Scouter99

Can anyone find an unambiguous statement from BSA on anything? Again, if it's better for a troop to basically disband rather than run counter to their COs views, why shouldn't pro-gays get out rather than try to change BSA?

I've asked my troop to do this for years, the SM doesn't see the point. He's pretty dumb, so I never expected him to do it in the first place.

NJ, he's saying he'd welcome them in without the slightest question, not that he would rip their arm off aggressively. It's funny he'd do that, because that's exactly what happened when 3 gay men applied to start that troop out of the blue, were made SM and ASMs against the advice of the council because they were unknowns, then turned it into a national sex/porn trafficking ring. In "society today," all categories of violent crimes are at 1950s levels —a person today is less likely to be raped, murdered, assaulted, etc. than they have been since Leave it to Beaver was on TV. Gay scouts have been allowed for just about a year. The Ineligible Volunteer files were established in the 1920s, with "Perversion" being one of the main categories. You all refer to a switch in the 80s without ever linking to anything (yet you in particular love to pointedly ask for citations) indicating a new turn to ban homosexuals. One of the few ways to get in that card catalogue was simply being gay, which is one reason BSA never made those files public. If BSA allowed gay leaders before the 1980s, why did they begin filing homosexuals as "Ineligible Volunteers - Perversion" 60 years prior? You're not that old.

They understand the issue, but instead of attempting to curtail it, they hand out condoms. Maybe we should just make condoms available to any boys who find themselves tenting with a gay Scout and all Venturers. After all, 25% of new HIV infections are among 13-24-y-olds, gay and bisexual men are increasing their share of new infections while new infections overall are stable, and gay males account for 54% of total infections despite being just 4% of the population. Just like us indeed. My male pal's GSUSA troop often needs him to come camping with their troop to make the trips happen, and when they arrive in camp he is promptly sent as far away as possible. I don't mean his own tent like us libertine Boy Scouts, but that he is made to camp in an entirely different site hundreds of yards away, or in his own cabin hundreds of yards away.

French Scouts surrender to blitzsturm

Yeah, that was my next suggestion. Our council has all the DVDs for troops to borrow. If you use the DVD, you don't have to worry about the video buffering in the middle of the thing, but I doubt you'll be able to get everyone in the same room at once to watch it all together (maybe during a troop meeting in a side room).

BSA prohibits co-ed sleeping arrangements precisely because the assumption is that sexual tensions are high, men and women are attracted to each other, and it is inappropriate for the opposite sex to share sleeping, bathing, or RR facilities. Yet BSA explicitly states that gay youth are not to be separated from males. Again, it's all willful placing of a political aim above practical sense. If there is no reason to separate gay members from the same sex, there is no reason to separate straight members from the opposite sex. If it is "hateful," "ignorant," "bigoted," "prejudiced" or whatever-else political pejorative to believe that gay members should be separated from the sex of their attraction, it is equally so to argue that heterosexuals should be separated from the sex of their attraction. Only IngSoc party members can argue for both. Gay members have no business in tents, showers, or RRs with other boys.

I've heard that several times over the past few years, but I've never seen a way to make it happen on my.scouting.org or myscouting.org.

That really gets under my skin. I think anyone who is honest agrees, which is why it is baffling that Scouts UK and Canada are so enthusiastic about it. It's too bad I hurt CambridgeSkip's feelings via reductio ad absurdum by pointing out that Scouts UK's enthusiasm for these events is disgusting, I'm sure he could have explained it. Nevertheless, American Scouters (who should be cashiered) have already been taking Scouts to pride parades against all good judgement (because they are of poor character) and against BSA regulations, and next year you will see Scouts at pride parades in droves. Again, the fortunate side of local option is that the only Scouts who will be exposed to the nudity, public sex, public bondage, etc. that goes on at these parades will be the sons of the people who want all that in the first place.

You're both in earnest: No pro-inclusion person here can give any explanation as to why Scouts should be at gay pride parades. And that's just about all I need to know about the pro-inclusion element.

You're incorrect, I censored the photo before re-posting it. Neither of you has attempted to explain why Scouts should participate in activities like those photos, but those photos shouldn't be in view of Scouts. If you find the behavior of these people in their cultural showcase to be wholly inappropriate, why do you want them to register in your unit so badly?

