On Monday, the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) announced its consideration to drop its long-standing exclusion of open homosexuals. This move may gain a few friends or make new enemies, but regardless of the consequences, it would violate the BSA’s integrity.

Every Eagle Scout (along with quite a few who stopped short) remembers the Scout Law: “A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.”

He pledges to keep this law in the Scout Oath: “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 and to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.”

The whole system rests on the last element in the Scout Law: reverence. Each of the other attributes takes its meaning from this goal. Reverence to the moral law and to our fellow men leads us to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, and the rest. While the organization may lift the ban on open homosexuals, it will not even consider removing the phrase about “duty to God.”

We seem to be on the edge of a new world, with a new morality giving us Obama’s promised Hope and Change. Sexism, secrecy, and fear yield to women’s choice, free sexual expression, and gay marriage.

But are the opponents of abortion, sex ed, and homosexuality merely behind the times?

The old sexual morality – that men and women are made for each other, and should restrict their lovemaking to a lifelong commitment for the sake of their own and their children’s happiness – seems restrained, clunky, painful. Why not live and let live?

Because this law – written in our very bodies – illustrates something beyond mere sexuality. It speaks to a secret behind the universe, an ultimate reality which morality exists to protect.

Gender – nearly universal in human language – describes some inanimate objects as masculine and feminine. Our ancestors did not impose maleness and femaleness on mountains and trees in order to keep women in the kitchen.

Indeed, men and women don’t measure up to the Masculine or the Feminine. How many men always look outside themselves, seeking ways to help – constantly prepared to defend what they love? How many women always see the inherent value of things, nurturing and giving birth to love and life?

No, the male and the female, biologically unnecessary (many plants reproduce asexually) “are rather faint and blurred reflections of the masculine and the feminine.” C. S. Lewis’ explanation in Perelandra continues, “Masculine and Feminine meet us on planes of reality where male and female would be simply meaningless.”

The very nature of love – which all agree to be the highest virtue – is thus two-edged. The Eagle Scout must “be prepared,” not just because the world is a dangerous place, but because it is his job as a man to defend good things.

But he needs a woman – a mother, eventually a wife – to show him the inherent value of things. Of course, not all women care primarily about growing and nurturing others (many even destroy the life in their wombs) – the Feminine, dwelling dimly in the female sex, teaches him.

But just because men and women don’t fully match the Masculine and Feminine does not mean they should reject the distinction. Naturally, men tend to look outward and women inward. Who is the better judge of character? Who has more physical strength?

Children look to their mother for value – their father for diplomacy. Their mother shows them how to grow and live, the father teaches them about the outside world.

Homosexuality is not wrong because it affirms the value of another person of the same sex. It is wrong because it forgets the other sex. It is wrong because it is a lie about the universe.

Love is both active and passive – defensive and nurturing. Children need a mother and a father to see this, and it is perfectly reasonable for the Boy Scouts to reject those who deny it.

That said, it is incumbent on Eagle Scouts to recognize the value of everyone – no matter their sexual orientation. The organization teaches love through service, and no matter how wrong homosexuality is, it does not invalidate a person.

Excluding openly gay people is not “hate.” Indeed, it is one of the few ways the organization can correct a social ill, teaching boys about the two sides of love by standing on principle.

There is no bravery in caving to cultural trends. There is no loyalty in abandoning a century-long tradition. There is no reverence in debunking the family. And as controversial as it may sound, there is no love in homosexuality.

 


Comments

Anna Maria
01/30/2013 3:52pm

Tyler, this is a fantastic article!

Reply
01/30/2013 5:41pm

This is the most poorly written piece of English I have ever read in my life. Even disregarding the completely factually incorrect assumptions this article makes, its format and structure completely make no sense. Honestly, if I didn't know that this was guided by ignorance and blind hate, I wouldn't have any idea what point the author is trying to make.

I also don't like being comparent to plants, or trees, or mountains, or other inanimate objects, and the insinuation that my sexuality is "pointless."

Could you please provide facts and evidence (other than personal anecdotes, thank you) that "there is no love in homosexuality"? Or that "men tend to look outward and women inward"? If you cannot, please refrain from making sweeping generalizations in your next article.

Reply
Tyler
01/30/2013 7:10pm

Michelle,
Thanks for the feedback. I apologize for the lack of clarity- please tell me what words seem to indicate "ignorance and blind hate," and that "my sexuality is pointless."
My whole point was twofold: First, that morality exists to protect the knowledge of deep truths, and that sexual morality shows the truth that love is fundamentally masculine and feminine. Because of this, it would be irreverent for the Boy Scouts to alter its position.
I say "there is no love in homosexuality" not to be inflammatory, but to make a point: that the fundamental reason why there are men and women is denied by homosexuality. The morality that supports it as an "alternative sexual lifestyle" insists that love is not masculine and feminine, but amorphous and unconnected to both the body and these characteristics.
I never deny:
1. The inherent value of all people, including those who identify as homosexual
2. The fact that many who identify as gay do sacrifice for and serve one another.
I say "there is no love in homosexuality" with a clear and defined sense of love- the expression of the masculine and feminine working together to serve each other and their children.
Finally, if this is "the worst piece of writing I have ever seen in my life," then many people must be wrong to admire C. S. Lewis, since I quote him.
Thank you response. It shows that you don't really think this is just hate, otherwise you would not attempt rational conversation.

