What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[DanKroh]

"A heterosexual boy would NOT abuse a younger Scout sexually -- by definition. If he did so, he would be functionally homosexual."

 

Incorrect. Sexual abuse is about power, not about sexual attraction. Those that abuse others do it irregardless of their sexual orientation (i.e., who they are sexually attracted to).

 

"(I'm well aware that many functional homosexuals consider themselves hetero. But men or boys who have or seek sex with men or boys, they are homosexual in my definition and, I think, within the BSA's definition. And yes, I know what Kinsey said. But Kinsey has been shown to be a pedophile pervert who used his famous study to recruit sex opportunities. Oh, by the way, he was also an active Scout, FWIW.)"

 

Except there is no such psychological term as "functional homosexual". Again, abuse and molestation is not about sexual attraction, but about having power over a weaker victim.

 

Kinsey was himself a pedophile? Sources please. Not that I'm a big fan, and have some serious issues with some of his methods, but most of the sources I know of that accuse him of being a pedophile do so without any proof to try to discredit his work. And frankly, his work has enough flaws without resorting to ad hominem attacks.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So GaHillBilly, this describes a homosexual assault?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abner_Louima

[Troop24]

GHB,

 

As a fellow GA resident I know that the public school system has an on-going campaign against bullying. Physical and emotional bullying can be as damaging to the psyche as sexual molestation, especially bullying of a sexual nature. Just as Dan Kroh says it is about power not satisfaction for the abuser. I have been aware of hazing rituals in troops over the past 30 years that were sexual in nature but not necessarily gratifying to the hazer. Simply a rite of passage to "enter" the troop. I am not in any way condoning this practice, I abhor it; I don't even like snipe hunts, or singing for lost or forgotten items if the truth be known.

 

Bullies need to be rooted out of the program immediately upon their discovery if you are going to have the same opinion of gay individuals. Gay scouts have no choice over their sexual orientation, but bullies chose to be bullies. Bullies fail to live up to a minimum of 9 of the Scout Laws at even the quickest glance at their meanings (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, brave. . . I won't go near reverent because that would be between the bully and his g-d.) How fair is it to the other scouts if we leaders agree to the advancement of bullies, that terrorize their lives, only living up to 25% of the Scout Law, and then trying to expect other Scouts to be better.

 

BTW Alfred Kinsey was an Eagle Scout from the class of 1913 which would make him among the founding members, wouldn't it?

[packsaddle]

"BTW Alfred Kinsey was an Eagle Scout from the class of 1913 which would make him among the founding members, wouldn't it?"

I would say he would have to have earned it in 1911.

[NJCubScouter]

According to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/kinsey/peopleevents/p_kinsey.html, Alfred Kinsey joined the Boy Scouts in 1911 and made Eagle in 1913. Based on his year of birth (1894), he would have been either 18 or 19 years old at the time. The year 1913 could refer to the year he was presented with the award, or it could have something to do with the fact that at the beginning (and for a few decades thereafter), Eagle could be earned by adults.

 

Not that that has anything to do with the subject(s) of this thread, of course.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

Please take the time to read the article, the sodomy was performed with a broomstick.

 

To say that all sexual abuse forced and about power is forget about coercive relationships. Oftentimes, an adult having sex with a youth is coercive in nature and it has everything to do with sexual gratification. This is sexual abuse. The youth will have permanent scars which are often expressed in adult life as difficulty developing and maintaining relationships. This is true whether the abuse is same sex or heterosexual in nature. From my reading of news articles on the web and personal experiences with local council issues, coercive relationships are far more common than power issue assaults.

[HICO_Eagle]

I thought the question of the post was supposed to be about what would have to change if gays were allowed in yet I keep reading more attacks about "small minded" people block the acceptance of open homosexuals in BSA. Perhaps it would help getting back on track if we set up a list of axioms for the discussion like (feel free to comment on whether these should be axioms or suggest your own):

 

1. National BSA has decided to change policy and allow admission of open homosexuals

2. Individual units will have to observe the new policy or drop their charter

3. Some units will in fact drop their charter rather than accept the new policy

4. Some individuals will also quit Scouting rather than accept the new policy

5. You have been asked by Council and National to help frame changes to the program before the new policy takes effect

 

I think Oak Tree's intent was to discuss #5 without arguing about the desireability of #1 or attacking the character or motives of units/individuals under #3/#4.

