays and lesbians, I have no issue with you all congregating in your gay hangouts and doing whatever sordid things you elect to do…that’s free agency amongst “adults” acting quite immaturely. I don’t discuss my peccadilloes in public, why should I be bothered to hear of yours? My libertarian values say do your own thing, as long as you don’t harm me. And you don’t in your interactions with each other. When you use the heavy hand of Government, especially with that current gaggle of nitwits and freaks running the lunatic asylum inside the Beltway; that’s another matter, and I will resist by whatever means necessary to promulgate the Gospel of Jesus Christ and protect my family.
    Now, as for the Church and how it should treat Scouting for boys, now that the BSA parent organization has in effect wimped out on the issue. As I’ve said previously, as long as it has the ability to use the Scouting program to accomplish proper objectives for our lads, then it should stick with it and have positive influence therein. The instant that ability to promote the Gospel through Scouting is compromised, then it should withdraw w/o apology. I’m sure that better minds than I at Church HQ have discussed this in length and have developed policy updates and contingency plans.
    Nick, we place “pressure” on the BSA because it’s a matter of the free market of ideas. We don’t HAVE to associate with your ilk, and frankly, want as little to do with the sordidness involved with things LGBT…save that like the prodigal son, they come to a realization of their respective spiritual wretchedness and wish to repent and turn away from their sins. BTW, being spiritually “wretched” is hardly an exlusive that belongs to gays…it’s entirely possible to screw up your life being straight, and have no less need to repent and return to the Savior.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  74. Nick Literski on February 15, 2013 at 2:52 PM

    Right now, Douglas, the “PRACTICE” of this homosexual is eating a small chicken caesar salad and a bowl of chicken chili for lunch. Feel free to be as disgusted as you like. :-)

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  75. Brian on February 15, 2013 at 4:52 PM

    Quoting from Douglas, a Mormon bigot, as to gays:

    “my personal disgust at the PRACTICES of homosexuals”

    “Back to the “closet”, you gays and lesbians,”

    “We don’t HAVE to associate with your ilk, and frankly, want as little to do with the sordidness involved with things LGBT”

    These ideas from an outwardly religious person are the reason why gays fight for the right to be considered equal. Hatred and disgust burn in the hearts of many people, ardently in so many of the religious. If burning at the stake was an option, I imagine people like Douglas would resort to that.

    I am not gay. I don’t pretend to understand what it is like to be gay. I understand how strong my heterosexual urges are and am smart enough to believe that is how strong homosexual urges must be and how immutable those feelings are. I didn’t make myself heterosexual just as gays don’t make themselves homosexual. Compassion and understand is at the core of what they would like. The fact that some like Douglas and Henry aren’t interesting in giving either is frustrating and when they hide behind God in pronouncing their disgust it is downright sad. To them, gays are probably not much behind murderers in their evil.

    BSA leaving the door open for gays would be a huge societal step forward, giving how conservative that organization is. None of us are fooled into thinking this move is not born of anything other than financial concerns. At this point, the motive doesn’t matter. Only the direction of the change.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 6

  76. Douglas on February 16, 2013 at 9:42 AM

    #74 (Nick) – I say, I say, theah, suh, referring to sordid practices re: homosexuality doesn’t have anything to do with how you devour Foghorn Leghorn. A queer’s gotta eat too. If you had anything resembling intellectual honesty and acknowledgement of truth, you’d understand that it’s what the Apostle Paul referred to in Romans 1:27 as “men WITH men working that which is UNSEEMLY…”. Need we go into the graphic descriptions of homosexual anal and oral intercourse? If you have no idea just how revolting the concept is to even a marginal Latter-Day Saint, then you likewise would have no clue as to why having a practicing homosexual in a position to interact with impressionable boys, especially in Scouting, is unacceptable.

    #75 (Brian) – my label as a “MORMON bigot”…am I bigoted because I publicly uphold what the Church has always taught on homosexuality, “bigoted” because I’m LDS, or “bigoted” because I find homosexuality revolting? If the answer to any of these is yes, then I wear the label proudly, as from you and your ilk I’ll consider it a compliment. Note that I’ve not advocated infringement on the private lives of consenting adults, regardless of what I may personally think of said consent. Gee, I thought that was TOLERANCE, which AFAIK I practice. However, it seems that it’s much like my own attitudes towards dating outside my race…e.g., I don’t have an issue if others cross racial lines, it’s not my place to even comment on THEIR choice, but it’s not my “flava”. Electing to confine my dating to Caucasian females does NOT make me a bigot, it’s me doing MY thing (by not “doing” ladies of other races). Likewise, me expressing my personal disdain of homosexual SEXUAL practices is NOT of itself bigotry. What is bigotry and fascism is to enforcement thought control on the subject, as many politically active homosexuals seem bent on doing. When back in ’08 they lost out on Prop 8 in CA, the response of many was obnoxiousness with a few resorting to terrorism and violence. And THAT, dear folks, I will resist.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  77. Jeff Spector on February 16, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    I must admit that I am finding Nick’s responses much more witty and clever than the chowderheads around here. Way to go, Nick.

