If the Local Option happens, how will Troops deal with practical problems?

[Fehler]

Scouts and Scouters cannot use the uniform of Scouting in political events or to promote political campaigns. Is a Gay Pride Parade a political campaign? I don't think so, no more so than a Latin American cultural event is the same as a pro-immigration rally, or any 4th of July parade is just a collection of politicians walking three blocks throwing stale candy at a bunch of sweaty babies.

 

Now, if the event was a rally in support of specific gay rights/marriage legislation, I would remind those taking part that they may perform civic activities (lead a flag ceremony), but after that the uniform shouldn't be used.

[BadenP]

BadenP, fear-motivated nonsense is apparently how I roll.

 

I am, however, just doing the favor of taking those who want the New Model of Scouting at their word. If the failure to change to the NMS is all that is keeping a large group of gay scouts, gay scouters, socially conscious liberal parents, and morally impeccable corporate funding sources from rushing to participate in scouting, doesn't it make sense that a change will cause "an overwhelming mass of gay youth and adults rushing to join the BSA?" I have read those on this forum in favor of the NMS claim that the changes will mean that we will have huge Jamboree special effects shows created by Steven Speilberg and that George Takei will create loving media attention by being named the Chief Scouter. If it will have no effect in causing gays to join, but will probably cause social conservatives to leave, shouldn't the discussion focus on why the demands of the few must outweigh the needs of the many? You shouldn't claim that the NMS will change everything, but then say we shouldn't talk about how we plan to deal with what might happen, because after all it really won't change anything.

 

If, as you say, the Local Option allows the units leadership and CO to set the parameters for what is or is not allowable activities, is it not prudent to discuss now how we individually plan to deal with the issues that arise? Clearly, some of those issues have already arisen (like participation in Gay Pride parades, and all-gay scout troops) in Canada Scouting (possibly to its detriment), and, in the Girl Scouts of America, transgendered child issues. Do you think the Boy Scouts of America operate on a special reservation that protects us from the problems of society as a whole?

AzMike, It is not prudent discussing how we individual units will make our determinations of what is proper or not proper activities. Local option means exactly that, it is for the owners of the units to decide and not a concensus of the entire membership. As I said since National has lost their decision making ability and buried their heads in the sand it is now in the hands of the CO's to be the guardians of the units scouting values. In the long run this could result in scouting becoming a stronger organization but it is going to be a long and bumpy road.

[DadScouts]

I agree the practical problems mentioned will, in 99% of all cases, either not be a problem or the problem is easily solved or decided upon.

 

The "T" in GLBT? I am unaware that any state lets a minor undergo a sex change operation so that T is out. The others? A girl dressing as a boy waiting for that sex change operation is still a girl, so excluded.

 

Camping with a homosexual adult? Well if she is lesbian no issue there, correct? If the adult is a male? Well, I don't recall our female leaders hitting on the guys or visa versa - and that is with both man and woman being straight. A gay man hitting on a straight man at camp would be 100x less likely to happen than a straight woman hitting on a straight dad at camp.

 

Would a straight leader want to sleep with a new gay leader? Well, in our Troop, if they gay leader didn't snore like a chainsaw like the rest of us do then most of the straight men would be fighting to share a tent with the gay leader. (Yes, I am being completely serious here.)

 

One gay Scout? Odds are it would be an older Scout "coming out" and not a younger Scout. Friendships would have been developed most likely. Do not know how the adults would handle it but the gay Scout, and his straight friends, would likely share a tent with him like they have for years. Friends are friends and none of those friends would be his boyfriend so nothing happens. Straight or gay, any Scout who is a jerk would be the one without a tentmate. How the adults would handle this? Don't know. I'll tell you how it works out if it ever happens. The Scouts will all know who is gay months before any adult finds out.

 

What do I worry about? The same things I have the past ten years and will worry about for the next ten.

A Scout putting a knife at another Scout's throat at summer camp. (Scout suspended, quit the Troop, joined another Troop and now serving in combat this very day. Apparently turned it around.)

A 2nd year Scout dropping his pants and saying something beyond inappropriate to another Scout. (Scout is straight apparently; he was bounced.)

A 2nd year Scout saying something beyond inappropriate to another Scout, also sexual in nature. (another straight kid apparently, no longer in the troop.)

A fully trained leader, married (still is today), father, etc. Said/did something inappropriate to an underaged female in a public place. (Goodbye from BSA and criminal conviction.)

 

Looking for problems with gays? You're, according to the odds, looking in the wrong place and thereby taking your eye off the ball. There are bigger fears to look out for and, as importantly, other important issues to devote your time to in the service of our youth like leadership development, personal growth, interpersonal skill development, etc. The gay issue can be a distraction but only if you let it. Educate those who have issues and tell them what the real problems are they should focus their time and attention on. Gays in BSA likely won't make most unit's top ten list of REAL problems.

[EmberMike]

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.

