scouts-l Mail Archive for August of 2000: Re: BSA in the News
EXT-Reed, Randall C (Randy.Reed@HSV.BOEING.COM
Wed Aug 30 2000 - 06:45:47 CDT
Perhaps Jay used that word because he perceives the whole issue of gay Boy
Scout = immoral (as in "morally straight," pardon the pun) to be a somewhat
arbitrary criterion for membership in our organization. It occurs to me that
we entertain adults within our ranks who may have equally onerous moral
"baggage" (adultery, no visible sign of "acceptable" belief-system
practices, DUI, tax "problems," domestic violence arrests, etc.) but are not
required to undergo scrutiny, or, if they do, are not subject to the
assumption of total guilt until proven innocent, as we appear to be doing
with our homosexual brethren. Which then begs the question of adolescent
boys who discover they are gay, but have never dared to act out on their
orientation: We brand them as unfit to be a part of BSA because they even
dare to think about it, much less to act on it. IMHO, that can easily fit
under the umbrella of "homophobic."
Randall C. Reed
Scoutmaster, Troop 543
Central Florida Council
"...I used to be a Buffalo..."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rich [SMTP:rfl@OFFPRO.NET]
> Subject: Re: BSA in the News
> ><snip<> based upon BSA's
> > homophobic stance. ><snip><
> You're killin' me...
> ....killin' me
> Ok, I'll take the bait.
> Why homophobic stance?
> Why not "moral stance" or "principled stance" or just
> I've never quite understood why, if I have a concern or
> disagreement or opposing viewpoint, I am suddenly "a bigot"
> or "bigoted", or "homophobic", or "prejudiced" or "racist"
> or one of those other "unarguable" labels? What ever
> happened to "neutral" terms?