What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[Oak Tree]

OGE - you keep making the point that units don't normally assign tentmates, (and here I'm going to try to capture what I think you're saying), so we shouldn't need new rules to avoid having an aggressor and a victim being forced to tent together, because the victim would presumably avoid choosing the aggressor, or anyone he doesn't like, for that matter.

 

I'm not sure I buy the argument as a total defense, for several reasons.

1. Part of the reason for the youth protection rules is to prevent people from tenting with people that they like too much (boyfriend/girlfriend, say).

2. Tentmates aren't always buddies. We used to have this problem more - where we'd end up with the two last guys that no one wanted to tent with. They didn't really like each other, but they tented together anyway.

3. I can easily imagine some type of predator bullying a kid into tenting with him.

4. Because of reason 2, our troop did used to occasionally assign tentmates, and I'm sure there are other troops that do as well.

 

I realize that your point does significantly lessen the chance, but it is really enough to make it a moot point?

[vol_scouter]

Oak Tree,

 

If the retrospective study could be well done and showed a significant increase in the number of molestations for a given age group, then it would be prudent to ban them. I doubt that would be the case. I would suspect a bimodal distribution with the first and larger peak in the late 20's and early 30's while the second peak would be in the 60's. One way or the other, I do not believe that there would be a statistically significant increase in a given age group. So, now answer my question.

[Oak Tree]

Ok, I'll try. My last question was indeed a way of answering the question.

 

I looked up the statistics from the Department of Justice the last time they did a study of people who committed violent crimes (mainly sexual abuse) against children.

 

They showed it was overwhelming men who committed such acts - 96.6% to 3.4% - but it's clear we can't ban men from leadership. Blacks were twice as likely as whites, on a per capita basis. People 18-24 were more than twice as likely as those over 40. High school dropouts were far more likely than those who had completed high school. College graduates were significantly less than high-school graduates. And unemployed people were more than twice as likely as employed people.

 

Do you believe that the discrepancy between gays and straights would be greater than any of those discrepancies?

 

I would answer your question this way - we make decisions all the time that may or may not increase risk of all kinds of things. We say that safety is the most important thing, but what we really mean is that we will not do things that have a risk above some threshhold. If we always did only the safest thing, we would presumably stay indoors almost all the time.

 

That's true with sex offenders as well. People who have been arrested once for doing it are significantly more likely than the general population to commit a sexual offense. That likelihood is enough to justify banning them. But being unemployed? Being 18-24? Your race? None of those would be a good enough reason.

 

We as a society have also decided that it's important to treat people as individuals and not discriminate against them based on many personal characteristics. Even if a company had a definitive study that showed that men could do some particular job better than women, it can't discriminate. We do this for a variety of reasons. One reason is that by consistently discriminating against a set of people, we can create various backlashes, or hidden behaviors; and another is because we simply don't believe it is fair to discriminate on the basis of something unrelated to the job at hand.

 

This argument is certainly stronger for things that clearly do not involve choice - race, gender, age, for example. But we also protect religious beliefs, even though people can choose to change religions. To me it's clear that whether someone is heterosexual or homosexual is not simply a choice.

 

I have no way to know if abuse would increase or decrease if open gays were allowed to be leaders. I'm pretty confident the absolute numbers would show little change, because I don't believe we'd see any massive influx of openly gay leaders, and we know there are already some number of gay leaders anyway.

 

I wonder if some people made the same argument about women leaders? "What? You're going to let an 18-year old girl be an assistant Scoutmaster and let her go sleep in the woods with a bunch of 16 and 17 year-old guys? Surely that's just begging for trouble."

 

In the end we will no doubt avoid certain groups of people for leaders. Paranoid schizophrenics, for example, may not make the best leaders. Or people with Alzheimer's disease.

 

But for most things, we accept that there is some risk, and we decide some way to decide what an acceptable risk is.

 

Why, for example, would we let a 60 year old man who weighs 260 pounds go backpacking? Surely he is far more likely to have a heart attack than a 30-year old man who weighs 185 (at least, on average). But we do it because the benefit of getting the leaders out there is worth the risk of having kids watch their Scoutmaster die. At least, up to some point.

 

I suspect that the biggest counter-argument from you would be that you see little or no benefit, so there's no reason to take the risk. But the benefit could be 1)BSA gets more good leaders, 2)toleration is a good thing in and of itself, 3)BSA stops being perceived by some as an outdated organization.

 

How much do you think sexual abuse would increase and why? If you could show clear evidence that the risk would increase substantially, then we could discuss that particular evidence.

[vol_scouter]

Oak Tree,

 

Good points. I do not believe that making tolerance such a platitude is a good idea. Using the same logic, I could say that we should not prevent paranoid schizophrenics with command hallucinations be leaders in order to be tolerance. The flip side is certainly the opposite is not true - to be intolerant. So while I believe that tolerance is a good thing in general, I do not believe that it should be elevated as some sort of goal but rather be a guide.

