scouts-l Mail Archive for August of 2000: BSA in the News (follow-up)
Wed Aug 30 2000 - 08:50:37 CDT
Having responded to several "Private" messages yesterday, I failed to
note that Rich had posted to Scouts-L, as well. So here's a copy of my
This morning's (Wednesday) N.Y.Times has a letter to the editor (by
Harvey Marshak) responding to the article I cited; and the Washington
Post has an opinion piece (about 18 column inches) "Sins of the Scouts"
(make no assumption from the headline) by Michael Kelly, editor-in-chief
of the National Journal - also in response to the article I cited.
> Subject: Re: BSA in the News
> Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:29:01 -0400
> To: email@example.com
> Rich wrote:
> > Why homophobic stance?
> > Why not "moral stance" or "principled stance" or just
> > "stance."
> I am sure that BSA would state that it is against homophobia, it just
> believes that sexual orientation is, in fact, a lifestyle choice and
> immoral based upon the moral values (a Scout is Clean, a Scout is
> Morally straight) it promotes. "Love the sinner, not the sin.", Uhuh!
> Well if it looks, quacks, and waddles like a duck....
> There is adequate arguement in nature that diversity is G-d's design.
> There is asexual, bisexual, heterosexual, transexual, and homosexuality
> among both the plant and animal kingdom. And, these patterns have
> proved successful over the millenia. It could be argued that not to
> trust that design is not to trust G-d.
> So to call it a moral stance limits G-d. To call it a principled stance
> (IMO) limits you. And, we have so many other areas in which we agree.
> If you believe that it is an "orientation" (as I do) rather than a
> "lifestyle choice" then it isn't a validation of beliefs but one of
> In our world we generally deal with people for their actions - not who
> they are, or for their beliefs. Were Dale known to be a pediphile that
> would be a different matter.
> That's why I (and others) view it as a homophobic stance.
> We also have to take care in the messages we transmit - merely through
> exclusion or shunning. It has been reported (true or not) that one of
> the killers of Mathew Shepard is an Eagle Scout.
> > 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?
> > Talk about intolerance.....Geez...
> So what am I to understand? It sounds as if you are against Dale (and
> others) for being what they are, and not for something they did to you
> or someone else. I'm not the one labeling you. Please tell me how this
> can be made "neutral".