[NJCubScouter]

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.

EmberMike says:

 

If his enthusiasm is the cause for concern, you should have the same concern over the enthusiastic straight guy as well.

 

Absolutely. One thing that would set off my personal "alarm bells" is someone showing up out of the blue who wants to be a leader, who has no existing connection to the troop. By "connection" I mean that the person is the parent of a Scout (and of course many of those parents stay after their sons have left, including me, but by that point the person is well-known and not showing up for the first time) or a young adult who is a "graduate" of the troop. That does not mean that someone without a "connection" is necessarily there for the wrong reasons -- I am sure there are some in this forum who have been leaders of a unit without having a connection, for all the right reasons -- and it doesn't mean that someone WITH a connection cannot secretly be there for the wrong reasons. I'm just saying I think that if you "play the odds", and extra measure of caution is called for. For example, when the parent of a Scout, or a member of the troop who has turned 18, fills out an adult leadership application, in our troop we do not check their references. Maybe we should, but it seems kind of silly. In almost all cases, the parent is already known to other parents in the troop, either through already being involved as a parent volunteer, or through Cub Scouts, youth sports activities, religious affiliations, or some other way. The other parents could all be "references" for the new leader. In the case of the 18-year-old ASM, all the leaders already know him, so they are his "references." But if someone "unknown" does show up, that is when the references need to be checked. In my time with the troop, nobody "unknown" has ever shown up and wanted to be a leader. If one did, I don't think my "alarm bells" would be the only ones going off. And it wouldn't matter what the person's orientation was.

[AZMike]

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.

Decisions about youth safety must be made based on prudence - weighing the risk of calumny against a group, against the need to protect a vulnerable population. In such cases we should err on the side of caution and protecting the young. A person may be annoyed or their feelings will be hurt if they are not allowed to become a Boy Scout leader; the cost will be far greater to the victim of molestation if we err in judgment.

 

We must also be very careful not to base our decision on what is blithely claimed to be "numerous studies;" science is an observational method and a way of analyzing data, nothing more (and also nothing less). Scientists are as prone to bad reasoning, observational bias, and political/academic pressure as anyone else. We can point to correlations, we can point to statistical studies, but we must also be guided by our own human experience and reasoning in making prudential choices.

 

The "science" of the 1970s posited that child abusers could be cured of their attraction and returned to positions of authority, a view that the bishops in the Catholic Church accepted despite the Church's millennia-long experience to indicate otherwise; we Catholics are all paying the price for that overly-optimistic reliance on the "science" of that era.

 

The statistical research does, in fact, support a view that homosexuals are more prone to having sex with minors than heterosexuals, in that the research reflects that a) homosexuals who molest boys have far more more victims than do heterosexuals who molest children of the opposite sex, and b) a far greater percentage of homosexuals report that their first sexual act as a minor was with an adult (male) than do heterosexuals with adults of the opposite sex. Who was having all those homosexual sex acts with juvenile boys, heterosexuals?

 

We also know, based on the research and arrest reports, that homosexuals who are "out" can and do molest teenagers. The LGBT Community Outreach Coordinator for my local police department just got arrested for molesting two teenagers. He was openly gay and claimed to be interested only in adult partners. His visibility as a gay man in a position of authority who was "out" did not protect his victims.

 

This is not really an issue of "pedophilia." Lots of males (gay, straight, or bisexual) try to have sex with juveniles without being "pedophiles." The 28 year-old Police Explorer Scout Advisor who has a sexual relationship with a 16-year old girl isn't a "pedophile," he''s an adult who committed a crime with a teenager to whom he was sexually attracted. As the risk group that is represented by Boy Scouts consists of largely pubescent boys and boys entering into puberty, many of whom are physically sexually (if not emotionally) mature, a prudential judgement tells us that whether a person identifies themselves as homosexual or heterosexual in orientation, many people make a sinful choice to have sex with a minor. It is a rare day when my local paper does NOT have an article about a school teacher, neighbor, explorer post adviser, youth group leader, juvenile correction officer, youth minister, or other individual who was arrested after having sex with a teenager. Although both sexes do this, and the rate for women appears to be rising, males of all sexual orientations seem to do this most often. Because of this, we do not allow males access to pubescent girls on GSA campouts because of this risk, anymore than we should allow those with a sexual interest in other males access to young males in the scouting environment. Youth Safety precautions only take you so far. It is not calumny against all homosexuals, any more than it is a calumny against me as a heterosexual male because I am not allowed to accompany a group of young women on a GSA campout. It is practicing prudence, based on our knowledge and experience with human sexual behavior.

[EmberMike]

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.

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.

[packsaddle]

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.

