Scouting's Real Gay Policy

[littlebillie]

"Personally I think it is really sad that if people are gay and in scouts they have to hide it." Actually, the single heterosexuals are supposed to hide it, too. Scouting would do itself a big favor by kicking out some known (avowed?) straight fornicators and adulterers. Public display of ANY unmarried sexuality just ain't part of the program, and married sexuality is only implied, never made obvious. THIS ALL belings at home. That said, and within that perspective, I wouldn't have a problem with the whole avowal thing if "unsanctioned" straight relations were dealt with the same way.

 

==================================

 

What if some scientist says pedophiles are born that way? Well, I think there's precedence for this. There are people who are "born" more aggressive, but when that aggression expresses itself in murder or maiming - well, the "I was just doing what comes natural" argument isn't going to fly. Nor does it work for statutory rape. So frankly, i think that's more of a red herring than a red flag.

 

=============================================

 

""They can have moral fibers and exceed every standard ever set by the BSA and loose it all when they realize they are Gay."

 

Now honestly, they haven't exceeded EVERY standard have they? Because one of the standards is that they not be avowed homosexuals."

 

Bob, in the example, they REALIZE they are gay - the point you seem to have responded to (or at least that you quoted) did not have anyone ANNOUNCING they were gay. Are you truly equating realization with avowal, whether they say anything or not? Just curious...

 

 

Just some thots hittin me while tryin to ketchup....

[CubScouterFather]

Just a few clarifications:

 

1.) I did register my eldest son for Cub Scouts in hope that the commitment would prompt a leader to step forward. The frustrations I vented were my feelings and not accusations just frustration. Any smack of official activism on my part comes from being upset in the presence of injustice and maintaining my commitment to contribute intelligently to a resolution instead of making pot shots. Are my actions of defending myself the same as attending a rally?

 

2.) cjmiam said: If people are in Scouts and gay there is no need to be sad, just leave. No one is stopping them.

 

Scouts are taught to stand up for justice how can you mock anyones effort to bring injustice to light even if you dont share the same opinion? And, I dont think its about feeling trapped. Its about being ousted for being upfront and honest by the very institution that instilled such a value. In the case of James Dale

 

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZO.html

 

Dale was not accused of lewd, crass or inappropriate conduct. He was kicked out of Scouting after he was interviewed for attending a seminar on addressing the psychological and health needs of lesbian and gay teenagers, while AWAY at college. He was never found abusing his position of leadership within the BSA to promote homosexuality. The Judges final opinion reflects his discontent with the BSAs actions and was forced to rule against Dale based solely upon the BSAs First Amendment rights. Obviously, the Judge protected the BSA's right but didn't think they were right.

 

3.) Avowed: Simply put, anyone aware of his or her own attraction to the same sex is considered to be an avowed homosexual. There is no criterion of conduct. Anyone pretending to be straight would be violating the Scouts oath. Just as I believe that its nobodys business to know my sexual orientation, its far more maddening to keep a secret than to be honest and not worry about it being an issue. I know that most people feel that way. A non-issue is a non-issuea witch-hunt will always make it an issue.

 

4.) Pedophilia: Since Anita Bryant panicked the nation 30 years ago, every attempt to support her claims of abuse backfired. Pedophilia has NO correlation to homosexuality and "avowed homosexuals" are less likely to prey upon children than "unavowed" or someone presumed as "straight".

 

5.) Prayer: To suggest that I dont pray enough is kind of strange. My personal experience leads me to believe that nobody could pray more than me but, this is not a contest. Prayer is very personal and very important in my life.

 

Even though I am keeping it short because of a work load, I wanted to thank those of you who have extended the respect of Scouting in spite of our differences.

 

Thanks again,

 

Phil

 

 

[Rooster7]

CubScouterFather,

 

Read and learn:

 

June 19, 2002, 10:25 a.m.

Hypocrites on Homosexuality

The Boy Scouts have had the right idea.

 

By Leslie Carbone

 

Is the hypocrisy of today's cultural elites limitless? Is the Pope Catholic? After years of haranguing the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to place young boys in danger of sexual abuse, the liberal intelligentsia is now condemning the Catholic Church leadership for doing exactly that.