    But I will be giving a second thought next time I crave a Chicken Caesar Salad :D

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  78. MH on February 16, 2013 at 1:52 PM

    Douglas,

    I have asked Nick and Henry to refrain from making this a discussion about sex, so for consistency’s sake, I ask you to do the same. No Boy Scout leader should be having sex with scouts, no matter whether it is same gender or opposite gender. We already have laws against that, so to pile on with those comments is not productive. Please refrain. As I said before, this post is not about sex, it is about Boy Scout policy. If you can’t abide by the topic, please refrain from commenting.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  79. Brian on February 17, 2013 at 12:29 AM

    Mormonsandgays.org

    Check it out, Douglas. You are the reason the church created that website.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  80. Douglas on February 17, 2013 at 1:38 AM

    MH…I certainly don’t want to get graphic either. Do keep in mind that over the years of my adult(erer) life my views have actually mellowed considerably. At eighteen, being young and full of prunes (and at times other things incompatible with my later membership in the Church), terms such as “fag” and “queer” rolled off the tongue as easily as reciting the alphabet. I thought nothing then of joining my chums in drunken revelry and if we were about the Tower district (Fresno) and happened to spot a gay guy or two, said gay guy at minimum went home with a shiner or missing some teeth. Three times that age, both maturity and the teachings of the Gospel cause me to wonder what could have ever possessed me (besides the Adversary) to think assault, battery, and mayhem were how to deal with the issue. It’s not that my disdain of the LGBT sexual practices is any less, it’s that I’ve adopted a “live and let live” attitude towards the private consensual behavior of adults, regardless of how I feel about said behavior. I prefer to “duke it out” now in the marketplace of ideas, and it does give me insight into how the “other guy” thinks. But said “duking out” isn’t for ego, or some twisted sense of moral superiority. Forget that noise. Romans 3:23 is apropos..ALL have indeed sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, so ipso facto, yours truly is included in that number. I’m also amazed at how some ostensibly faithful members can smugly congratulate themselves on how “tolerant” they are because they practically endorse homosexuality. To them, I can only recite what the late SWK said about being “open minded” with the things of the Lord: It’s somewhat like being generous with other people’s money, another nauseating liberal trait.
    Now, suppose (assuming that the Church is THAT hard up) that I were a bishop…would I call a (presumably chaste) gay man (or lesbian), or at least someone who while not certain that he is gay at least has “struggled” with same, to work with the youth or in Primary? Not no but “heck” no! Even if that fellow were perfectly worthy of the temple would I do it. If nothing else, not only could it present putting the proverbial “stumbling block” in the poor man’s (or woman’s) path, but if the thing is known or could likely be commonly known, I wouldn’t want to stirs things up in the ward. To me, this is no different than refraining from calling a convicted embezzler to being the financial clerk. This wouldn’t necessarily be a personal condemnation of the “gay” man just because I’d bar him from participating as a Scout leader (note: if he has son(s) of scouting age, his participation in troop activities like any father shouldn’t be infringed. It might beggar the question of how possibly a gay man can be a good example vis-a-vis the Gospel towards his sons, but if he’s doing the right thing, why make it any harder on him?).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  81. Henry on February 17, 2013 at 6:05 AM

    Brian:
    And people like you want the church and the Boy Scouts to be 100% accepting of this way of life.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  82. Brian on February 17, 2013 at 9:33 AM

    Actually, Henry, I am good with the mormonsandgays.org message. The church, to me, is a man-made organization that believes very old notions that gays are working against nature and somehow harmful to others. I have no idea why a gay person would want to attend.

    If the formal church and its members would simply love gays as they do their own family members or friends, I would be happy. But if members think gays are horrible, evil people at least acknowledge the interolerance and bigotry in that position.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  83. Douglas on February 17, 2013 at 6:36 PM

    #82 – Brian. MOST members, myself included, do NOT think that gays are “horrible, evil people” at all. We feel that they are caught up in a lifestyle which degrades them and everyone they interact with. It is the PRACTICE of homosexual acts that the Church decries. Since you consider it a “man-made” organization, and pompously presume to define “bigotry” and “intolerance” as any position that doesn’t agree with what you want, there’s little to discuss other than to invite you to turn away from it. IF indeed the Church is to be consistent with what it teaches on the subject, then it does you no favor to be “tolerant” or “accepting”, or worry about a popularity contest.
    Hence WHY gays working with the youth seems as out of place as a salad bar at Popeye’s.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  84. Brian on February 17, 2013 at 10:02 PM

    Thanks for the invite Douglas. Been there, done that.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  85. Neal on February 18, 2013 at 4:46 PM

    Douglas,

    #80 & #83 are examples of why you’re NOT a Bishop. You’ve admitted your past homopobia, and have clearly demonstrated your current homophobia.

    My current and former Bishops and my current and former Stake Presidents have all called me to positions with youth and Scouts, and yes, they all know I’m gay. Worthiness is worthiness. There is nothing we are potentially excluded from. I know many other gay Mormons who have similar callings. So you are sadly out of step with the Church and its policies. Wise up.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  86. Henry on February 18, 2013 at 5:10 PM

    Neal:
    There is a segment of the gay demographic that are avowed and out there and want everyone to know it including the Boy Scouts. Have you decided to be celibate? Do you refrain from going to gay bars and pride parades?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  87. Neal on February 18, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    Henry:
    There is also a segment of the population that are avowed Blog Trolls. Congratulations.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  88. Douglas on February 18, 2013 at 11:08 PM

    #87 – Neal, if I’m not a Bishop, it’s not for how I feel about gays. Assuming you’re even being truthful (it seems dubious), then remaining non-practicing AND working with young men is a tough row to hoe. I wouldn’t in good consciense ask anyone to do that.
    As for being a “homophobe”…you can falsely label my disdain for things LGBT as some sort of mental illness. Amazing how in only forty years since the American Psychiatry Assocation delisted homosexaulity as a mental illness how things have gotten turned around. And not for the better.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  89. Neal on February 19, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    Douglas,

    Nothing dubious here at all. I would encourage you to read the General Handbook of Instructions (Book 1) if you have any questions about official Church policy and gays. There are many of us serving in leadership capacities all over the Church.

