EmberMike

The big vote is right around the corner. Any thoughts on how it might turn out? Personally, I suspect it will go in favor of allowing gay scouts. I just don't think there is enough support for the exclusion of kids. If this were a combined vote, asking people to allow or disallow gay scouts and adults at the same time, I think there would be far stronger support for maintaining the current ban. If, somehow, it goes badly (in my opinion) then there's no future in Scouting for my family. We'll be looking at alternative organizations like the BPSA. I would continue to push the BSA to change the policy and hope that they did eventually change it, and I would continue to hold my Eagle medal and retain my rank (I'm not in favor of giving up the rank in opposition to a policy, I think Eagles should hold their rank and push the organization to right a wrong). But I couldn't in good conscience enroll my kids in the program knowing that after repeated defeats to efforts to make the change happen, it was highly unlikely that any significant change would occur any time soon.

The big difference between this and the issue of gay kids in scouting is that gay kids don't have another option, while girls do. Exclude a gay kid and that's the end of the road for him in Scouting. Exclude girls and there's still the GSUSA. At a certain age there's also Venturing for girls.

I think the one big difference is rank and advancement. There's no Eagle equivalent for a youth group. That's the end-goal for most kids, and although few make it and still get a lot out of the program, having a goal to shoot for is a huge incentive, and a huge reason to opt for something like Scouting over a similar group, even when all things seem equal between the two.

Why would it be an issue? Schools manage it just fine. If a kid comes out to a teacher, that's as far as it goes. The teacher doesn't inform the parents of the other kids in the class. And yet life goes on just fine. Kids still interact, share a gym locker room, go on trips, stay overnight in shared hotel rooms, etc. If this issue "takes the focus off of why we are there in the first place" in the BSA, why doesn't it do the same everywhere else?

I stumbled across this organization while reading some articles about alternative Scouting groups and similar organizations. I really know very little about it, and it seems to be a rather small group at the moment (just a handful of units around the country as far as I can tell), but it has a great deal of appeal as an alternative to the BSA. It is remarkably similar to the BSA in many ways, and different in ways that I personally find refreshing, most notably an inclusive, non-discriminatory membership policy. Anyone know anything about the BPSA? Any experiences with the organization, or knowledge of how it works, how things are going with this fairly new group, etc? I'm certainly curious. I just ordered a Pathfinder handbook to get a better sense for what that part of the program is about.

I stumbled across this organization while reading some articles about alternative Scouting groups and similar organizations. I really know very little about it, and it seems to be a rather small group at the moment (just a handful of units around the country as far as I can tell), but it has a great deal of appeal as an alternative to the BSA. It is remarkably similar to the BSA in many ways, and different in ways that I personally find refreshing, most notably an inclusive, non-discriminatory membership policy. Anyone know anything about the BPSA? Any experiences with the organization, or knowledge of how it works, how things are going with this fairly new group, etc? I'm certainly curious. I just ordered a Pathfinder handbook to get a better sense for what that part of the program is about.

I'm giving serious thought to not pursuing any sort of future for my kids in the BSA if somehow this policy change is voted down. Although I doubt that will happen. But on the off chance it does happen, I think I'll be looking elsewhere to fulfill the aspects of citizenship and the outdoors that I'd like to instill in my kids. I'd even consider starting up a local Baden Powell Service Association unit. Heck, to be honest, I'm considering that regardless of the BSA vote. But I've got some time to think about it, my son is still a few years out from Scouting age, and the vote this month will certainly weigh heavily into any decision I make about which organization I opt to continue my family's Scouting tradition in.

I'm fairly new around here, but I am aware that the forum has undergone a software update recently and there are some associated problems with forum operations since then. But after a few months, I haven't seen much change. Is this forum still active? Are there plans to fix the problems? Because right now, this place is unfortunately barely usable. I can't even see much of the main discussion areas of the forum. Seems like this forum has the largest membership of any scouting forum, so if the site if going to be fixed, it's probably worth the wait. But I'd just like to know if there even are any plans to do anything or if this is just a lost cause.

NFL players coming out may not change any moral opinions on homosexuality. But it will certainly help to further erode the misconception that all gay men act a certain way, look a certain way, can be identified as gay by how they act, talk, etc.

This site is almost completely unusable at this point.

