Homosexuals in Scouting

[Rooster7]

Acco40,

 

Im afraid your post and your attitude in these matters are typical. Its amazing to me - that standing around the campfire (so to speak), I encounter so many progressive thinkers pontificating about being open-minded while looking down their collective nose at those embracing traditional values. Its all very high minded, and the possibilities are so intriguingthat is until you have to put your 13-year son in a tent with a 16-year boy who has wet dreams about 13-year old boys. Then, suddenly, we are not as open minded as we lead others to believe. When we have a true personal stake in the philosophy that we espouse, when those we love are potentially impacted by the stances we take, then we tend to put more thought into these matters.

 

At one point in my life, when I treated God more like a theory than a reality, and when I naively envisioned a humanity that could permanently resolve its own ills, I intellectualized these issues and pondered the possibilities just like you. How I came to my epiphany and rejected that line of thinking is another discussion. Still, I cant help but noticing a strong parallel between those on this board who discuss accepting homosexuality as an intellectual and a morally righteous eventuality, and those who discuss God as if hes more theory than anything else. They talk bravely, boldly, and brightly about how homosexuals are a misunderstood people, about how these guiltless souls suffer greatly against unwarranted discrimination and unprovoked hateand they agonize as to how homosexuals can be painlessly integrated into our ranks. We are, after all, a civilized society that loves all people. Interestingly, it seems to me that many of these folks like to think of God in the same way. They say, If God exists, hes a loving God and He will accept all people. They argue that this represents the evolved and educated viewpoint of a healthy, loving member of the modern world. Again, it is the high-minded approach to these matters. Those that think differently are obviously fearfully and ignorantly grasping onto an antiquated religion; a religion that has been manipulated by previous generations to keep the poor oppressed (or so the argument goes).

 

Of course, there are branches of truth in this line of thinking. Homosexuals should not be hated. We should find a way to make all people, including homosexuals feel loved. Though, I say, at what cost do we achieve these things? I want thieves to feel loved too, but Im not going to ask them to housesit my home while Im away on vacation. Needless to say, I agree that God is a loving god. So, I can understand how some folks are drawn into this kind of thinking (i.e., all things are acceptable so long as they do not hurt others) and how people accept many behaviors, no matter how bizarre. Furthermore, I cannot dispute the fact that many people have abused the Christian faith for their own gain. But everything under the Sun has been abused at some point for personal gain this does not mean that nothing can be trusted. This fact just demonstrates how corrupt mankind has always been.

 

Lest we forget, the human heart is a deceitful thing. Nor should we ever forget that Gods ways are not our ways. If you have sought God, determined that you already know His character, then youve never really sought Him. To find truth, we must find God. To find God, we must approach him as if we are children. Let God reveal to you who He is, then the truth will follow. Ive made both of these journeys. Only when I opened my heart to Him, without the assurances and comfort of my preconceptions, did I truly open my mind. Im confident that I know God, at least to the point that I understand this God is holy, righteous, and loving. Yes, His righteousness does not negate His love for us. But neither does his love for us negate His righteousness. Christ is the only one that can reconcile this.

 

Proverbs 9:10

"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, and knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster, what you say in your post might have some bearing on the BSA, if the BSA was predicated on your particular religious beliefs or your particular way of thinking about and relating to God. But it isn't. The BSA does not take sides on matters of religion, or at least it says it doesn't.

 

As for boys in tents, if that were really the concern the policy would not be limited to those who are "openly" gay. I find the whole discussion of gay boys to be almost completely academic anyway, because I have never even heard of someone still of Boy Scout age publicly proclaiming that they are gay. As for your hypothetical 16-year-old, let's say he does have those thoughts, and let's also say he is inclined to act on them, which takes him over the line from being a "homosexual" to being a molester or a rapist. Do you really think he's going to tell anyone before he does it?

[Rooster7]

Rooster, what you say in your post might have some bearing on the BSA, if the BSA was predicated on your particular religious beliefs or your particular way of thinking about and relating to God. But it isn't.

 

I dont keep a secret as to where my beliefs come from. My faith is a driving force in my thinking and my morality. I like to provide folks with this background when I explain my position on certain issues. Nevertheless, this fact should not be used as a justification to cast off my opinion or the moral position of other folks who embrace their faith. Every organization has rules. Virtually every rule can be traced to a moral principle. With God, morality has a basis. Without God, all morality is subjective. These things being trueI feel it is not only wrong but also illogical to discount peoples opinions on morality (or rules) because they have religious roots. If you must, simply take in the opinion and discount the source. But dont take in the source and discount the opinion. I think the BSA or rather those empowered to oversee the BSA, are smart enough to figure this out.