 

I really do not know what the effect on the incidence of homosexual molestations in scouting would be if the policy was changed. My concern comes from very poor data. The data compares the percent of molestations associated with homosexuals versus their percentage of the population. Based on that crude analysis, homosexuals commit child molestations greater than 10 times that of heterosexuals. This is based upon very poor data. How is the sexual orientation determined and reported? What is done in the case of bisexuals? How accurate is the reporting of events? All of these things would have to be answered before anything can be said other than it is a disturbing number though possibly entirely wrong. I would like to believe that the change would cause only a small increase that is not statistically significant but I really don't know how to estimate it in a reasonable way.

 

By your argument, we do not exclude adult males because they make up a very large group. On the other hand, long term homosexuals make up less than 2% of the population. Thus like Alzheimer's and paranoid schizophrenics who would be a small group to exclude, homosexuals are a small group. We are not talking about hiring adults, renting, making loans, etc. but rather we are talking about protecting our youth.

 

I do not know the answer and I am not saying that anything bad would happen in significant numbers only that it is a risk that would be difficult to estimate. If there is no problem, then I think that the BSA should try to gradually try some local option 'experiments'. If there is a significant problem, trying the local option is not a good idea.

 

My other comments have been what the thread asked: What do you think would happen if homosexuals were admitted. In my area, I feel that today the result would be catastrophic. That will likely change in time. What should be done and when it should be done is a very difficult question. I am happy to exchange ideas with other scouters and not have to be involved in that decision.

 

I have seen to many broken lives due to molestation so that I would err on the side of protection over tolerance. That is my view - everyone will decide what is best based on how they balance that equation and their moral beliefs. As to society's view, I would prefer to be right rather than politically correct.

 

So those are my concerns. I do not know if they are valid but I do not know how to show that they are false.

[HICO_Eagle]

vol_scouter,

 

Oh, you didn't miscategorize or offend me. I'm far from "the left" -- I just didn't think others on this board who ARE liberal or left-wing but reasonable deserved to be lumped in with the handful of obtuse ideologues who do nothing but launch ad hominems and make strawman arguments.

 

Some people have such poor reasoning skills they don't realize the Freedom of Association cuts many ways, that they have the right to try to set up their own organization rather than try to badger and distort BSA to accept their values and priorities, that a private organization is exactly that -- private -- regardless of whether Congress saw fit to recognize its good works and benefits to society with a charter, etc. Some people's command of the English language is so poor they don't realize "tolerance" is not synonymous with "acceptance" or "celebration".

 

Let's face it, some people have such open minds their brains fell out years ago.

[GaHillBilly]

Support of gays in the BSA has been repeatedly argued here with various forms of the assertion that homosexuals, apart from their sexual preference itself, behave no differently than heterosexuals.

 

Over the holidays, I had occasion to be reminded again (and again) of at least one characteristic homosexual behavior is not duplicated by either heteros or (AFAIK) lesbians.

 

Now, since King Merlin and Voyageur seem to embrace mis-interpretation as a legitimate form of argument, let me qualify before I assert:

1. I'm not claiming that the behavior I'm going to describe is pedophilia.

2. I'm also not claiming that this behavior is associated with physical assault.

3. I'm not claiming that this behavior necessarily extends to other areas of these person's lives.

4. Although this behavior is ubiquitous and common, I am NOT asserting that all homosexuals engage in this behavior. I have no idea what percentage do.

 

All of those things MAY be true, but I don't know or have evidence that they are.

 

What I AM asserting is that the behavior I'm going to describe is

+ unique to homosexuals;

+ that it is illegal;

+ that it is common in occurrence.

 

Hopefully, that's enough qualification and clarification to at least slow down the snipers. (Maybe, they won't even read this far, and so they won't have anything to respond to!)

 

Anyhow, my family and I hike several times a week in nearby parks. We go to certain areas repeatedly, with the result that we are very familiar with not only the native flora and fauna, but also the transient human wild life.

 

I can state, with absolute personal knowledge, that homosexuals constantly frequent certain areas of these parks in order to solicit and participate in anonymous or random sex.

1. We've checked out the short little trails worn through the woods, which end in piles of condoms at convenient spots for leaning.

2. We've seen the cars with bearded guys (I'm not prejudiced -- I have a beard too) smoking and waiting, rather than hiking.

3. We've seen the car tags from Atlanta and Tennessee cities, as well as local areas.

4. We've seen the same guys repeatedly, sometimes hanging out and waiting so long that they are still there when we return from a 1 - 2 hour hike.

5. We've seen them skedaddle when LEOs check out the population, only to return an hour later.

6. We've seen a steady stream of new guys, as well as a rotating pool of regulars.

7. We've confirmed, with multiple individual LEOs that what we think is happening, is happening.

8. Our boys, who are tall, slim and relatively good looking, get totally grossed out by the creepy smiles they get when they pass through those areas.