I'm not seeing it, Mike. You're drwaing a lot of conclusions from anecdotal evidence. Nothing you've posted says anything about the rate of homosexuality in abusers. You're just taking other stats and assuming various other things from them. Where's the study that says simply that gay men are more likely to abuse kids than straight men? If it's just that simple, surely there is some evidence to support that idea. I have to add, also, that your assumption that all men who abuse boys are gay is flawed. People who abuse children have obvious mental disorders, regardless of their own gender and sexual preference. Some mental health professionals go so far as to call those kinds of attractions a "third sexual orientation". I don't think I'd agree with that, I think they're just screwed up individuals, but nevertheless there is a flaw in thinking that all abusers can be defined in their sexual preference only by the gender of who they abuse. And I'll add this question: where's the outrage over straight men in the GSA? We can't even identify most men who would be abusers in the BSA because they self-identify as straight. But straight men in the GSA are pretty easy to identify, and they would readily admit that they're attracted to females, so why aren't you pushing to get them out? Why isn't anyone doing that? They seem like the highest risk category, people who openly admit an attraction to females and are in an organization that is full of girls. One of the studies you posted above even indicates that girls are more likely to be victims of childhood sexual abuse than boys. Why are gays in the BSA perceived as a higher risk than straight men in the GSA, when statistically girls are more likely to be abused? The issue of abuse in the BSA will not be solved by banning gays. It hasn't helped so far, while the ban has always existed. We'd do more good probably to ban married men than gays, since they're more likely to be abusers. Obviously I'm being facetious here, but the point is that a continued ban on gays doesn't help anyone when it comes to the issue of abuse.

You're making these assumptions that all of the men abusing boys are openly gay men. As already mentioned numerous times, most abusers self-identify as straight and many have heterosexual relationships. You take issue with the science behind the studies I reference but I'm seeing nothing scientific in yours either. Just assumptions and generalizations.

Not seeing anything here that talks about the sexual orientation of the men these boys had relationships with. I am seeing some indications that some of these men were relatives, some fathers, men who would self-identify as straight. How exactly would the BSA policy have kept these men out?

Why are you assuming that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight women? Most of the time when you see one of these reports on tv about a teacher having sex with a student, it's often a female teacher and male student. I'd assume the risk level has to be at the very least equal. So would you support kicking women out of the BSA as well?

All I'm seeing here is that men make up the vast majority of the perpetrators nationally. But where does it say that they are mostly gay men? It looks like you are coming to that conclusion on your own. The reality is that most of those victims are being abused men who would identify themselves as heterosexual. That's what the studies that I talked about, the ones that actually discuss the rate of homosexuality, refer to. That many of these men self-identify as straight and live their lives as straight men husbands, and fathers. Banning gays from the BSA would do nothing to stop the vast majority of the men who would abuse boys. It sure wouldn't have kept a guy like Sandusky out, or the many men like him who are married and live as straight men. If you've got some other evidence that gay men are more likely to be abusers, please post it. The NIS report says nothing about homosexuality. The words "gay" and "homosexual" don't even appear in that report. Simply stating that the majority of abuse perpetrators are men (which I think we all knew already) doesn't lend any credibility to the idea that gay men are more likely to abuse kids.

Regarding the Colorado study, the perpetrators were identified as gay or straight through their own admission or their current relationships. 74% of them were married or in a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Many were parents. Only 2 people in the study were self-identified to be gay or determined to be gay based on current or past relationships. Even if the data is flawed in this or the APA studies, I'd be surprised to find that the numbers skew significantly. Even if they did, look at how much of a skew it would take to make a difference. Instead of 2 identified homosexuals, say there were 20. Or 100. Even at 100, that's still less than half of the group. Straight men would still make up the majority of the study. The point is that despite these studies being somewhat less than scientific, the anecdotal evidence can't be ignored. It strongly points to supporting the idea that there is not only no greater threat from gay man than straight men, there may be less of a threat from gay men. For those who say that this is about protecting kids from gay men, I'd like to know if you also support banning straight men from the GSA.

Sorry, AZMike, that's just wrong. On many levels. Men are allowed on GSA camping trips. Maybe in your area it's a local restriction, but the GSA has no policy against male leaders, other than that they always be accompanied by female leaders and not be alone with girls, which is prudent "2 deep" leadership no matter what organization we're talking about. Regarding the myth that gay men are more likely to molest kids... According to the American Psychological Association, "homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are." In a 1992 study in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater. Some estimates put the rate of incident of child molestation at 95% heterosexual perpetrator, 5% gay perpetrators. I'd be happy to read any study you find that suggests otherwise, provided it's not a study commissioned by a religious group. The overwhelming evidence among psychiatric institutions and medical professionals is that gay men are no more likely to molest kids, and in fact most evidence suggests that they are statistically LESS likely to molest children than straight men.

Numerous studies have proven that gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. In fact, pedophiles are sometimes classified by mental health professionals as being of a "third sexual orientation." So the issue of the single gay guy who wants to volunteer with the troop is a non-issue. If his enthusiasm is the cause for concern, you should have the same concern over the enthusiastic straight guy as well.