    And there is no ‘tough row to hoe’ working with the young men (or youth in general). That’s your homophobia peeking through again.

    Here’s a quote from the current (March 2013) Ensign, page 78: “Elder Quintin L. Cook of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles stressed that Latter-day Saints should be an example to the world of expressing love and hope for those with same-gender attraction. As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate..”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  90. Henry on February 19, 2013 at 6:03 PM

    Neal:
    Are you referring to avowed, out and proud people or members trying to repent and stay clean? I am of the opinion that if one is truly repentant they will not go to gay bars or attend pride parades.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  91. Mormon Heretic on February 19, 2013 at 6:56 PM

    Henry, this is not about gay bars and pride parades. It’s about Boy Scouts. Please quit taking this off topic. If you can’t abide the topic, please refrain from commenting. Quit perpetuating stereotypes.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  92. Douglas on February 20, 2013 at 1:47 AM

    Ok, Neal, time to call “BS”. If you were genuine in being called to serve as a gay (at least leaning, I don’t ask you to divulge to what extent you indulge it, if at all, that’s private, which is WHY I’ve said in not an entirely jocular fashion, “back in the closet”…ergo, TMI!!!). Handbook “One” is in fact confidential, although I was able to Google a version dating from 2010 (I assume not too much has changed since, and this version appears genuine). You would, if you were thus involved, know better than to even cite this work which is held in confidence by Intellectual Reserve. That’s why I won’t cite it in this forum, in order to respect its confidentiality. However, Handbook Two, which IS intended for public consumption, does give very clear policy in section 21.4.6 on homosexuality. Note that it neither proscribes NOR mandates the calling of persons with gay/lesbian inclinations as to working in ANY calling, youths and Scouting included. However, the wording is clear that callings are to be extended to those that do NOT engage in homosexual acts. Which is what I’ve been saying all along. My reluctance to call such a member to work with the Scouts or other youth positions is based on common sense, not bigotry. It would take a strong impression that, were I a bishop, that I’d be entitled to in order to override this view, that a non-practicing gay man should be thus called. I do not rule out that the Lord could NEVER inspire me to do things I hadn’t previously considered, but don’t bank on it. It’s not unlike, for example, how I’d do a brake job on a car. I’ve done probably two hundred or so in my lifetime. Normally one turns the brake rotors (or replaces them if scored or worn too thin). I have when the situation demanded it, gotten by with not having the rotors turned after evaluating them carefully and haven’t come to grief for it. Yet my experience in doing brakes says that this is not usually a good idea, and to do so often is to tempt fate. Well, the souls of our young people AND their teachers (be they gay or straight) are ever so much more important than to screw around in like manner, especially over goofy notions of tolerance, diversity, open-mindedness, and other attitudes designed to win approval of men rather than our Savior.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  93. Nick Literski on February 20, 2013 at 8:56 AM

    As laughably bizarre as Douglas’ rantings on this thread have been, I realize that he deserves respect for one thing. He’s placing his unfiltered beliefs on the table, free from the careful guidance of the LDS Public Relations Department. He’s honest enough to hold himself up as a target of disgust and revulsion, without concern for what impact his words may have on public perception of his church.

    Unfortunately, Douglas also demonstrates why even with the many reasonable, fair-minded people in the Bloggernacle, most GLBT citizens will continue to look upon the LDS church as a bigotted, benighted, neanderthal throwback with regard to these matters. To be honest, most of us suspect that the BSA put off its decision precisely because of pressure received from LDS leaders who spoke privately in the same way Douglas has spoken publicly. Those of you with functioning brains and hearts have a long way to go, before the church you love becomes a reflection of the deity you worship.

    So congratulations, Douglas, and thank you for ripping the pretty mask off the beast lying at 50 East North Temple. I hope it brings you joy, rather than the fear and anger your words portray.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  94. Douglas on February 20, 2013 at 12:48 PM

    Nick…CHILL.
    I get castigated by a moderator for expressing my personal disgust over the sexual practices of an “active” gay and why allowing same access to impressionable lads, and the best you can do is hurl invectives. The issue to me isn’t whether I win, it’s whether you lose your soul over your pride and your refusal to turn away from this lifestyle that will inevitably ensnare you firmly in the Adversary’s grip. Don’t concern yourself org with the words of the Apostle Paul (Romans 1:27, Galatians 4:16). If I can’t dissuade you of your error, at least I’ll do my part in protecting the Youth from it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  95. Andrew S. on February 20, 2013 at 1:58 PM

    re 94,

    Douglas,

    I see Nick as being pretty chill, especially given the circumstances here.