 

For months, the Catholic Church has come under criticism for continuing to permit pedophilic priests access to young boys. Critics of the church's hierarchy are absolutely right. Its leadership was derelict in its duties to provide a good moral example and to protect children. Responding to the onslaught of criticism, America's bishops met in Dallas last week to iron out a policy for dealing with priests guilty of child molestation. The bishops agreed to remove any priest guilty of a single act of child molestation from ministry, though not from the priesthood. Though the new policy is already provoking criticism from some for not going far enough, it is being hailed by others as the right move and a vast improvement over the result of an earlier meeting of American cardinals with Pope John Paul II at the Vatican, which yielded only a set of bland recommendations, including that a priest who becomes "notorious and is guilty of serial, predatory, sexual abuse of minors" be dismissed, while bishops over those merely suspected of molesting children were granted discretion to deal with such situations. This broad discretion is of course part of why the church found itself in crisis in the first place and why so many children were hurt.

 

But what if the church had exercised the zero-tolerance policy now demanded in the first place? Would it have dodged the criticism it now endures?

 

The Boy Scouts of America didn't. The BSA has come under constant fire for its policy of prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters. While not all homosexuals are child molesters and not all child molesters are homosexual, there is a strong enough correlation to mean that the BSA's policy is prudent and responsible. Although homosexuals constitute only about two percent of the population, they represent one-third of child molesters. "The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger. Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover sees a "substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality."

 

It's easy to see why serving as scoutmasters is attractive to homosexual child molesters. Such a post provides easy access to lots of young boys away from their parents, on such excursions as the camping trips that are a staple of scout life. Though the BSA annually bars hundreds of homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters, a nationwide investigation of child molestation in the Boy Scouts found that more than 2,000 boys had reported molestation by adult Scout leaders who slipped by the ban during 1971 to 1991. Lifting the BSA's ban on homosexual scoutmasters would surely only increase this number.

 

In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a decision of the New Jersey supreme court, which had forced the BSA to accept homosexuals as scoutmasters. Attacks on the Scouts continue unabated. The United Way and some corporations, including media giant Knight-Ridder, Inc., and Levi-Strauss, have withdrawn funding from the BSA. The Los Angeles City Council evicted the Scouts from public facilities. Boy Scouts appearing on the dais at the 2000 Democratic National Convention were actually booed by delegates, adults who apparently thought it proper to boo children for belonging to an organization that safeguards them. Even religious institutions are not immune. While Catholic leaders draw fire for allowing what the Scouts forbid, interest groups within at least four other denominations, including United Methodist, Episcopalian, Reform Judaism, and Unitarian, have passed resolutions condemning the Scouts' policy.

 

Life could soon get even worse for the Boy Scouts. On April 24, the Senate Health, Labor, Education, and Pensions Committee, evidently having learned nothing from the scandal shaking the Catholic Church, okayed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a bill that would force employers, including those in education and child care, to hire and retain people precisely because they practice homosexual behavior. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.), the bill's chief sponsor and the committee's chairman, called the bill "a giant step forward" in curbing the discrimination that is an "insidious aspect of American life."

 

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) has said that he will bring ENDA up for a floor vote before the session ends in October. If ENDA becomes law, it could force the BSA to accept homosexual scoutmasters. Al Gore, vice president when the Supreme Court decision favoring the scouts came down, pledged to end "this kind of discrimination by groups public and private ... . [T]he principle piece of legislation on that, incidentally, is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which I support." Ironically, a religious exemption in the bill, if upheld, would mean that it does not apply to the Catholic Church, which might then become one of the few remaining institutions in America permitted to do what it hasn't keep homosexuals away from young boys.

 

Such is the result of public policy based on hypocrisy. There is a better way. Institutions like the Boy Scouts of America that strive to protect children should not be condemned. They should be honored and upheld as an example to other institutions that lack their moral fortitude.

 

[Rooster7]

More truth and less hype...

 

Boy Scout Oath Makes Inclusion Of Homosexuals Oxymoronic

By Gary L. Morella

 

The mainstream media has taken up the cause for allowing homosexuals to become Boy Scouts with the liberal university community following suit like lemmings marching off of a cliff, e.g., the Penn State student paper, The COLLEGIAN, in a recent editorial called for homosexuals to be admitted to the Boy Scouts. It is well known that Penn State University, under Graham Spanier, leads the way in blatantly promoting homosexuality as an alternative lifestyle in an affirmative action sense through official University auspices, the Vice-Provost Office for Educational Equity. Moreover, Penn State proudly trumpets the work of faculty who encourage our youngest children toward homosexual lifestyles as evidenced by the Spring/Summer 2000 issue of OUTREACH magazine, which devoted an entire section to the promotion and celebration of homosexual lifestyles for our youth.

 

How can a Boy Scout be inclined to homosexuality? A scout takes an oath to be morally straight which makes the concept of homosexual scouts oxymoronic. And what about the well-documented correlation between pedophilia and homosexuality? Are we obliged to put our scouts at risk because a radical minority hell-bent on living self-destructive lifestyles wont be satisfied until they are confirmed in their vice, demanding acceptance of their perverted lifestyles by all aspects of society including the religious community?

