From: bones@u36.uucp (Lance Sibley)
Subject: Re: Proposal? (girls, atheists, sexuality)
Summary: I've had enough!
Organization: U36 Research
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 04:56:42 GMT

I've been following this discussion since the newsgroup started. And I am
getting a little tired of the attitude that the BSA know what is "best" and
what is "moral." I consider myself a fairly moral person. I don't cheat (not
even on my income taxes!), steal or kick little old ladies. I try to live
my own life as quietly as possible, for the most part, just trying to make
my little corner of the world a little nicer.

My little corner of the world, by the way, used to include the 182nd Toronto
Scout Troop. And before that, the 37th Toronto Cub Pack. So, while I am
not affiliated in any way with BSA, I think I have the right to comment on
what my American "cousins" are up to. 

In article <1992Mar30.161821.15657@ulowell.ulowell.edu> rcashman@cs.ulowell.edu (The Jester) writes:
>
>The BSA is not intolerant of your sexual preference.  They simply insist
>that a homosexual is not an adequate role model for a young man to gain
>traditional family values from (i.e. mom/dad/siblings, going to church on
>Sunday, etc.).  

I see. So, the fact that my boyfriend and I are getting married (and we
*refuse* to refer to it as a "blessed union," or any of the other euphemisms
that are being bandied about the Net) next February, we cannot be role
models because we're both male. Despite the fact that we intend to live
in our own little suburban home, and possibly, at some time in the future
when we both feel we're ready, adopt one or more children (yes, it *can*
be done), we cannot be role models. We cannot be your pretty little
"nuclear family," with a home in the suburbs and 2.3 children playing in 
the yard with the dog.

Says who?

>Granted, this is a narrow set of values, but
>I don't see it as being any more bigoted than your average gay bar or
>gay organization: a heterosexual is simply not welcome because of the life-
>style they represent: 

You've obviously never been involved in any gay organisation, or set foot
in any gay bar. One of my roommates, who is about as straight as you can
get, goes dancing with my fiance and I on a regular basis. He also attends
the campus gay group's weekly meetings, something neither I nor my fiance
have done in months. He's never been kicked out of either.

>In short, the BSA
>has no problem with homosexuals as people; rather, its the homosexual life-
>style that is (and will remain) the stumbling block.

Why?
 
>generally speaking, a homosexual lifestyle
>is not condusive to a typical and traditional family life

Define "typical." My parents divorced after 18 years of abusing each other
mentally, verbally and physically (and almost as long abusing me). Is this 
"typical?" If I marry my fiance, and we remain faithfully monogamous toward 
each other for the rest of our lives together, loving each other and trying
our hardest not to hurt each other, even unintentionally, is this atypical? 
Why?

>as a private organization, the BSA can refuse membership to anyone it wishes
>(and really doesn't even have to state a reason).  

Granted. That doesn't make it right. As many other people have pointed out
in this thread, you can replace "BSA" in the above sentence with "KKK."

>I'd consider them more hypocritical to buckle under
>to you people than to continue to stand up to you and refuse to com-
>promise the reasons behind its decision.

Our point, however, is that those reasons must be re-thought. We do not
consider them valid. I am as capable of maintaining a monogamous, married
relationship with my boyfriend/fiance as any heterosexual man. In fact,
(and this may simply be my ego speaking here, although I do not believe
so) I believe that my ability to maintain such a monogamous relationship
for the rest of my life is better than your standard heterosexual male in
today's society, simply because of what I saw my parents do to each other
and the firm belief that I have since formulated that I do not want to
ever experience the same sort of antagonistic, hate-filled relationship
with my spouse.

>>>Please
>>>desist in the inflammatory writing; its not fair to either side of the
>>>issue.

I certainly hope that I have been able to keep the inflammatory rhetoric
out of my writing. If not, I am more than sure that you will let me
know, in no uncertain terms. :-)

>By the same token, homosexual boys
>are excluded because, by virtue of their sexuality, they have chosen a life-
>style that does not fit into the BSA's grand scheme.  

"Grand scheme?" Oh dear, better cross-post to alt.conspiracy. :-) Seriously,
what "grand scheme" are you referring to, and how does my intent to form
a life-long, monogamous homosexual relationship contradict this scheme?

Anybody, please feel free to reply in any constructive manner. I am trying
to maintain a useful dialogue here and am interested in hearing the opinions
of anybody who may differ with me (and I can almost see the queue forming
already! :-) ).


-- 
Lance A. Sibley     "Sybok! This Sybok is a madman!"
Waterloo, Ontario   "Not so, Captain; in fact, he has cured me of my delusion
bones@u36.uucp       that I was Shirley MacLaine in a previous life."
                          - Kirk/Caitlin Dar, "Star Trek V: The Funny Frontier"
Newsgroups: rec.scouting