Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[erickelly65]

Onehour wrote We would never think of allowing unrelated women to camp with our boys given all the possibilities for improper contact or even the appearance of improper contact.

 

 

There is no rule that only related women (or men for that matter) can be adult leaders. Even if a leader is related to a boy in a Troop, they arent going to be related to all boys in the Troop. That is one of many reasons why we have the 2 deep leadership and separate accommodation policies in the G2SS.

 

Onehour also wrote: Whether you think homosexuality is morally unclean, deviant, and unnatural, or whether you think it is just a violation of plain common sense to allow those sexually attracted to males to camp in close quarters with young males, excluding homosexuals is the only way to go.

 

To follow this logic then we shouldnt allow (straight) women leaders either and we cant have a coed program at all because the leaders will be attracted the opposite portion of the youth membership (boys or girls).

 

Thinking homosexually is wrong based on your religious and other beliefs may be a good reason to exclude them but, all other things being equal, I dont believe a gay man is inherently any more of a sexual threat to a boy then a straight woman.

 

I have always thought that even you believe homosexuality is a sin, is it one that rises to the necessity of excluding said sinner from our program? My faith tells me we are ALL guilty of sin, so by that measure none of us can be scout leaders (and there has only been one person ever on the earth that would meat that leadership measure and hes been gone a couple thousand years). The question is, despite our sins and flaws, are we still capable of being ethical and responsible leaders for our youth. (I know lots of straight people I wouldnt want within a 100 miles of a scouting position and a few gay men, I think would be excellent leaders. It has to taken in the aggregate.)

 

Some faiths have strong opinions against homosexual behavior. Others, while considering it a sin, welcome those people up to and including openly ordaining them as religious leaders. Still other faiths remain largely, if not completely, silent on sexuality. Since Scouting isnt of a particular faith, who says whos faiths moral compass should prevail in all these decisions?

(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

[Gold Winger]

"Thinking homosexually is wrong based on your religious and other beliefs may be a good reason to exclude them but, all other things being equal, I dont believe a gay man is inherently any more of a sexual threat to a boy then a straight woman."

 

Since most of the universe seems to think that a heterosexual man is a threat to the virtue of a teenaged girl. We should follow that thought process and treat homosexual men as threats to the virtue of teenaged boys. I posed this issue before but all tj did was dance and say, "were already out there. ha. ha." (paraphrashing)

[OldGreyEagle]

Which is why none of the BSA units (Packs, Troops Crews, Teams, Ships,etc) go anywhere with only one adult. We have adult males and females, all acknowledged heterosexuals sleeping in tents right next to each other for heavens sake! TJ says the gays are already in scouting and while I dont know of any for sure, I have to agree they are present as they are everywhere else.

 

The odd thing is that in the past, all the pedophilic scoutmasters that have made the media are always married men with children and a pillar of the community. When reading stories of these men, the reactions of friends and neighbors are always the same, what a shock it was, how unbeleivable this could happen, he was such a nice guy. I havent read a single story about how the abuser was such a flamer he set fires everytime he took the boys on a hike. I have never seen a comment about how no one could beleive this guy was a scoutmaster because he was such a raging queen.

 

I think the local option is the way to go. Part of the local option would be that the BSA place all responsibility and liability in the Chartering Organization for adult leaders. Community Day, if you want gay leaders, fine, have them, but if they abuse a child, only you are liable as you chose them. The BSA would still keep its polcies on its employees. Let it run a few years and see what happens?

[erickelly65]

Well, we do allow straight men to be leaders around teenage girls in our Venturing programs.

[DanKroh]

oh, joy. More homophobic intimations that homosexuals are pedophiles or ephebophiles. Sorry, but there's no evidence to support your concerns, onehouraweekmy and GoldWinger. In my book, that makes it fear-mongering, plain and simple.

 

And the ignore user list just keeps growing....

[Gold Winger]

You miss my point entirely Dan.

 

Society considers that heterosexual men cannot be trusted with young women because we're driven by urges that we cannot control. It follows that homosexual men cannot be trusted with young men because they suffer similar urges.

 

I'm not driven mad with lust by my daughters girl scout troop and I'm sure that tj isn't driven mad with lust by boy scouts but isn't it better to be safe than sorry? At least that's what they tell me.

 

 

[skeptic]

OGE; you make a pertinent point when you suggest that the "liability" issue would be the responsibility of the CO. One of my thoughts on this whole issue has been that, in the litigious society in which we live, BSA is between the rock and the hard place. While some would say otherwise, chances are that should a gay also turn out to be a pedophile and BSA knew he was gay and allowed him to be a leader, they might as well simply pay the large dollars, as the jury would immediately find them guilty when the lawyer made not of them "knowing". This simple reality is not considered by most as important, but it is.

 

 

[erickelly65]

Goldwing is write in that there is somewhat of a double standard against the straight male and what a threat we might be to young girls.

 

You need look no further then our sisters in the GSUSA. They place significant limits on what leadership roles and level of participation men can have especially when compared to BSA.

 

Having said that two wrongs dont make a right.

 

Sidebar comment - why is it that so few people here fill out their profile information?(This message has been edited by erickelly65)(This message has been edited by erickelly65)

[packsaddle]

OK, let's try that again, now....

 

OGE wrote, "TJ says the gays are already in scouting..."

And I say it too. I know this for a fact and I also know for a fact that these are great leaders who pose no threat whatsoever to the boys.

 

Dan, I sometimes think that homophobia is diminishing. And then I have to wonder if I'm deceiving myself by that.

[erickelly65]

I personally am not a fan of the term homophobic as it get so cavalierly thrown about. I don't believe that anyone that thinks homosexuality is wrong is necessarilly "phobic" (some are some arent) The conotations of the word are by their nature inflammatory and there for dont advance the discussion.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65, what are the limits the GSUSA puts on male leadership? I know the GSUSA requires at least one leader to be a woman, but that's so girls will have a female role model.

[packsaddle]

Erickelly65, a hypothetical:

A person who maintains personal prejudice that gays tend to be pedophiles - on that basis justifies exclusion of gays from an organization. Does this not qualify has "homophobia" in your dictionary? Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster:

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals"

 

If the shoe fits......

[DanKroh]

erickelly65, I agree that the term is overused; however, the comments that were made represent the textbook defnition of homophobia: irrational fear of homosexuality or homosexuals.

 

The individuals who made the comments are trying to instill fear (of sexual abuse) using something that has no basis in reality (kind of the definition of "irrational"). I don't believe that promulgating such fear-mongering, irrational, inflammatory untruths advances the discussion either. By exposing these comments for what they are, I hope to keep the discussion from degenerating into further fear-mongering.

[Gold Winger]

"Dan, I sometimes think that homophobia is diminishing. And then I have to wonder if I'm deceiving myself by that. "

 

Its not truly a phobia which means fear. It is a general dislike for the actions and activities and I really dont think that is diminishing despite what the PC crowd and Hollywood want us to believe.

 

Hamsters, billiard balls and the general attitude that they know how to dress better than the rest of us is what drives the distaste of the average heterosexual man for homosexulaity.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Gold Winger, despite your exceptional taste in motorcycles, I wonder on what basis you think you can speak for the 'average heterosexual man'? Moreover, because I disagree on this topic with your idea of the 'average', does that make me 'above-' or 'below-average'. I'm curious as to your characterization. Your call.