So that you know what the national body of Scouts Canada deemed appropriate for Scouting, but some pro-inclusion guy in New Jersey finds inappropriate to Scouting, here is a censored version of what Scouts Canada exposed Duncan to, who appears to be maybe 12. (Photo removed by Packsaddle) [Edit by Packsaddle: Scouter99, this is a public forum. Boy Scouts have access to it, actually much wider access than some parade someplace, and YOU have deliberately subjected Boy Scouts to those very same images that you think are bad for them. You are entitled to your own personal views and you are entitled to communicate them within the limits of decorum expected by the forums. But in the spirit of your own outrage, you are being moderated in order to provide the very protection you seem to want for the boys....from YOU! In an act of evident futility another moderator asked you politely NOT to post photos like that one again and you willfully disregarded that request. I advise you to take such requests more seriously in the future] This is inclusion. Now that gay marriage is settled legally, you will see the pro-gay elements of BSA demanding the ability of Scouts to march in pride parades in uniform, where, as Scouts, they will be rubbing elbows with this element. At the Greek Festival, you see Greek culture: hummus, circle dancing, seafood, wine, Orthodoxy. At the Armenian Festival you see Armenian culture. At the Gay Pride Parade you see homosexual culture If it is crude to post these things, then it is because homosexuality is crude; because homosexuality is identity reduced to sex. You have completely misunderstood my post, in no way did I imply that the people in the photos were Scouts, though I'm sure Scouts UK would have preferred that they were. Have a second read. And yes, the good SM does pass on values, or does your troop leave out all the pesky moral language in the Oath, Law, motto, and slogan? We do tell Scouts what they can and cannot do in their free time, because the values of Scouting are not located on our uniform sleeves, but in our hearts, otherwise we are hypocrites. A Scout who does not "Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law in [his] everyday life" is not a Scout, he's a boy on his way to being a Scout one day, and God bless him when he makes it because that's the hardest part, which is probably why you discount it.

And I must note I find the most complete hilarity in a group of grown men who can't bear, as "crude," the mention of sex, gay sex, virility, pubescence, etc. but who are rah-rah homosexuality. These same men, doubtless, would have no problem with Scouts at a pride parade, but not allow a Scout to swim in Speedos, or Arrowman to wear a loincloth.

What's shocking about a statement of fact and why would you expect the moderators to sanction a statement of fact? I am upset about the change because I know that it places youth in direct harm. What offends you is the truth. You refuse to face the truth of homosexuality because you must deny the truth to promote inclusivity—the youth are sacrificed to a political goal that has nothing to do with Scouting. Do you want to know where the very first homosexual scandal happened in Scouting? It happened at the very beginning: Gilwell Park. The camp doctor, Robert Patterson, was dismissed after 14 years because he used Scouting to get at young men; they have used Scouting to get at virile young men at the zenith and height of their sexual prowess ever since; and the moment BSA votes to openly allow them, they will come in greater numbers. And it is the youth who will pay the penalty for this starry-eyed idealism. And in the twisted view of the activist, I am labeled "crude" for daring to speak the truth, but the gay man must be allowed, he is blameless. A couple of weeks ago, Scouts UK and Scouts Canada chirp-chirp-chirpped about their presence at Pride parades around England and Canada. Here are two photos, the first from Pride London, the second from Pride Toronto. We are all adults, here, so let's look at what Scouts UK and Scouts Canada are doing about their gay inclusion: Be warned: Neither of these photos is work or family safe, Neither is Scouting appropriate and yet you will be offended that I am posting these photos here, but not that Scouts were purposefully exposed to these things in person by your enlightened, inclusive Scouting. And what would you and the moderators like to be done about photos of Gay Pride being posted, but allow and encourage Scouts to attend? If it's not appropriate here, it's not appropriate anywhere in Scouting, yet American Scouts have already been taken to these events by activist adults, and the pro-gay members of this forum have already expressed -zero- concern about it; they joke about it! Oh, and my favorite, if we're opposed to inclusivity, it's because we're gay. Now, if you have 1 decent bone in you, scroll quick. And if you're pro-inclusion, you explain to us what business Scouts had at these events. [Moderator Note: Second photo removed as being inappropriate for this forum - NJCubScouter] If a Canadian Scout can march at the head of this parade, pass out fliers and recruit here, and Scouts Canada brag about him being there, why does this photo not belong here? If these photos offend you, if you believe these photos do not belong here, and you are pro-inclusion, you explain it to us. packsaddle is completely correct: Half of you think I look like a right donkey. And as the lawsuits, suicides, and destroyed lives pile up, that half will grow their muzzles, tails, and ears.

BSA didn't already have 80 years' worth of files on women who had sex with Scouts when they made that decision.

No, I'm upset because they're going to be having sex with the Scouts.

You can't be in earnest here. You don't actually think that employees are "the public at large" do you? You do understand that no one forces anyone to work at any particular place? Any employer—religious or secular—does not force their values on any employee, because employees choose their employers. The exact opposite of what you're saying is happening: The public, through its (barely) representative government, is forcing its ideals on a private entity, in this case Little Sisters. But let's not get complicated, because if your honest starting point is that you think Little Sisters, or Joe's Burger Shack are forcing their ideology on anyone who walks through the door and asks to work there knowing where they're applying, then we've got to start slow. Again, you're wrong. That's exactly what it means. That's why even your staunch Democratic teachers unions don't have a problem with morality clauses in contracts. Even teenagers recognize what you're arguing for—one set of values in public and different, opposing values in private—as hypocrisy, that's what really turns them off about adults when they hit 15.

Waste of money for our youth, so the troop doesn't do them. I wear mine. Young face, got tired of being asked what rank I am, or why my rank wasn't on my uniform, at 27. Service stars help.