 

 

As for boys in tents, if that were really the concern the policy would not be limited to those who are "openly" gay.

 

Please, how are they supposed to write a policy that addresses closet gays without encouraging a witch-hunt? I dont think it can be done. Regardless, I dont think the BSA is willing to risk that with a new policy. The present policy is clear enough and makes sense. If someone admits to this behavior, they will be booted out the door.

 

I find the whole discussion of gay boys to be almost completely academic anyway, because I have never even heard of someone still of Boy Scout age publicly proclaiming that they are gay.

 

Gee NJ has it ever occurred to you that these boys might be hiding their orientation because half of the countrys population considers their desires and/or behavior to be perverse? Ive never heard of a teenaged boy publicly proclaiming his lust for the girl next door. I guess those kids dont exist either.

 

As for your hypothetical 16-year-old, let's say he does have those thoughts, and let's also say he is inclined to act on them, which takes him over the line from being a "homosexual" to being a molester or a rapist.

 

First, if a 16-year-old boy has sex with a 13-, 14-, 15-, or 16-year old, no state that I know of claims that to be molestation. Molesters are adults acting upon children. As to rape now were talking consent. So, if the 16-year old can cast any doubts about as to whether or not the other boy was willing, he walks free.

 

Do you really think he's going to tell anyone before he does it?

 

No, but how does this question come into play? The local option policy would open the door for boys to make passes towards one another and/or sexual advances under the pretence of consent. If a boy complains, then the gay Scout can claim that he never forced himself and/or that the other boy responded favorably. I can easily envision scenarios whereas older gay Scouts manipulate younger, impressionable boys. Does anyone really think that this would not be a springboard for secret games and/or secret societies within the BSA? In the end, I can see some liberal judge writing the whole thing off as being a victimless situation whereas confused adolescents merely went through a discovery stage. In short, if boys are hiding their sexuality because they dont want to be booted out of the BSA, then that probably means theyre not going to risk exposure by making advances on your son. This is a good thing. If they are allowed in regardless of their sexuality, then the advances are merely in the eyes of the beholder. The local option will open a Pandoras box. And the results will be very ugly.

 

[Big_Dog]

NJ-

 

"I find the whole discussion of gay boys to be almost completely academic anyway, because I have never even heard of someone still of Boy Scout age publicly proclaiming that they are gay."

 

And here I thought you were trying to drag me kicking and screaming into the next century! If you have never heard of someone still of Boy Scout age publicly proclaiming that they are gay, you need to check out the public school systems. Even down here in backwards ol' Texas, they have gay-straight alliances in schools. From what I've seen, gay boys don't always keep that fact hidden.

[Rooster7]

So my point won't be lost, it is not important what states are willing to prosecute 16-year olds for having consenting sex with 13-year olds. The point was/is, the boy can always claim that the advances were welcomed and the subsequent sex consentual. This would make any kind of prosecution difficult, even rape. Legally, they may call it molestation in some states (i.e., a 16-year old with a 13-year old or a 15-year old with a 14-year old), but these days, I don't see too many judges or juries being sympathetic. Furthermore, I envision the gay boy claiming one of two defenses:

 

1) The other boy only objected after someone else found out about his "gay" experience.

 

OR

 

2) The morning after syndrome - The boy cannot face his own homosexuality and thus wants to believe it was rape - although in his heart he knows better.

 

Does anyone really doubt these things coming to pass if gays are allowed to share tents with heterosexual boys?(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[packsaddle]

Rooster7, I understand your arguments. I think the point was something different, however. As I understand NJ's point, present BSA policy simply has no effect on the acts you are so anxious about. It only affects a person who is open and honest enough to 'avow' a status. It doesn't even address behavior necessarily because a gay person doesn't necessarily have to act on those feelings. And if I follow NJ's logic, the person who is open and honest is unlikely to be the one you should worry about.

Because with respect to the acts you want to avoid, BSA policy neither identifies perps in advance, nor prevents them from engaging in the acts if they are so inclined. All of the things you describe are out there as potentials regardless of the policy. BSA policy or not, those guys are there or they aren't. And you won't know until it's too late.

[OldGreyEagle]

Actually, I always thought the BSA "Gay" policy was for Leaders, not scouts. And the troop I serve may be an aberration, but we dont have a whole lot of 16 year olds sleeping in a tent with a 13 year old unless they are brothers, and in that case they usually want to be as far as possible from each other. The Troop doesnt assign tent mates, the scouts do that themselves, so I dont see Rooster's scenario happening for us.