    But it definitely seems to me that at this point, no one is on topic.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  96. Neal on February 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM

    Douglas,

    You’re not listening. Worthiness is WORTHINESS. It has nothing to do with your sexual orientation. So obviously if someone has been called to a leadership postion they are considered worthy. Sheesh!

    And PLEASE – give me break on your piety around Book 1. You looked at it, after all. And it says that gays can have callings if they are worthy, which is what I have been saying all along.

    And yes, Douglas, your Bishop could be gay for all you know. I know several.

    Nick:

    You make me laugh!

    Andrew:

    You are correct. The topic is whether the Church should support a change in the Boy Scouts that would allow gay men to serve and gay youth to participate. In light of current Church policy and statements from Apostles and other General Authorities on being inclusive and supportive of LGBT people in the Church and out of it – the answer is a resounding “YES!”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  97. Douglas on February 20, 2013 at 3:42 PM

    Oh…Bruutherrr….(pun intended)
    I have listened, but haven’t caved in to political correctness. I said with my first post in this (jacked) thread that conduct, not orientation, determines worthiness. But there’s also fitness. There may not be a specific policy that prohibits gay members from working with the Youth, but neither does it direct Bishops to disregard same. It also doesn’t specifically bar wife-beaters from serving in Scouting, but who in his right mind would allow it? I only looked at a purported copy of Handbook One since you mentioned it. Satisfied that on salient points it and the public one are identical, I can at least respond as to Church policy having done my homework. So to reiterate what I’d likely do with an otherwise worthy gay man re: Scouting..I’d be disinclined to acquiese (means no). However, suppose such a man was ALREADY serving? Ah…I’d be lying to say that I wouldn’t consider releasing him, but that’s not a given. If his conduct and service were exemplary, and the kids like him, I’d put my personal feelings aside and let him continue serving.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  98. Douglas on February 20, 2013 at 3:58 PM

    #94 – I’d advise you to not view this blog through the optics employed by swine. It seems that said creature would have to be airborne before you’d rebuke any gay or liberal who posts in an obnoxious manner. Of course, I should know better than to expect objectivity from one whose avatar is “Saint Barry”. FYI, mine is “Robot Santa” from Futurama, toting a M1928 Thompson SMG, but I haven’t figured out how to get it aboard.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  99. Neal on February 20, 2013 at 4:04 PM

    Yes, Douglas, and your perception of ‘fitness’ is where you bigotry is displayed, because you are incorrectly assuming and implying that gay people are dangerous to children.

    I think this dead horse has been thoroughly floggged…

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  100. Douglas on February 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM

    No I don’t necessarily consider a gay man as a danger to kids. I’ve let my youngest go with her uncle and never thought twice of it.
    There’s precious little meat on that deceased nag b/c your trolling didn’t work. Better luck next thread.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  101. Nick Literski on February 20, 2013 at 4:58 PM

    Douglas, your #100 assumes we’re all far too careless to actually read your posts. Of course you’d let your FEMALE child go with “her” allegedly gay uncle. That’s because, as you’ve made plain throughout this thread, you consider gay men an inherent threat to young BOYS, not girls.

    Like I said, thank you for putting forth the reality that the LDS church so carefully hides behind all its pretty LDS “we love the gays” ads and websites. I’d rather deal with an honest and open disgusting bigot, than the disgusting bigots who hide behind public perception ad campaigns.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  102. Nick Literski on February 20, 2013 at 7:31 PM

    My last comment sounds much too harsh. In reality, I suspect that a very LARGE portion of individuals on LDS are coming to their senses in favor of equality. I suspect even one or two among the highest LDS leadership are leaning forward—-the same way a few did in the years leading up to the 1978 priesthood revelation.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  103. Henry on February 21, 2013 at 6:10 AM
  104. Nick Literski on February 21, 2013 at 7:04 AM

    Henry, what does that article have to do with the BSA, let alone with gay boys or men? Are you actually so ignorant that you don’t know the difference between sexual orientation and gender identity?

    Funny how certain religious zealots want to conflate these topics to show the supposed “horrors” (read: “how dare YOU violate MY religion!?!?”) of marriage equality. Why not actually show something about marriage—such as the established fact that since marriage equality became law in Massachussetts, that state has had the lowest divorce rate in the U.S.?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  105. Howard on February 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM

    Three times that age, both maturity and the teachings of the Gospel cause me to wonder what could have ever possessed me (besides the Adversary) to think assault, battery, and mayhem were how to deal with the issue. It’s not that my disdain of the LGBT sexual practices is any less, it’s that I’ve adopted a “live and let live” attitude towards the private consensual behavior of adults, regardless of how I feel about said behavior.

    It’s really wonderful to see that you have grown Douglas! Thank God for maturity and the gospel! Huh? Perhaps you will continue growing? I suspect most here hope so.

    But your comments do not appear appear to reflect much “live and let live” in fact you seem quite intolerant which may be why this is such a big issue for the BSA and why the church found it necessary to publish a new gay related website stressing loving one another. Have you grown to the point of loving gay brothers and sisters? If not do you see yourself reaching that point soon?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  106. D Christian Harrison on February 21, 2013 at 9:44 AM

    * sigh *

    What a frothy mess.

    As an out gay man who is also a current elders quorum teacher, a former executive secretary, a former ward clerk — callings ad nauseum, all while being an out gay man — I would like to put to rest the notion that being gay is a disqualifier for service in the Kingdom. It didn’t use to be that way; just admitting that one was gay was enough to get one excommunicated not too long ago.