 

I have a simple question. If there is no connection between pedophilia and homosexuality, why are articles promoting the former showing up repeatedly in homosexual journals?

 

As pointed out by NARTH, The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality, those who are interested in legalizing sexual relations between adults and children want to change the parameters of the discussion from the absolutist moral position, to the relative position that it can sometimes be beneficial. The recent controversial article in an American Psychological Association Bulletin, an article that was subsequently refuted by the head of the APA after the pressure of near unanimous congressional condemnation with the notable exception of a handful of representatives to include a prominent homosexual, furthered exactly this position.

 

NARTH reports that, in a recent lead article of the Journal of Homosexuality, Harris Mirkin says the sexually privileged have disadvantaged the pedophile through sheerpolitical force in the same way that blacks were disadvantaged by whites before the civil-rights movement. One would hope that supporters of the late Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. could see that, if Christianity meant anything to Dr. King, he would roll over in his grave to see such a perverted analogy with a civil rights movement that had nothing to do with promoting aberrant self-destructive behavior. His niece, Alveda Celeste King, has been outspoken to that effect, saying in a CNN report that to equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights.

 

NARTH reports that in 1990, the campaign to legalize man-boy sex was furthered by the publication of a two-issue special of the Journal of Homosexuality, reissued as Male Intergenerational Intimacy: Historical, Socio-Psychological, and Legal Perspectives.

 

This volume provided devastating information on the way psychologically immature pedophile men use vulnerable boys who are starved for adult nurturance and protection.

 

In the forward, Gunter Schmidt decries discrimination against and persecution of pedophiles, and describes successful pedophile relationships which help and encourage the child, even though the child often agrees to sex while really seeking comfort and affection. These are often emotionally deprived, deeply lonely, socially isolated children who seek, as it were, a refuge in an adults love and for whom, because of their misery, see it as a stroke of luck to have found such an enormously nurturant relationship.

 

Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve miracles not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them. The loving pedophile can offer a companionship, security and protection which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. l62). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boys upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home... (p. 164).

 

In yet another deeply disturbing article revealingly titled, The Main Thing is Being Wanted: Some Case Studies on Adult Sexual Experiences with Children. pedophiles reveal their need to find a child who will satisfy their desire for uncritical affirmation and a lost youth. One of the men justifies his activity as a search for love, and complains that: Although Ive had physical relationships with probably, I dont know, maybe a hundred or more boys over the years, I can only point to four or five true relationships over that time.

 

The volume also contains an introductory article that decries societys anti-pedophile sentiment. The authors complain about the difficulty studying man-boy relationships in an objective way, and they hope the social sciences will adopt a broader approach that could lead to understanding of the diversity and possible benefits of intergenerational intimacy.

 

Mirkin says, the discussion must move on to such issues as the right of children to have and enjoy sex.

 

Per NARTH, to pedophile advocates, any discussion of the benefits of child-adult sex is a victory. The APA should have understood this, and should have been well aware of, and vocally resistant to, the growing movement to legalize pedophilia as promoted in homosexual journals.

 

Have we devolved as a society to such an extent that the right of children to have and enjoy sex carries more weight than the rights of their parents, charged with their physical and spiritual welfare, to bring them up according to the law of God, in particular, His natural law written on the hearts of men? We will have if we acquiesce to the demands of radical homosexuality as evidenced by the aforementioned articles in the Journal of Homosexuality.

 

The good news is that the Journal of Homosexuality has performed a service by letting us know just who the real extremists are. Remember that the next time the word homophobe rears its ugly head in conversation or policy.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, I have to laugh. That is some of most slanted writing I have ever read in my life. These articles "prove" their conclusions by assuming the conclusions in the first place. That method saves a lot of effort and uncertainty, but it isn't persuasive.

[CubScouterFather]

Rooster,

 

I'm glad you posted this little ditty. It's a prime example of dishonor and disgrace. It is a manipulitive game to take the obvious and twist it to look officially revealing.

 

Anyone reading this report owes it to themselves to know what they are looking at. Find out how they took their sampling and what were their objectives. You may subscribe to thought that the American Psychatric Association and/or the American Medical Association and others have conspired to clear homosexuality but in fact, the research accepted by these organizations has to meet thorough criteria to insure their objective collection of data.

 

A very simple problem with the research you quoted is the fact that these statistics were collected from police reports for convicted child molesters. Within that group, a gross majority of the crimes are committed against boys. Boys are often unattended and become easy prey. Peds preying on boys ARE NOT avowed homosexuals - they are avowed pediphiles.