 

As far as who decides adult leaders for council treks, I would think the council would. And if a Gay leader were to be chosen, it would be by the council who would know him.

I'm sorry, I dont see a gay man who wants to be Scout Leader as a demon.

 

Since I have been posting here, I have seen 2-3 posts a year on Scout Leaders molesting scouts. I dont recall a single one ever being a gay man hiding his sexuality from the troop, its always a married man, with children of his own, a fine pillar in the community, etc...

 

These are the demons

[uhsammy]

Has any else brought up the point that the Girl Scouts allow Lesbian leaders, and have no problems with this policy. Their policy is to have no policy on it. It is my understanding that Mormons pushed this issue to the forefront in the BSA. Rather than leaving well enough alone, they have made a mountain out of a molehill. I have to agree with the previous poster, it is never the guy that everyone knows or thinks is gay that is the molester, it is the married dad that is a pillar of a community. I have seen that happen first hand. The values of scouting not based on a belief in a certain religion or ideology. Also, if we are not going to allow homosexuals in scouting, then we shouldn't allow straight women either. They are both attracted to men, and in turn that makes them a potential candidate as a molestor of boys. These women, like the gay men, will not be able to control themselves. In all my years of scouting, the best scoutmaster that I ever knew, and many other great scouts were gay. They never molested anyone, and they didn't flaunt their sexuality. They were some of the most dedicated Scouts that I have ever seen. The same could be said about many Paid professionals and Scouters that I have come into contact with in the GSUSA.

[packsaddle]

uhsammy, welcome to the forums. Perhaps not the identical thoughts that you have expressed, but this topic has been beaten to death in some historic threads. Take a look at the archives...it could take a while.

If Bob White hadn't shown himself the curb recently he'd inform you rather flatly that BSA and GSUSA are different entities (which isn't exactly a shocking revelation for most of us) and that BSA has a right to make its own policies, separate from GSUSA, duh! But I think you make a valid argument, nevertheless.

[Fat Old Guy]

"Has any else brought up the point that the Girl Scouts allow Lesbian leaders, and have no problems with this policy."

 

The problem is that men are inherently evil. Consider that in GSUSA two men cannot take the girls camping by themselves. However, in BSA two women can take boys into the woods for a week BUT in Venturing, an adult woman is required on any outing which has a girl involved.

 

A couple of weak rationales are used like "GSUSA wants women as role models" and "Girls may have problems that they don't want to discuss with men." Why do girls need women as role models but boys just need "adults." Also, as a youth I experienced many problems that I wouldn't want to discuss with a woman.

[Rooster7]

FOG,

 

I agree with many of your points - i.e., boys need men as mentors; boys do not want to discuss certain issues with a female, and so on. However, I have to admit that I tend to agree with the thought that men should not be trusted. That's not to say, all men or most men are bad. Obviously this is not true. Yet, I'm convinced that every man alive today has struggled with sexual temptation at some point in their lives - and many do up until the day they die. I realize that many women have inappropriate desires and failings in behavior as well. But lets not ignore reality...when it comes to child molestation and other sexual deviations, history tells us that collectively, men have much more to be ashamed of than women.

 

Interestingly, liberal women have little problem accepting this stereotype (don't trust a man with your child alone). Logically - per the liberal theology, the GSUSA policy is not very consistent. Nevertheless, as a practical matter - I believe their policy is sound. Of course, when I think of two women as being chaperones, I am thinking of two heterosexual moms. The lesbian non-sense is another matter. One day, people will open their eyes to this evil ill in our society and recognize it as such. Unfortunately, the way of the world seems to be drifting in the opposite direction. I hope I'm wrong about that drift.

 

[Fat Old Guy]

"Of course, when I think of two women as being chaperones, I am thinking of two heterosexual moms."

 

I knew some very interesting heterosexual moms when I was a teenager (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more)

[NJCubScouter]

FOG, in his own inimitable style, says:

 

I knew some very interesting heterosexual moms when I was a teenager (wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more)

 

I think this is one of those times when most of us wish you would "say no more" before you post, not after.

[Fat Old Guy]

New Jersey Dude,

 

Do you let your kids watch "Will and Grace"? Do you let your kids watch the last few James Bond movies? Have you let your kids see "Mission Impossible" (the movie) or any of the Austin Powers movies? What about "Friends," do they watch that or any of the comedy specials on cable? (by kids, I mean offspring of either sex who are under 18 years of age)

 

If you answered "yes" to any of the above questions then methinks you are being disingenuous by protesting my comments.

 

[buffalo2]

Give it a rest FOG