The most common arguments I've seen and heard for maintaining the ban are usually based on flawed logic. It's usually something to the effect of gay men are more likely to molest children, so banning gays is protecting kids. Of course this idea ignores the various studies that show that gay men are no more or less likely to molest children than straight men. There was a study done a few years back that looked at 200+ pediphiles and only 2 of them were openly gay. Then there is the less popular notion that gays want to convert our kids to be gay as well. Seriously, I can't make this stuff up. The belief is that gays shouldn't be in any position of authority over kids because they will use that position to influence the kids into being gay themselves. Yeah, I know what you're thinking, I'm thinking the same thing. On the issue of religion, I can sort of understand that one. If we're going to say that there are right and wrong reasons to be on either side of this, I'd say religion is one where you could be right on either side of the argument. Bible purists believe that God disapproves of homosexuality. People like me believe that God created us, gay people are born gay, and God would disapprove of me discriminating against anyone he created based on something they were born with. I'm Catholic, but I don't believe the Bible to be the perfect interpretation of God's will. It's got flaws, and I believe the interpretation of God's disapproval of homosexuality to be one of them. The religious issue we'll never settle. We've argued theology fo centuries and will argue it for centuries more. But what frustrates me immensly is the incorrect belief that banning gays fro the BSA is an act of protection for youth. I really hope that none of that kind of thinking is being considered in the upcoming decision. But sadly, people who erroneously believe that there is this threat to our children from gay leaders still have a voice in the debate, and will still be heard by the people who will make the call. You don't have to be correct in your reasoning to still have a say in the debate. And I'm afraid that there are enough people with these incorrect ideas about gay people to sway the decision in their favor. And that, I believe, might kill the BSA. Reaffirming the ban and doing so with even a slight hint at the idea that this is a measure of protection will make the organization seem further out of touch with reality. I'd hate to see the BSA become known as the organization that has this irrational fear of gay people, and I think that sort of stigma will begin the process of dismantling the organization.

I can't seem to get a Quote to work. Any time I try to quote a previous post, my reply shows the Quote with the code.

Thanks for the replies, everyone. Lots of good info here. I think the point made by several folks about kids at that age not really knowing what something is, and therefore not knowing whether they'd like it, is an important point. I guess if we only let our 5 and 6 year olds do things that they volunteered to do, many of them wouldn't do much. This is exactly what my concern has been. I have no doubt that if my son becomes a scout, I'll want to be a volunteer and have some role in the pack and eventually the troop. Heck, I'd probably be a SM if given the opportunity. So is this more about me than him? I guess that depends on how things go a few years into it. If he hates it and is begging me to let him quit and I refuse because I want to remain active myself, then that's obviously the wrong reason for keeping him in it. But I'd like to think I'll be able to make the right call about that if and when the time comes, not just about Scouting but about anything my kids do. BTW, assuming your name is Dean based on your username, the boy we're talking about here is named Dean also. Great name. Whoa whoa whoa there, Turtle... Once an Eagle, always an Eagle. Sorry, couldn't resist.

When I was in high-school I was in the marching band, and one of the perks of being in the band was that for parades in which I'd have previously been marching with the Troop, I'd be with the band instead. Band trumped Scouts, and band was slightly less uncool than Scouting. Band was also 150 kids vs. the Troop's dozen kids, so it was easier to blend in with the band and not bee seen. It's sad, I know. But that's how it was and probably still is. I think part of the problem is the image of the boy scout. It's a very dated look. As mush as I respect the traditions of the organization, I think it's long overdue that they drop some of the really old-fashioned looking things from the uniform. I think neckerchiefs have to go. When I was active, my troop allowed us to substitute a bolo for a neckerchief. Bolos are still pretty terrible, but it was better than a neckerchief. And the combination of the shorts with those horrible looking socks. Oh man... I hate to make it about the superficial stuff, but really I think the opinions of other kids regarding Scouting would be less harsh if scouts didn't look so lame.

Hi folks. New guy here. I'm the father of a 2-year-old, and although I've got a few years before my son is even eligible to join a Pack, Scouting is already on my mind. I'm an Eagle and I regard my days in Scouting as some of the best I had as a youth, and so I have high hopes that my son will get the Scouting bug as well. Although we live in a "Main Street" kind of town, I'm already trying to instill a bit of an outdoorsy spirit in my son, and it's not hard to do with him. He loves being outside, far more than being inside. I think he gets worse cases of cabin fever than I do. My parents live in Vermont, so he's already had lots of exposure to the outdoors up there, seen lots of animals, etc. Around home we spend lots of time in parks and playgrounds, and in the spring we'll be doing our first family campout in the woods, although in a pretty not-roughing-it sort of campground with showers, toilets, etc. In the coming years, I'm sure I'll always be hoping to hear him say that he wants to be a Scout, and I won't hesitate to sign him up. But I also know that there's probably an equal chance that he won't ask about it, and I'm wondering if it's the right move to still put him in it. Anyone have experience with this? I know parents who put their kids in Scouting (both BSA and GSA) just to try it and see if it was something their kids took to. I also know parents who prefer to put their kids in things that the kids request. Which is usually whatever their friends are into. A friend plays soccer, they want to play soccer. But everyone plays soccer, so it's a likely request. Scouts isn't as popular. Would you (or did you) put your kids in Scouting at their request? Or was it something that you decided for them? Any thoughts on the effects of either choice? Are kids who express an interest more likely to see it through to the end? How much (or little) should my own history with Scouting and my love of the organization weigh into any decisions about whether my son should join?

Looks like the crop function is a little broken. I can add an avatar but can't crop it.