    And that’s germane to our conversation, because it means that the Church is ALREADY ahead of the BSA on the matter of gay leaders (not far ahead, mind you — but I’ll take progress where I find it). And since we’re expected to include all the youth in a ward in the youth program, the Church is already ahead of the BSA on the matter of gay youth (again, though, not by much).

    So it’s a moot question for us, technically.

    But reality on the street is that members need a consistent barrage of small movements to make any advancement at all. As is evidenced by much of the discussion in this thread.

    Which brings me to one point that’s been raised in-thread … and that’s the idea that somehow having gay boys sharing tents with straight boys is like girls sharing tents with boys.

    It’s not.

    Let me make it clear for those of you who bandy this notion around: gay boys are not surrogates or otherwise interchangeable with girls. Straight boys know the difference, and they’re not interested.

    Moreover, if you think that straight boys aren’t already horsing around in those tents, then apparently you have a woefully lacking understanding of the curious minds of boys.

    Anyway … the problem isn’t gay youth or gay leaders. You can’t catch teh gay. So if your child is misbehaving it’s on them (and you). The issue, here, is education. We teach our youth appropriate boundaries and expect that they’ll occasionally cross them — because they’re human and children, to boot.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  107. Douglas on February 21, 2013 at 1:59 PM

    #108 – assuming you’re on the level, who could possibly object to your service in the mentioned callings over your sexual orientation? As long as you keep the law of Chastity and the other commandments, your (presumably repressed) inclinations don’t matter. But it is tough for anyone LGBT to continue in this Church, and Nick’s rants notwithstanding, I don’t want to make it even harder. Not everyone is on board with this concept. A good lady friend needed months and repeated interviews with her SP before he’d issue a temple recommend, all on the basis that she still has attractions to other women and hasn’t entirely severed contact with her former. The irony is that said former partner is herself LDS and played a role in my friend’s gaining a testimony. What business is it anyone’s that they have contact at all, as long as it’s “platonic”?
    What I strenuously oppose is any lessening the teachings that homosexual actions, like any other deviation from what the Lord has sanctified in marriage, should be accepted. In light of what the scriptures and prophets have said, I don’t think so.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  108. D Christian Harrison on February 21, 2013 at 2:15 PM

    I’m on the level. I have a long history with the Bloggernacle and most folks around here know me (though my handle used to be Silus Grok).

    The fact of the matter — and a fact that seems to have escaped several in this thread — is that I’m gay whether or not I keep the law of chastity. So my keeping the law of chastity is the point, not my orientation. Yet, for the BSA and those who support the ban, orientation is an issue regardless of behavior. And that’s a problem. That’s the rub. That’s why people are angry.

    As for your final paragraph … I think you’re in for a rude awakening. Love is love. The Lord knows this — the Church just has to catch up.

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  109. Henry on February 21, 2013 at 2:16 PM

    What I strenuously oppose is any lessening the teachings that homosexual actions, like any other deviation from what the Lord has sanctified in marriage, should be accepted

    Problem is Douglas, that is what is happening. You think W&T is liberal on this, try FMH.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  110. D Christian Harrison on February 21, 2013 at 2:23 PM

    And it’s happening, Henry, because we’re moving towards a truth not away from one.

    Line upon line, Henry … line upon line … 

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  111. Nick Literski on February 21, 2013 at 2:25 PM

    There you go again, Douglas, with your obsession over “homosexual actions.”

    Since it seems to excite you so much, let me share my “homosexual actions” of the day:

    (1) Showered, shaved, brushed my teeth, and used a non-toxic natural deoderant,
    (2) Got dressed, and picked out extra clothes to change into later for the class I help teach after work on Thursdays,
    (3) Walked the dog,
    (4) Took out the trash,
    (5) Drove to work,
    (6) Helped my employees provide compensation and medical benefits to those who sacrificed their health–sometimes their lives–in protecting this country,
    (7) Spoke with my daughter to help her manage a crisis,
    (8) Conferred with human resources in finalizing my hiring of a disabled veteran for an important position in my office,
    (9) Gave in to the fact that I’ve felt ill most of the day, and gave notice to the instructor that I won’t be able to assist her with class this evening,
    (10) Ate a mild lunch to avoid throwing up,
    (11) Responded to an inane homophobe who clearly assumes that all gay men are potential sexual predators.

    There you go, Douglas! All 100% bona fide, genuine “homosexual activities,” performed by a fully-verified, self-avowed, refusing-to-follow-YOUR-religion homosexual. Bet you’re all excited now, aren’t you?

    Fan Favorite! Do you like this comment as well? Thumb up 4

  112. D Christian Harrison on February 21, 2013 at 2:31 PM

    Oh, Nick … you always were the warm fuzzy type.

    Hope you feel better soon.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  113. Nick Literski on February 21, 2013 at 2:35 PM

    LOL! Well, Christian, as I’ve told others, I’m actually just a big teddy bear—-with a “Don’t **** With Me” sign around his neck! ;-)

    Thanks for the well-wishes!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  114. Howard on February 21, 2013 at 2:50 PM

    …I strenuously oppose is any lessening the teachings that homosexual actions, like any other deviation from what the Lord has sanctified in marriage, should be accepted.