 

It has nothing to do with how many homosexuals are pediphilic.

 

How many Gay men have had sex before they were 18 is how that question should read. How many straight kids have had sex before they were 18? Hmmmm

 

I am Catholic. Before first grade was over I knew that homosexuals were going to hell and the only way to be saved was to join the Priesthood. While many Gays are very spiritual, hiding is not the reason to become a priest. Is it any wonder they have a problem with pedophilia? Pedophilia is most often caused by trauma or repression of sexual feelings before maturity - the seminary used to enlist highschoolers. Nothing promotes sexual disfunction more than ignoring the human need for intimacy.

 

This information serves no good to anyone other than the anti-gay bandwagon. If you really were serving justice you would engage your debate with valid information and resourses.

 

Again, I urge all of you to view official statistics - and question them. I also urge you to look up the report that Rooster quoted from and look to see what the man behind the curtain is up to.

 

Regretably,

 

Phil

[Rooster7]

CubScouterFather,

 

How many Gay men have had sex before they were 18 is how that question should read. How many straight kids have had sex before they were 18? Hmmmm

 

No - that is NOT the right question. Reread the bold type.

 

"The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger.

 

This study is NOT talking about gay men who had sex when they themselves were young. This study is talking about the majority of gay men who admit to having had sex with very young boys - in many case, minors. You can spin this all day long. In the end, homosexuality is a perversity. Those who accept it are closing their eyes to both God and nature.

 

I find it highly ironic that you question the motives of "the man behind the curtain", when in fact; you are the one with an agenda.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

rooster7 writes:

No - that is NOT the right question. Reread the bold type.

 

"The Gay Report," the 1979 work of homosexual researchers Jay and Young revealed that 73 percent of homosexuals surveyed admitted to having had sexual relations with boys ages 16 to 19 or younger.

 

This study is NOT talking about gay men who had sex when they themselves were young. This study is talking about the majority of gay men who admit to having had sex with very young boys - in many case, minors.

 

Well, I've read the bold type, and it doesn't say how old the surveyees were when they had sex, so I don't see how you can claim they are referring only to adults with 16-19 year olds. The way it's phrased, a 17-year-old who had sex with another 17-year-old could be asked 20 years later and answer "yes", and it doesn't mean a 37-year-old had sex with a 17-year-old.

[SM406]

Rooster7,

 

Great job Rooster7! Thank you!

 

SM406

[CubScouterFather]

I am beginning to understand why so many of you chose to contact me privately I also understand your warnings of being attacked on this list but I know better than to judge a whole organization by the actions of a few.

 

I was taught that prejudice and discrimination were bad at a very early age. You cant judge a book by its cover was something my parents insisted upon.

 

My comments about research had to do with challenging discrimination and prejudice caused by misinformation. The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality works to draw in the weak and abused and to cure them. It does this with half-truths and misrepresentations in hopes of saving these fallen souls from eternal damnation and, makes a profit in the process.

 

Every leading national authority on mental health has pointed out the manipulative flaws in the research used by the NARTH and others to promote their Reparative Therapy programs. I say manipulative because these are simple omissions that any accredited scientist would have NEVER left out, unless the information discredited their objective. The following national mental health authorities further warn of the severe risks associated with their therapy to cure homosexuality. (To name a few)

 

The American Psychiatric Association http://www.psych.org

The American Psychological Association http://www.apa.org

The American Academy of Family Physicians http://www.aafp.org

The American Medical Association http://www.ama-assn.org

The Surgeon General of the USA http://www.surgeongeneral.gov

 

The bottom line is you believe Homosexuality is wrong I respect your opinion but, I also challenge your belief by the fact that religions have always evolved their positions on what was right and wrong in light of new knowledge.

 

The above mental health organizations have also taken strong stances on the fact that thorough research has determined that sexual orientation is not chosen and homosexuals are not prone to any mental dysfunction any more than heterosexuals.

[Rooster7]

It doesn't take a degree to understand that homosexuality is wrong. With or without religion, the coupling of two men or two women does not make biological sense. Nature did not design men to share sexual intimacy with one another. Nature did not design women to share sexual intimacy with one another. God create a man to be with a woman and a woman to be with a man. The idea of men pressing their flesh against one another is repulsive and obscene. If you consider these statements to be an attack, I'm sorry. I believe they represent common sense and the truth. I will not apologize for either.

[littlebillie]

"Nature did not design men to share sexual intimacy with one another. Nature did not design women to share sexual intimacy with one another."

 

yet nature has made allowances among other species for exactly this kind of activity - esp. during times of overpopulation! rats, bonobos, fish, dogs, sheep... it can be seen as a part of a system of population checks and balances.