Reply
01/30/2013 8:50pm

Tyler,

Thank you for your rational defense of your argument. While I do disagree, you have the right to your opinions, and you defended them logically.

The article, however, was poorly written and argued and showed ignorance - I think your pieces would be much more effective if they did not show such clear evidence of the bias in your opinions: "not all women care primarily about growing and nurturing others (many even destroy the life in their wombs)". That blanket statement has nothing to do with your supposed topic of the Boy Scouts, nor homosexuality. It was an outburst of your unfiltered opinions.

Also, just because you quoted C.S. Lewis does not magically make your article articulate or persuasive. Just because you made a series of independent and sometimes poorly supported statements in favor of tradition does not create one strong argument against homosexuality.

01/30/2013 6:08pm

Wait, is this for real?

http://qkme.me/3sshiw

Reply
01/30/2013 9:29pm

Tyler,

I agree with Michelle that your prejudices show through. I disagree about it's being written badly. It is a pity that it was written so well.

I must take issue with what, in your defense you claim are the two main points:

" First, that morality exists to protect the knowledge of deep truths, and that sexual morality shows the truth that love is fundamentally masculine and feminine". Morality doesn't protect knowledge. It drives behavior. Sexual morality doesn't reveal any truths, and certainly not "the truth that love is fundamentally masculine and feminine." That is not a truth at all. That is your assertion, and I strongly disagree. The gay friends I have are more conscientiously loving of their partners than many of the heterosexual couples I know. Your assertion is simply false.

Then you assert that "the fundamental reason why there are men and women is denied by homosexuality." This is a truly bizarre statement. How is it that you are privileged to know why anything exists in our universe? The fact that there are men and women is the result of an evolutionary process. That same process also created people who were homosexual. Far from denying the "reason why there are men and women", the history of life could be said to celebrate it. (OK, that's going a bit too far, but you should get the idea.)

Reply
Phillip Andrews
02/08/2013 4:38pm

Ah, yes. The Boy Scouts policy is justified because it is in harmony with the natural order of things, and excluding gays, far from being hateful, is the most loving thing to do. But why stop there? Let us celebrate the Platonic ideals of Masculine and Feminine in all areas of live, and ban gays and lesbians from our homes, churches, workplaces, hospitals, etc. Love is a two edged sword, right? (Or perhaps a two-ended stick?) The homosexuals will be so overwhelmed with love, they won't know what to do with themselves.

Or maybe this is a stupid idea. Maybe Tyler's post is just a thick slurry of bull attempting to justify a policy which has no logical reasoning behind it, apart from the ever-present influence of the Mormon church. I report, you decide.
Cheers.

Reply
Phillip Andrews
02/08/2013 4:46pm

At the end of Tyler's piece, we are treated to the punchline "there is no love in homosexuality", and we are left trying to figure out what in the blazes that means. Are homosexuals incapable of love generally, or only vis-a-vis their partners? Perhaps I must be initiated into the Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property in order to receive the secret decoder ring.
There is plenty of love in homosexuality, but little sanity in fundamentalist Catholicism.

Reply
someone_with_common_sense
02/11/2013 6:39pm

This article is just absolutely pathetic, it assumes so many things about both genders, is completely ignorant and terribly written. I am a male whose mother died when i was young, does that mean i dont know the "value" of things, does that mean i dont know what love is, no this article is hateful ignorant and just plain wrong. Also as an Eagle Scout of the Boy Scouts of America please do not attempt to speak for us we can do that ourselves and you have no right to speak of that which you know nothing about. Just because not allowing openly gay members is a national rule does not mean everyone follows it, we had a gay member in our troop and no one had a problem with it. So please use your ignorant hate filled words to talk about something else because the BSA does not want people who are to stupid to accept other human beings as equals commenting on our policies.

Reply
Someone
03/09/2013 4:05pm

Excluding homosexuals from the BSA is an act of love then? An argument I often hear from conservatives regarding homosexuality is this: love the sinner, hate the sin. I've actually seen that argument on this very blog. One of your colleagues stated that he respected homosexuals as people but that he didn't respect their sexual choices. If that is the case, what is so wrong with letting openly gay men and women work for the BSA? I live in a very conservative community and I have worked with openly gay people. The majority of my co-workers condemned their sexual choices, but were able to work with them without incident. As long as they keep their private lives private, as the majority of adults gay and straight do, what is so wrong with allowing them to work with young men? Barring homosexuals from being part of something will not encourage them from stopping their behaviors. Organizations allow openly gay people to work without embracing their sexual choices, why can't the BSA?

Reply
Bryce
03/10/2013 5:36pm

"It is wrong because it is a lie about the universe." How are you able to make such a ridiculous platitude? Homosexuality is a part of the universe and has been since the beginning of mankind. It is not simply a "cultural trend." And it is certainly not a lie. I'm sure you know gay people and to call their love impossible not shows an incredible amount of ignorance but also a healthy dose of hate - despite your attempted disclaimer at the end of this piece of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo. Who gave you the right to so narrowly define love? I don't think the scouts should necessarily change their policy, but your arguments against them doing so are rife with fallacies. I can explain point-by-point if you would like, but at this point I will stop writing.

Reply



Leave a Reply


UA-36493214-1