    Why?
    How does this affect you?
    Would you support it if the church did?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  115. Henry on February 21, 2013 at 4:30 PM

    Howard:
    What a dumb question.

    Why?
    How does this affect you?

    Humanity is interdependent, what one does affects someone else eventually. You know this. You are just trying to stir the pot.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  116. Howard on February 21, 2013 at 4:40 PM

    Henry,
    Not stirring the pot, attempting to understand. Try answering less globally more locally and personally. If Humanity is interdependent, how does this affect you personally? Or you and your family, if you like?

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  117. Henry on February 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM

    Howard
    You have asked this question millions of times. You know the answer.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  118. Nick Literski on February 21, 2013 at 5:26 PM

    Just as Henry has refused to answer that question “millions” of times. He knows that his answer is made up of prejudicial falsehoods.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  119. will on February 21, 2013 at 5:40 PM

    Nick/Henry,

    You guys are still fighting about this and are discussing things that really don’t matter. What does, and should matter, is that a private organization should be allowed to set whatever polices they want with their own money. They should be allowed to restrict gays, lesbians, blacks, whites, Mormons, Catholics or whoever for whatever reason they want. It’s their freaking money. That is the issue.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  120. Nick Literski on February 21, 2013 at 5:49 PM

    Actually, Will, I entirely agree that the BSA, as a private organization, has the legal right to determine its membership requirements. I’ve never suggested otherwise. That also means, however, that they have the right to change their policy and allow gay scouts and/or leaders. I don’t believe I violate their rights in any way by advocating such a change. In fact, they openly encouraged input from the public on the subject!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  121. will on February 21, 2013 at 5:59 PM

    Nick,

    They are in a no win situation and unfortunately the people pushing for acceptance of gay scout masters will be downfall of a good organization. If they given in fully by saying they will accept gay scout masters, or do a lukewarm solution like allowing troups to make the call, some religious groups who provide the majority of the funding will pull out. If they hold the line, they will lose funding and some camp sites. In either scenario, it will weaken them financially. My gut is telling me they will go with a middle of the road approach and allow the troups to decide; the LDS church will pull out and the Boys Scouts will eventually fade into oblivion.

    I’m ok with this; I never really liked scouting even when I was heavily involved with my boys.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  122. Douglas on February 21, 2013 at 6:15 PM

    #101,#120 (Nick L.) – are you SERIOUS? I’d say you proved that “flaming” isn’t an adjective that one should use solely with regard to homosexuals…because your flaming hatred seems more based on apostasy, bigotry, and good-old-fashioned bitterness, which I’ve seen likewise in all too many “straights”. Congrats, Nick, you’ve achieved “equality”…equally caught up in the “gall of bitterness” and “bond of iniquity”. How do you like it? Note, sir, that I referred to (homo)sexual actions, NOT the actions that a gay man might do that has nothing to do with his sexual proclivities. Your response is demeaning and insulting, and proof of your non-existent “tolerance” towards your erstwhile fellow LDS and those who do NOT share your views on homosexuality. What you demand of others, sir, you seem to be unwilling to give yourself. As for my child and her being in the company of her gay uncle, it had nothing to do with the (false) spectre that a gay man is a potential pedophile. Cripes, if I believed that, I wouldn’t have my (then) toddler daughter around ANYONE I suspected of that heinous perversion, be he (or she) gay or straight. My concern was, and still would be, about EXAMPLE, and on that the Bro-in-Law is “aces” in my book. He does NOT flaunt his sexual orientation in my home, and does his level best to not make it an issue when accommodating family members. OTOH, he IS a family member, and we’ve gone to great lengths to accept him and his partner (he’s actually had three that I’m aware of since I’ve known him). If all the kids know until they’re old enough to comprehend the issue is that their Uncle has a good friend, then that suffices. Now that the daughter, being 12, is old enough to understand it, she dearly loves her Uncle anyway, which is how it should be.

    #108 (this time I got it right)…your keeping of the Law of Chastity and having a testimony of the Gospel is what matters, not your orientation. Do I share your view that the Church’s view on homosexual marriage, or the legitimization of homosexual “love” (I’ll assume you mean expressed sexually in the marriage sense but do correct me if I err) ought to change, is changing, or will change? Not at all. Do I believe that gay members who make the huge sacrifice to repress their sexual desires in order to live the Gospel should be commended and encouraged, and not judged? A resounding YES! Do I feel them fit to work with the Youth in general and Scouting in particular? NO…but some of them are parents as well, and shouldn’t be barred from the same Scouting experience normally extended to ALL parents. If I were a bishop and were directed to disregard sexual orientation in ALL callings, would I follow that directive (even for Scouting?). Yes. In all things…the Lord knows what He’s doing.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  123. Andrew S on February 21, 2013 at 6:43 PM

    re 121,

    will,

    Actually, if you’re coming at this from a perspective of what private entities may do, then this is a win-win situation.

    In the same way that the BSA, as a private organization, is allowed to set whatever policies they want with their money, then accordingly, organizations or individuals that disagree with those policies have the right to vote with their wallets when they disagree with those policies.

    The BSA has the choice to weigh where it thinks it can get or keep more support — by maintaining policies that many of its financial backers find to be dealbreakers, or by revising its policies accordingly (with the attendant loss of funding that may bring from other financial backers.)