EmberMike, I don't want to enter the argument about whether or not one group or another is likely to molest children. I do want to note that AZMike is correct about the lack of actual science in these studies. These are mostly statistical exercises or the result of uncontrolled comparisons and hardly meet the rigor of actual science. To be sure, they do employ some sophisticated mathematical methods of removing bias, etc. but in the end, they still, at best, suggest interesting hypotheses...and do not in themselves constitute scientific tests. And, given that we're concerned with human subjects, those kinds of tests are unlikely in the future as well. And that means that the argument is likely to continue, unresolved, as well.

[Twocubdad]

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.

Agreed, pack. Noodling around on the Internet trying to find objective info on this subject, I was surprised to learn that pedophilia is defined as a sexual attraction to those under age 16 and more than five years younger than the perpertrator. Do the math. Any sex with a 16 or 17 y.o. Scout wouldn't show up as pedophilia, past age 12, it's not considered pedophilia. That may be a valid definition for the purposes of diagnosis, but it certainly muddies any discussion of statistical analysis as it relates to Scout-aged youth.

 

And personally I believe the APA has compromised it's own standing when it comes to social/political issues. I'll hold out that the actual research and standards remain valid, but they've done a really good job of creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. Anytime I read "According to the APA...." I am immediately skeptical.

 

As to the Colorado study, Mike, aside from sampling bias, the first question I would have is what do they mean by "identifiably gay or lesbian"? There may be an accepted, scientific or APA means/definition, but for a whole lot of folks simply applying good ol' horse sense, gays would be identified as the men molesting boys and lesbians are the women molesting girls. That may be a semantic difference, but it is not uncommon for professionals in a field to apply specific meanings to terms which have a much broader understanding in the vernacular. Ever watched Beavah get all torqued up when some gets accused of "hazing"?

[EmberMike]

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.

 

 

[packsaddle]

As I understand it, the BSA membership policy is not based on some kind of fear of molesters. That is pretty much covered by the G2SS rules and guidelines. Rather the BSA membership policy, as I understand it, was based on the claim by BSA that homosexuality does not meet the "morally straight" part of the oath. BSA claimed, convincingly enough to the Supreme Court, that it is a "religious organization" and based the moral judgment of homosexuals in religious beliefs. If I have this wrong, someone please set the record 'straight'.

 

The fear of molestation is something that frequently is invoked in these threads, though, for the tiny bit that it's worth.

[blw2]

I for one disagree with Cambridge skip and those of you that are in agreement,

And i think that AZMike brings up some potentially big issues that could be REAL problems.

Parent hang-up, boy hang-up. Whatever.... it'll be a problem.

 

Well written AZMike!

 

 

[AZMike]

Working on technical issues...

[AZMike]

EmberMike, the mean age of the victims in the Colorado study you cite was 6.1 years, Not exactly the age of the victim group we are looking at in the BSA.

 

 

EmberMike: "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."

 

Okay, let’s not try to move the goalposts on your argument.

 

We are discussing the risk factors to a potential victim population of (exclusively) male juveniles. Whether adult homosexuals or adult heterosexuals commit more criminal sexual molestations to the victim population of all children (boys and girls) is not relevant to the issue that we are discussing. (In fact, however, gay and bisexual males commit a higher proportion of sexual offenses against minors than their representation in the population would suggest.)

 

Quite clearly, more females than males were the victims of child molestation. This is because, as you might have guessed, males commit the majority of sex assaults (both heterosexual and homosexual) and there are just a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men (otherwise, the species would have died out long ago...)

 

As Atlantic Magazine reported, “In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found thatmembers of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, ]approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.†("http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/"]

 

As per the latest Gallup Survey, only 3.4% of Americans identified as LGBT. Even if the number of closeted homosexuals and bisexuals is much larger, the number of offenders as shown in the research below is grossly out-of-proportion to even the most optimistic estimates of the LGBY culture.

So do the small proportion of the population that is homosexual present a molestation risk to boy scouts? Is the risk substantially greater than the small proportion of the population would indicate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[AZMike]

 

“Homosexual†is defined by Merriam-Webster, as well as most dictionaries, as

 

1.: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

 

2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

 

Not adults, simply persons of the same sex. The heterosexual definition uses equivalent terms. Adult males of homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual orientation sometimes have sex with children. It doesn’t matter how someone defines their own orientation, as we are concerned with behavior. To try to redefine the word to benefit your argument, or to try to carve out a third or fourth preference is a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts.â€

 

Our concerns are, who represents a greater risk to our potential victim population?

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual males do not represent a risk of sexual molestation of juvenile males.

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual females do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys. (Statistically, however, it is a much lower risk.)

 

Common sense would tell us that homosexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

Common sense would tell us that bisexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

So, since homosexual and bisexual males (by definition) represent the greatest risk factor of those groups to boys, our question then becomes, what is the level of that risk, and do the potential benefits of allowing homosexuals and bisexuals as scouts and scout leaders (increased self-esteem and self-actualization of the homosexuals involved) outweigh the risks of same (potential criminal sexual molestation)?

 

Here are some relevant studies, which were not commissioned by religious institutions, as per EmberMike’s request.