[Rooster7]

littlebillie,

 

Animals do not have the ability to make moral judgments. They are simply acting out...gratifying their physical needs no matter the means. The same explanation applies to dogs that take a liking to some poor slob's leg. Per your last post, your logic implies because animals do it, it's okay for men to do it. Using that reasoning, everything is fair game from pedophilia to incest, even rape. You name it - animals are dumb enough to try just about anything. The difference is, of course - animals do not have the souls and minds that we do. Although, I don't doubt that there are many folks (some not as quite as far out on the fringe as we would like to believe) that would find that rational perfectly acceptable. I hope, we can all agree, mankind needs to embrace a standard much higher that of the animal kingdom - a kingdom without any moral capacity and where all of the inhabitants are constantly seeking to satisfy their base nature. You do see the difference between man and animals, dont you?

 

To put it simply littlebillie, I was talking about a man and a woman, not cats and dogs. We are all a part of God's world, but lets keep things in their proper perspective - the analogy simply does not work. And if you dont see the difference, then Id like to suggest that this is the root cause of our disagreements. God created man for a purpose much higher than that of animals. Animals were created by God to serve man.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Twocubdad]

Rooster, either you're going to make an argument for biology or not. Which is is? Your last post contradicts your previous one.

[Rooster7]

TwoCubDad,

 

I made the "biological" argument as it applies to mankind, as moral beings. Near as I can tell, we are the only moral beings around. Does any one want to make the case for baboons and pigs? I suppose that there are more folks willing to make that argument then I care to believe. But to continue...these two concepts 1) man and woman designed as biological mates, and 2) man and woman designed as moral beings, are not mutually exclusive. Both were foretold in the book of Genesis - although that may not mean anything to you. And both have been proven to be true over the last five thousand years of known history. When one makes analogies to the animal kingdom, one is implying that we are cut from the same cloth...that we are very similar to one another. That supposition is sorely lacking in merit. Man has a heart, mind, and soul like no other animal on this planet. Surely, we can agree on that point. If not, speak up, and I will dust off my feet and move on from here. If you cannot see the difference between mankind and the rest of the animal kingdom, there's no sense in me or anyone else wasting our breath.

 

Baboons and pigs will not be held accountable for their behavior. Mankind will be. But if you truly want to keep "religion" (i.e. God) out of the debate, ignore my statement about accountability...or any future comments I may have about fallen beings, repentance, and salvation. Its not what I prefer you do, but if youre so inclined to do so for the sake of argument - thats your choice. Yet, you should not discount my comments about man being a moral being. Because whether or not you want to acknowledge God, you have to acknowledge the fact that we possess a conscience. If you cant even acknowledge that fact, then we truly have no common ground.

 

To return to my original point, nature clearly designed a man and a woman to be together as biological mates, and not for a man to be with a man, or a woman to be with a woman. And just as clearly, we have a conscience. We have the capacity to make moral decisions that other animals do not. Given both of these truths, I cannot comprehend why a man would allow himself to succumb to the perverse calling of homosexuality.

 

Even if a man has deep emotions for another man, there is no innate demand put upon us - there is no supernatural calling, to consecrate those feelings with a sexual act. Even in healthy heterosexual relationships, if there was a need or circumstance that prohibited physical contact, both a man and a woman have the ability to abstain from sex without doing harm to themselves - physically or emotionally. Love does not require sex. Love is spiritual. This is why love lives on between parent and child, between siblings, between life long friends, etc. While a man and a woman can express that emotion through sex - a natural biological act which can produce offspring, it is not necessary for the emotion to be sustained.

 

So, I maintain 1) Homosexuality is not natural - the biological design of our bodies make that abundantly obvious, 2) Mankind has the moral capacity to understand what is natural and what is perverse, and 3) Even a strong emotional bond between two individuals of the same sex, does not warrant perversity. They could simply love one another. But that I suppose - is too simple for many to digest. What?! Love without sex! I know that sounds horrible to some people - But not every relationship has to be about obtaining physical gratification. Sex is not a lie-detector, a stamp of approval, or even a guarantee of a lasting a relationship. Depending on your relationship with God, or the lack thereof, sex is simply a gift from God that was meant be to shared by a man and a woman - an act of intimacy that often produces a very natural byproduct - a baby. If youre Godless, then strike the phrase gift from God. But no matter how you slice it, homosexuals will not contribute to the subsistence of mankind. In fact, ignoring the biological compatibility argument for a brief moment - if homosexual desires were truly natural, then the folks claiming that inclination would have went the way of the Dodo bird many generations ago.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)