    I guess what you’re really getting at is that the BSA cannot have its cake and eat it too. But you know…tradeoffs are a part of life. There must needs be opposition in all things…

    As a private organization, it completely has the right to weigh those options and decide for itself what it wants to do.

    But this post is also about what the church should do. So, one question is: should the church abide the BSA’s current policies (no gay leaders or gay scouts — no matter what), when such policies disagree with the church’s own stance (e.g., the church’s stance is that a gay member can be in good standing if they follow the Law of Chastity).

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  124. will on February 21, 2013 at 9:15 PM

    The church should start their own organization if the Boy Scouts allows gay’s to be scout masters to protect all sides, including the gay scout master. This is a recurring standard by the church. For example, the church requires a member of the Bishopric and a clerk to open all donations; count all donations and deposit all donations. This protects the donations and mitigates the temptation for someone in a weak moment to pocket these funds.

    When I was a church leader, I requested that all men taking babysitters home do so with their spouse or one of their older children. This stemmed from an incident where a member of the Bishopric was accused of making the moves on a young lady who he was taking home after she watched his kids. She held firm, he denied it, but regardless his life was ruined.

    Likewise it is not a good idea to have men supervise a group of 16-18 year old young women in an intimate setting, just as it is not a good idea for a gay man to supervise young men from the ages of 16-18. Men are stimulated by nudity and it is not a good idea to put them in a situation where they are tempted to seek a peak in intimate settings such as Lake Baths, public showers with limited privacy or changing in a nearby tent. If you don’t think men seeking nudity (women or men) is not a problem, you need to pull your head out of the sand.

    A final note, you have to remember you are dealing with teenage boys who don’t always have the best ideas, especially when they are acting as a group. Let’s see, when I was involved they put aerosol cans in the fire; locked the scout master in the port-a-potty; started the area around the lake on fire; and, would catch squirrels with the fire gloves, put them in a balloon launcher and hurl them into the middle of the lake. I don’t think it is inconsiderable for them to find out one of the scout masters is gay and accuse him of making the moves on them. If they did, the gay scout master would have little or no defense. They could do the same to a straight man, but the odds would be in favor of the accused.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  125. hawkgrrrl on February 21, 2013 at 9:25 PM

    DCH – thank you for your great comments. You are spot on that the church’s current stance is more progressive than the BSA’s.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 2

  126. Howard on February 21, 2013 at 9:41 PM

    Will,
    While I don’t agree with everything you had to say in 124 I wanted to mention I do like the emerging clarity and logic of this comment.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  127. Will on February 21, 2013 at 9:54 PM

    Howard,

    This is especially true with something as politically charged as this. I could totally see young men (some even coaxed by adults) setting up gay men as a form of retaliation. It would sure scare a lot of them out of the program.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  128. Howard on February 21, 2013 at 10:16 PM

    While I’m not as naturally suspicious as you seem to be I can’t argue that it couldn’t happen, after all Douglas admits to assault and battery for apparently breathing while gay. I’m very thankful the church is calling for us to love one another.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  129. Douglas on February 21, 2013 at 11:28 PM

    #128 – I ADMIT to being young, drunk, stupid, and willing back in the day (1978) to readily resort to fistcuffs. It’s not as if I and my then fellow louts conspired to go assault some gays…we weren’t THAT sophisticated. Trouble was, when and where (Fresno) we were, you could get away with it. I’m glad now that AFAIK, nothing more serious than a few shiners, bruises, or similar superficial injuries typical of a fistfight resulted. Even at that, it doesn’t seem like the ‘good old days’ NOW. It didn’t even take decades to look back with regret There were a few incidents that were more serious that shocked me, and, also, this was about the same time as the Harvey Milk thing up in the City. I was also starting to take missionary discussion, and laying aside the partying, so I lost interest in hell raising and bullying. I can honestly say that once I’d learned about what the Lord considers to be a more fitting method to “laying on the hands” that the notion of assualting anyone, even someone whose lifestyle I abhorred, seemed utterly ludicroous.
    Hence why it stays purely in the marketplace of ideas.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  130. Will on February 22, 2013 at 4:58 AM

    Howard,

    Not every ward clerk is going to steal donations, and not every hot teen baby sitter is going to make false accusations, The point is, the church sets these policies to protect these members and I think the church should have the right to protect the leaders and scouts in the way they seem fit.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  131. Howard on February 22, 2013 at 5:27 AM

    Congratulations Will, you have now made a clear logical argument for your position!

    Douglas I was using your admitition as evidence to support Will’s argument. if you felt that way once others could feel that way today. I think it’ great that you found the church/gospel and in doing so are no longer motivated to assault and batter gays but if that desire continues in your thoughts you would benefit from taking a hard look at your bias and anger. Perhaps you should consider that your admitition says much more about you, your past violent dysfunctional behavior and your apparently current unChristlike thoughts than anything about gays.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  132. Henry on February 22, 2013 at 6:11 AM

    Howard/Nick:
    Gays are attempting to subvert society and make homosexuality appear normal and good. Here’s to hoping the Boy Scouts stand their ground.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  133. Howard on February 22, 2013 at 6:22 AM

    I know Henry Blacks did something very similar in the 60s and look at how that turned out! They don’t even sit in the back of the bus any more. Society will never be the same!