9. They are so persistent and regular, that their 'hangout' areas do not have the problems with car break ins that occur elsewhere.

10. We can safely offer a personal estimate of more than 100 DIFFERENT homo sex cruisers hanging out in the parks over the past 5 years. (I occasionally photo tags -- I have over 50 tag numbers of guys sitting and smoking in their cars at trailheads.)

 

To the best of my knowledge, this sort of behavior is both common, and unique to homosexuals. (Again, when I say common, I mean it is going on constantly during daylight hours unless it's pouring or snowing. I don't mean that every homo participates in this stuff.)

 

This does not prove that homosexuals are more likely than, say women SMs, to molest young post-pubertal boys. It does support the idea that they are far more likely to LEER at, and OGLE young post-pubertal boys. My sons have occasionally been 'ogled' by girls their own age, but never to their knowledge by older women. But these creepy guys (many my age) never miss a chance, to smile 'sweetly' at my sons.

 

+ It also offers at least one area where homosexuals engage in ILLEGAL and PUBLIC SEXUAL behavior, that is distinctly different than any common heterosexual behavior.

 

+ I know young guys (and some older ones) 'cruise' bars, etc. for quick hookups. But even a one-night stand is distinctly different than what these guys do. They arrive separately, and after their activity is apparently over in a few minutes, leave separately.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

 

[HiLo]

Nice story. It would be relevant to this thread if anyone HAD taken the straw man position you presented at the start of your post.

 

However, no-one has, so it's not.

[GaHillBilly]

To the contrary, it has been repeatedly implied that homosexuals are no more likely to exhibit abusive sexual behavior than heterosexuals, and thus, constitute no more risk to Scouts. The case I described documents specific examples of a general and common homosexual behavior that is -- at the very minimum -- illegal.

 

If it's really necessary, I'll dig back through prior posts and provide quotes.

 

GaHillBilly.

[vol_scouter]

HICO_Eagle,

 

That is what amazes me. If I had such strong feelings that the BSA was wrong, I would leave. Why do such individuals not join a competing organization? I certainly agree with people wanting to make constructive changes in an organization but if it is such a large and ingrained issue, it is better to leave. A good example is churches that have changed their stance on homosexuality are seeing large and in some cases massive losses. The people leaving do not believe that accepting homosexuality is in keeping with the Bible. I do not know why the people who wanted to change the church stance didn't leave before and form their own church. The only way that I know how to understand this is that people pushing some ideas wish to force everyone to accept those values. These people are not the tolerant people that they believe themselves to be. The attacks on several on this list show that they are not tolerant and some are rather ill behaved.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Since we have examples of scouting associations in other countries that allow gays (Canada, UK, Netherlands, etc), why not look at what has happened in the real world elsewhere instead of making up stuff? Or is that cheating?

[Guest OldGreyEagle]

Oak Tree, I can see what you are saying, but if we have the rule, No Sex please, we are the BSA" then we don't need all sort of permutations. We let the CO's decide sleeping arrangements (remember this is if gays were permitted)

 

[CalicoPenn]

Clearly, the BSA needs to ban men with beards and men who smoke in their cars from serving as adult leaders.

[HiLo]

vol_scouter says..."If I had such strong feelings that the BSA was wrong, I would leave. Why do such individuals not join a competing organization?"

 

BSA is the single Scouting body in the USA recognised by WOSM. It is therefore the official Scouting body. As a member of Scouts Australia, I too am part of WOSM. I'm proud of it. Join some other youth organisation and you're not really part of Scouting.

 

That's my perspective when I look at the discrimination practised by the official Scouting body in the USA.

 

And GaHillBilly thinks he has proven to us that homosexuals will exhibit abusive sexual behavior towards Scouts by telling us a story about what consenting adult gay people do when they meet up. What consenting adults do with each other proves absolutely nothing about how they would behave among youth members.

 

Most heterosexual adults have sex with other adults from time to time. They don't have sex with kids.

 

 

 

[vol_scouter]

HiLo,

 

So are you saying that the rate of sexual molestation will not increase in a statistically significant manner if homosexuals allowed? If so, what is the evidence upon which you base the argument?

[HiLo]

"So are you saying that the rate of sexual molestation will not increase in a statistically significant manner if homosexuals allowed?"

 

That's not what I said. It's a sneaky debating strategy to change someone else's words and then argue against what you said I said. But I'm happy to play your game.

 

Evidence?

 

All those Scouting bodies, including my own, where we don't regard homosexuality as an issue.

 

To me, rates of sexual molestation would appear to have reduced in Australian Scouting in the past decade or two, though I don't think anyone is obsessed enough to collect statistics. And they would have been significantly affected anyway by much stronger youth protection policies overall, and, shock horror, admitting girls as well.