Gay SM Richard Halverson, 49 yrs old (17-yr-old son) http://documents.latimes.com/richard-stanley-halvorsen/ Gay ASM Harry Cramer, 19 yrs old http://documents.latimes.com/harry-cramer/ Gay ASM Ray Woodall, 30 yrs old http://documents.latimes.com/raymond-woodall/ A Perfect Place New Orleans, Louisiana October 1974 Boyle, Patrick (2013-07-22). Scout's Honor: Sexual Abuse in America's Most Trusted Institution (Kindle Locations 1134-1138). Kindle Edition. Fittingly enough, this all happened at a Presbyterian church, whose leadership had been warned by the council that not enough was known about the prospective leaders. Check out this Showtime series called "Queer as Folk" which is celebrated for its groundbreaking portrayal of the real lives of gay men and as a touchstone in media depictions of gay people, in which a main plot line is a gay man's relationship with a 15-yr-old. The sex will begin soon. The boys who are affected are as victimized by the activists as by the men who have sex with them; they're the sacrifice the activists were eager to make. I won't be quitting BSA—someone who knows what he's doing will need to keep an eye on things more than ever.

Local option is best, it ensures that the boys who get seduced are the sons of the people who wanted gay leaders there.

edit: In light of your clarification that she's not registered, then this is very much more simple. Just tell her to stay away for X amount of time, or forever. I agree with @@eagle77 that you have to get out front of this (too late, the kids all told their parents their versions already) but I don't think you need to call a meeting of the entire troop's families to do that. The way you communicate to them that this was unacceptable to the troop leadership and won't happen again is by showing them. A gigantic meeting is grandstanding and unnecessary, and will become a circus when half the parents that show up are actually on Grizzly Mama's side. It's just ill advised. If this actually is the first time there has been an issue, put her on a very long suspension; 6 months or more. Her membership will lapse in the meantime, and if she doesn't improve, then you don't have to accept her application later. Key 3 then have to sit down with her and explain that being a rude asshole to the Scout wasn't the solution to his being a rude asshole to everyone else, that you appreciate what she's done in the past, and that if she cares about the troop as a whole she will understand that she has to take X amount of time off. No camping, no hanging around during the meetings. If the committee feels it's necessary, send a latter or an email that explains that the troop leadership doesn't condone what happened and that the adult in question has been suspended for X amount of time. Or if you just don't need her that much, kick her right out.

1/3 of GSUSA camps are slated for sale amidst rampant mergers of bankrupt councils with a 25% member loss over the past decade for a short list of reasons, here's one.

We can't delete posts, anymore Without knowing the nature/severity of the situation, he's making a PC argument that the sexes and sexualities of the two youth don't matter because it would be just as much a Youth Protection issue for a girl to do the same things to a boy as it would be if it were two boys. Again, all we know is that something was said accompanied by a touch. We don't know what actually happened in terms of the "touch" that made the Scout "uncomfortable" but everyone knows that of course perception matters here. If a girl tousled a boy's hair and said he was cute, he might blush or feel awkward, but if a boy tousled that boy's hair and called him cute he'd (generally) be creeped out or annoyed and feel gross. I mentioned the kind of contact in my first reply precisely because it does matter. Of course if the touch was outright sexual, say, either a girl or boy grabbed a boy's butt it would be a different matter in terms of adult intervention, and a Youth Protection issue whether the boy felt "uncomfortable" or not. But what a young man would consider innocuous from a girl would make him uncomfortable from another young man. If the situation was not overtly sexual, then perception rules. If a woman feels harassed by unwanted advances she's absolutely a victim, but if a guy complains about unwanted attentions from a gay guy, then he's a bigoted homophobe who should be ashamed, and on top of that, he's probably actually gay himself and just trying to hide it! We always get these questions without enough details to talk sensibly about them. Hopefully nitroboy will come back around and give us a little more detail so we all can give the best advice/commentary possible.

asdf

At camp several years ago, we had an analogous situation where a fruity kid in our troop was being harassed by an older boy from another troop while we were at summer camp. Basically, the boy was ironically cat-calling the boy in our troop to embarrass him. The boys came to us when the bully went so far as to pull our Scout into his lap, hug and pet him, to make a spectacle. We informed the Camp Director, who immediately removed the boy from the camp program (confined him to his troop's site) while he discussed the issue with that troop's leadership and the boy; who was then kicked out of camp. They were local, so dad was called to get him. If the kid did survive his dad being called to pick him up from camp for molesting a 12-yr-old boy, I don't know what further action was taken. We don't have a lot of detail here, so I can't say specifically what ought to happen in this case. If your gay scout put his hand on the boy's shoulder and said you're really cute; I would say he needs some counseling on appropriate ways to express his feelings and appropriate venues (not at camp). If he grabbed his butt or sat on his lap or something similarly randy, then it is a serious youth protection issue that should be handled as outlined in the reporting procedures.