[NJCubScouter]

HICO, to start with, I would change your Axiom #2 to its opposite:

 

"Individual units would have the option of accepting or rejecting openly gay persons as leaders and youth members."

 

This is what many people who oppose the current BSA national policy, including me, think the new policy should be... although actually, there has been very little discussion of the "youth member" aspect. Most discussion has centered on the adult leader aspect, probably because that is the case that the Supreme Court decided and that is what the BSA has made explicit statements about. The BSA's statements about openly gay youth members have been ambiguous and somewhat self-contradictory, with the result that the discussion among the rank-and-file (including the discussions in this forum) have been somewhat muddled. Some statements by the BSA in the past have been to the effect that a Scout who says "I'm gay" would not automatically and immediately be "out" (so to speak). But the implication has been that a Scout who is openly gay would eventually not be permitted to remain a Scout. So maybe the "reject an openly gay Scout" option in my statement above is overly simplistic, but I think simplicity may be a virtue at this moment in the discussion.

 

With the (hypothetical) adoption of a "local option Axiom #2", HICO's Axiom #3 goes away, or at least it should. I think this is basically what I said in one of the first few posts in this thread: If no unit is required to accept an openly gay adult leader or Scout, there is no reason for any unit or CO to leave the program.

 

I think that with a local option, HICO's Axiom #4 should be moot as well. If you are in a unit that decides to accept openly gay members, and you cannot accept that decision, you are free to join another unit that does not have that policy. You are also free to take your son (or in the case of Venturing, your daughter) with you. The same works in reverse, if you are in a unit that continues to exclude openly gay members, you can stay, or you can join a unit that does not have that exclusion -- and if you are someone who has left Scouting because you cannot accept that exclusion, you would have the option of coming back and joining a unit that chooses a non-exclusive policy. Sounds like a "win win" to me: Nobody should feel they have to leave under a "local option" policy -- the most they should feel compelled to do is switch units -- while some who have left because of the policy might decide to come back. What a great idea! (Of course, it's not my idea, and it's not a new idea, but it's still a great idea.)

 

And as I've already said, I don't thing item #5 is a big issue either. I do not see any policy changes that would be required. Quite frankly, I think that even under a "local option" policy the number of openly gay adult leaders in the non-excluding units would be very small, and I think the number of openly gay youth members would be extremely small, for the reasons that some others have already mentioned. But even for those members, I don't see any other policies that would need to be changed on a national level. If a unit ever does have a situation where two openly gay youth members want to share a tent, that can be handled as the unit leaders see fit. If it were up to me, I think I would strongly suggest (at least) that they not share a tent. But I don't think I need a national policy telling me how to handle the situation.

 

 

[packsaddle]

I endorse what NJ just wrote. It makes perfect sense. It is an example of how BSA could practice a 'free-market/individual freedom' approach to membership rather than the 'supreme soviet/central government' approach that they dictate now.

[BadenP]

While the idea of a unit option makes some sense the LDS, Catholics and Fundamentalists would not stand for it and pull their units and that would be the end of the BSA as we know it. National can't afford to lose any more numbers, especially the LDS, so you aren't going to see it in our lifetimes unless Mazzuca wants to commit political suicide.

[NJCubScouter]

BadenP: I doubt it. I think that when it came time to make the decision, they would realize it makes no sense to shut down their Scouting units when they don't have to change a thing about their own units.

[vol_scouter]

There are few LDS and Catholic troops in my council but the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches would pull out overnight, the FOS would be decimated, and the council would fold. Most of the Board would resign.

[vol_scouter]

There are few LDS and Catholic troops in my council but the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist churches would pull out overnight, the FOS would be decimated, and the council would fold. Most of the Board would resign.

[NJCubScouter]

The ability that some of you have to predict the future amazes me.

 

(He said sarcastically.)

 

But neither of you (BadenP or vol_scouter) have explained why anyone would pull the plug on a unit just because a different unit has a policy they don't like.

[BrentAllen]

NJ,

I guess only you have the ability to predict the future?

 

I don't know of any Scout Troop that operates as an entity to itself. Whether at Camporees or other district or council events, or at summer camp, Troops interact with one another. Are the council camps going to get into the situation where they allow or don't allow gay Scouts to serve on staff? Will they make that decision a public announcement? What about for every other activity or training event they offer? This would be a very large can of worms. I think many COs would find another organization to support instead of that new version of Scouting.