What is the position of the people who say that it is OK to have gay members in the Boy Scouts of America?
Description
This article is from the Scouting FAQ, by Bill Nelson nelsonb@nospam.aztec.asu.edu, Soaring Golden Eagle eagle@rangernet.org and Alan Houser troop24@emf.net with numerous contributions by others.
What is the position of the people who say that it is OK to have gay members in the Boy Scouts of America?
A: The following was compiled by a number of people who have
taken the position that it is OK to have gay members in the
Boy Scouts of America in this group. It is not ment
to represent everyone who does not agree with the BSA policy.
Question: Doesn't the Bible prohibit homosexuality?
Answer:
No. Read literally, the Bible says nothing
about homosexual orientation, only about
sex acts between men. And even there, it only
prohibits certain kinds of sex acts, and only
to Jews.
The relevant passage is Leviticus 18:22 --
"Ve'et zachar lo tishkav mishkevey ishah to'evah hi."
(And-(accusative-particle)
male don't lay like-you-lay woman "to'evah" that)
The word "to'evah" is the same word as in Deut 22:5,
which prohibits women from wearing pants:
"...ki *toavat* Adonay Eloheycha..."
(it's an abomination to the Lord your God)
The rabbis interpret this as a prohibition
of male-to-male anal intercourse,
which they considered to be the only form of
"laying a woman" that could be done to a man.
Now there are other rabbinical strictures that
evolved later, but the Biblical passage refers only
to males, only to Jews, and only to anal sex.
How do we know this is just to the Jews?
Because Leviticus 18, like many other chapters,
begins with boilerplate language that says just that:
"Vayedaber Adonay el-Moshe lemor
Daber el-beney Yisra'el ve'amarta alehem ..."
(God spoke to Moses, telling him to
Speak to the *Israelites*, and say to *them*:)
But aren't these universal sexual morality for everyone?
No.
Three verses earlier is a sexual rule for heterosexuals
that very few non-Jews obey:
"Ve'el-ishah benidat tum'atah lo tikrav legalot ervatah"
"And do not approach a woman who is taboo from
her period; this is a sexual offense".
(The taboo is described in Leviticus 15:25ff and covers the
time of her menstruation and seven clean days thereafter.)
It's hard to see the logic that says that Leviticus 18:22
should apply to everyone, but Leviticus 18:19 shouldn't!
Now of course, particular religious denominations have both
added restrictions and leniencies to these rules.
For instance, most Orthodox rabbis rule that the
prohibition of homosexual sex extends to B'nei Noach (everybody).
But aside from the fact that there's no reason
for the BSA to favor Biblical religions over others,
there's certainly no reason to favor the extra
restrictions of some denominations or to mock
or disparage the leniencies of others!
Question: Wasn't it unnecessary for the Scouts to
have a policy against homosexuality in the past, since
it was against the law, and there was a presumption
that scouts and leaders should be law-abiding?
Answer: No. Once again, the ambiguous use of the
term "homosexuality" to refer both to orientation
and to particular sexual acts creates this confusion.
The law did not forbid homosexuality, but,
like the Bible, only particular sex acts. And
most such laws forbade oral and anal sex between
opposite-sex partners as well as same-sex partners.
Question: But doesn't allowing homosexuals to lead scout
troops set a bad example? Why wouldn't they teach by
their mere presence that homosexual sex is condoned?
Answer: There are two answers. First of all,
Boy Scouts hire leaders who do all kinds of things,
and provided they don't do them in front of scouts,
it's not treated as any kind of endorsement. This
would include gamblers, drinkers, smokers, divorced
people, and so forth. They are allowed to have
their private vices, and even to avow them (e.g.
let it be known publically outside of scouting that
they are smokers) so long as they don't model them
for the boys (e.g. smoking at an event).
The fact that this argument is used only for homosexuals
smacks of a double standard.
Secondly, let us return to the distinction between
orientation and sexual behavior. Even if the
troop acknowledges that the sexual behavior is
wrong (which we have seen in another discussion
is not universally held, only in some religions),
we are forbidden to presume that a person of
homosexual orientation is actually engaging in
improper sexual activity. A fortiori, we are forbidden
to presume that he is recommending it to the boys.
This is both wrong and hypocritical. After all,
most unmarried heterosexual men engage in improper
sexual activity, and most boys in scouting know or
suspect this. Does this mean that we should have a rule
banning unmarried men from serving as scout leaders because
their presence teaches that premarital sex is proper?
Once again, we have a double standard, and also a violation
of the basic principle of not stereotyping one's fellow.
In fact, this principle *is* not only an American
principle, but it is also in the Scout Law and in the Bible.
Where in the Scout Law?
From A Scout is Friendly, Lowell writes:
"... No matter how strange, or how barbarous,
or how absurd the conduct of another person may appear,
it is the duty of every broad-minded man to put himself in that
other's place sufficiently to understand with his own
imagination what the other's actions mean from that other's
point of view. This breadth of mind is necessary if we
want to form true judgements and to be just in interpreting
the acts of other people, and it is part of the
intelligence of which we have just been speaking as necessary
'to help other people at all times.'"
Where in the Bible?
Right in the center
of Torah. The Book of Leviticus, chapter 19
verse 15 ends with "b'tsedek tishpot amitecha",
which means "in righteousness judge your people".
This verse is interpreted by the rabbis to mean
that you should give people the benefit of the
doubt. It is the foundation of the modern presumption
of innocence. Here is a summary
of the teachings of the Chofetz Chaim (famous
commentator on the laws of improper speech, among
other things) on that principle:
"If one sees a person what said or did something,
whether something Bein Adam L'Makom (between man and G-d)
or Bein Adam L'chaveiro (between man and
fellow man), and it's possible to judge the speech
or action favorably and give the
benefit of the doubt, if the person is a 'yirei Elokim'
(sincerely G-d fearing
individual), we are obligated to judge him favorably
even if the action in question is
more logically interpreted negatively.
"If the person is a 'beinoni' (average person) in that
he is generally careful to avoid
sin yet on occasion falters, and the doubt could be
equally interpreted favorably or
unfavorably, one is obligated to follow the favorable judgement.
This fulfills what our Sages say, that one who
jugdes his fellow favorably will receive favorable
judgement from G-d; he also upholds the commandment
(Lev. 19:15), 'Judge your fellow people righteously.'
Even if the speech or action seems more likely to have
a negative judgement as its interpretation, it is proper
that the matter should be considered a doubt,
and not as a definitive, negative evaluation."
This principle applies a fortiori to the case where
one doesn't see a person say or do anything, but
merely learns that he is in some category of people.
Continue to:
My Books