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  134. Howard on February 22, 2013 at 7:21 AM

    Btw, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman the man who supplies his Business Jets to Pres. Monson and crew for their use has just endorsed gay marriage according to this morning’s Deseret News and he is encouraging conservatives to follow him.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  135. Mormon Heretic on February 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM

    Howard, Jon Huntsman Jr was governor of Utah. His father is the one supplying jets for the brethren, and I believe that Senior is an Area Authority. I’m not surprised at Junior’s position. It would make bigger news if Senior made the same announcement.

    Here’s the DesNews article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865573814/Huntsman-backs-gay-marriage-calls-for-conservatives-to-push-issue.html

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  136. Howard on February 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM

    Thanks for the correction MH.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  137. Douglas on February 22, 2013 at 3:34 PM

    My “bias”, Howard, is that I follow the teachings that prophets of yore and today on the subject…that the Lord considers it an abomination in His eyes. I don’t have the authority to dilute His teachings on the basis of political correctness. By the same token, I’ve been more of the “look at conduct, not at inclination” mindset for many years even before the experiences of my bro-in-law and my lady friend, and I do find the former message a tough sell in light of my desire to have LGBT folks embrace the gospel as well. But you can’t do it by changing what the Lord has said through His servants. If I were to do that, I’d be under far greater condemnation than any gay person. If you consider THAT bigotry, then you’ve ’86-ed’ the Gospel, and I’ll I can do is bear testimony of it knowing full well you’ll like reject it. What Al Pacino recited as John Milton, Esq. in “The Devil’s Advocate”, is, unfortunately, spot-on. Free Agency is truly a “Witch with a capital ‘B’”

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  138. Henry on February 22, 2013 at 6:17 PM

    Howard
    Comparing blacks to sexual preference gets old.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  139. Nick Literski on February 22, 2013 at 6:43 PM

    Henry, that intentional game of referring to sexual “preference” gets even older. It’s an insulting and demeaning attempt to deny that sexual orientation exists. For some bizarre, unfathomable reason, it makes you feel better about yourself if you pretend that gay men are really just heterosexuals who suddenly decided to piss off your deity for fun. You’d get more respect if you’d stop trying to convince yourself that you know other people’s life experience better than they do.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 3

  140. Geoff - A on February 22, 2013 at 7:49 PM

    Have you been to see Lincoln yet. One of the things I noticed was that the same list of assertions being used to oppose gay marriage were being used to keep slavery.

    To preserve society; to allow will trample the rights of the majority
    the bible is against it -and prophets
    not natural

    Those who think like this now, had they lived then would have fought to preserve slavery.

    I have decided I will not raise the gay marriage question(but will question assertions), and will just wait till the church accepts it.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  141. Howard on February 22, 2013 at 8:11 PM

    Douglas,
    While I disagree because I choose to elevate love and charity over biblical prohibitions that may have nothing to do with homosexuality or homosexuality today I do respect your #137 comment because it is founded in logic, thank you for making it and for your honesty in prior comments.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  142. Douglas on February 22, 2013 at 8:39 PM

    #141 – Likewise. At some point, we can only agree that we don’t but keep it agreeable. Whether what kisses your skin is temple garments or “tighty whiteys”, it’s not worth getting them in a twist.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  143. Howard on February 22, 2013 at 9:03 PM

    Lol! Too funny Douglas! Both have kissed at one time or another.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  144. Henry on February 23, 2013 at 12:31 AM

    So if it’s a fact that SOME gay men target 12, 13, 14, 15 year old boys for sex, why shouldn’t there be some kind of protection for them in the Boys Scouts and other organizations?
    Gays like to pretend that their people are not guilty of predatory behavior. This exists in the gay and straight worlds. It’s called cruising for sex.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  145. D Christian Harrison on February 23, 2013 at 7:15 AM

    Henry: those protections already exist — minimum two-deep adult attendance at all events and adults not sharing tents with kids.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 1

  146. FireTag on February 23, 2013 at 8:55 AM

    Geoff – A:

    A 21st Century screenplay will view 19th Century social issues in the prism of the 21st Century, so, of course, it writes lines for 19th Century characters that reflect the 21st Century arguments.

    To the extent historical fiction can represent universal types of worldviews, ok, but “Lincoln” provides no new connection between racial and gender rights that isn’t of recent origin.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  147. Neal on February 23, 2013 at 9:11 AM

    Yes, DCH

    The protections actually go much further than that, which you learn if you go through the Scout leader training program.

    Its also worth noting that Scouting outside the LDS Church is a co-ed organization. Women and girls regularly participate. In fact, I just attended a Disctrict Scout Meeting and the Scout Executive there was a woman, the Venture Scouts leader was a girl, and there were several other women leaders in attendance. Co-ed participation offers much more ‘danger’ for Scouts and leaders to become sexually involved than participation of gays ever would. As I’ve mentioned before, the Scouting program in Canada, Europe, and many other countries allow openly gay leaders and Scouts and have done so for years. Its a non-issue in those countries. The only place people become unhinged about it is here in the US.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

  148. Douglas on February 24, 2013 at 2:01 PM

    No surprise about the participation of women in the BSA…a time-honored position for the Cubs was Den MOTHER. My own feeling is that by age eight it’s time to cut the apron strings, but, women have rendered valuable service. Our sisters can too.

    Like this comment? Thumb up 0

Leave a Reply

Subscribe without commenting

Archives

%d bloggers like this: