What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[GaHillBilly]

"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."

 

 

It is incredibly disheartening to see Scouters repeatedly engage in deliberately dishonest distortion, as you have done here, HiLo. After PRE-qualifying, and excluding what you claim, you STILL lie about what I said, and inject thoughts into my head.

 

There's no point in trying to argue with you -- I already stated that I did not claim ANYTHING other than what I described, though the behavior I described was, and is, NOT what you stated.

 

 

 

[ OGE, before you rebuke me for calling HiLo a liar, please take a look at what I did post, preferably in its entirety. But, here are two relevant quotes:

 

"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. "

 

AND

 

"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." ]

 

 

 

One of the reason I would fiercely oppose homosexuals in Scouts is that I suspect that the sort of pro-homosexual dishonesty repeatedly displayed here is also characteristic of the social scientists and psychologists who are publishing pro-gay studies.

 

Some of you may remember a few years back, shortly after AIDS was discovered, that the homosexual community was arguing 'authoritatively' that homosexuals made up about 10% of the population. The MSM published these 'authoritative' figures like the lapdogs they are. Eventually, such an egregiously dishonest distortion was corrected -- not without protests from the homosex community -- down to the current 1 - 3% value.

 

But, that episode along with the dishonesty here and elsewhere has left me seriously skeptical about all the data that 'shows' that homosexuals are not pedophiles, especially when "pedophilia" is applied to sex with near- and post-pubertal boys.

 

HiLo, just like the 10 percenters before you, you've shown yourself ready to engage in lies and distortion on this topic in an attempt to win your point. If you make up your facts, here, when a simply glance-back in the thread reveals your lie, what must we conclude you will do when we can not check your claims?

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[HiLo]

So GaHillBilly, tell us again why you told us that story about gay adult cruising? It's totally irrelevant, and, I suspect, simply designed to condemn all gay people.

 

I'm sorry I didn't absorb your whole qualification that preceded it, but I thought you meant the story to tell us something. Maybe not. Maybe you just wanted to say "Some gay people do things I don't like". Let's give you a chance to put it in your words. EXACTLY what does your story tell us about the risks of having gay people in Scouting?(This message has been edited by HiLo)

[DanKroh]

"One of the reason I would fiercely oppose homosexuals in Scouts is that I suspect that the sort of pro-homosexual dishonesty repeatedly displayed here is also characteristic of the social scientists and psychologists who are publishing pro-gay studies."

 

As opposed to the proven dishonesty in their work and distortion of others work repeatedly displayed by discredited social scientists and psychologists (and people who have degrees in completely unrelated fields) who have turned their backs on actual science in their desperate need to prove that homosexuals are bad, dangerous, or sick people.

 

Excuse me, sir, but I have never engaged in dishonesty either professionally or personally about homosexuality. I have no idea if your intention was to paint me with that wide brush of yours, but as a psychologist who you would consider "pro-gay", I find these ad hominem statements disingenuous.

[GaHillBilly]

Dan, you specifically were NOT one I had in mind. I suspect we disagree on almost everything, but the impression I've gotten from you here is that you try to be honest and stick with the facts, at least as you know them.

 

I should have made clear, and did not, that I don't think everyone here who has argued a pro-gay position has distorted facts, much less done so deliberately.

 

And, I will certainly recognize that social scientists, in the (distant!) past, have distorted 'facts' about homosexuals, in a anti-homosexual way. But, it was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

 

Apart from the issue of honesty as a moral value, when the facts and research get distorted -- as they have been, both then and now -- it's hard to trust anything. The 10% homosexuals is a recent and especially egregious lie, one that was made knowingly in the past, and is being made occasionally even now.

 

For the record: I trust old texts (or claims) that virtually all homosexuals were pedophiles just about exactly as well as I trust new texts and claims that homosexuals are likely to be pedophiles (in the near- or post- puberty sense) than heteros. Which is to say, I don't trust either to stick to the data.

 

So, I'm left with trusting the data I actually know for myself, which includes things like my wannabe pedophile (now deceased) homosexual uncle, my experiences as unwilling "fresh meat" for homos to hit on in Europe in the '70's, friendship with an old homo couple years ago, current public homo 'cruising' in the parks we go to nearby, and employment (as a contractor) by a number of homosexuals, well, mostly lesbian couples. I'm not currently friends with anyone I know to be homosexual, but have both been friends and have worked with homosexuals in the past.

 

Actually, I take that back. My wife has a homosexual coworker (elementary teacher) who is very competent generally and very friendly. He knows we're conservative; we know he's not. We're still friends, and he and my wife get along fine. He and I have had some 'discussions', but for obvious reasons I go easier in that situation than I have here.

 

But, I still wouldn't leave him alone with my younger son.

 

 

HiLo deliberately and dishonestly distorted what I said, in a manner characteristic of much CURRENT pro-gay literature, and with what SOME others have done here (Troop24 comes to mind). That's not to say that no-one has ever distorted points or statements to argue for an anti-homo position. Maybe, it's happened here -- this thread is very long. But, I don't recall it, and I have tried very hard not to do so myself.

 

Dan, I should add I don't trust a lot of the literature that comes out of my own 'community' among evangelicals, either. Being honest, when the facts are against you, is only slightly more popular among evangelicals than I find it to be among atheists!

 

 

GaHillBilly

[vol_scouter]

HiLo said:

"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. "

 

Actually, you had first changed the argument, I was getting it back to the question of whether allowing homosexuals would significantly the rate of child molestation.

 

"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. "

 

So you have no evidence merely your feeling. I did not think that collecting statistics on crimes was an obsession. If there are no statistics, how do you base your conclusion that the rate of molestation has decreased? This is an example of trying to justify what you wish to be true. It could well be true but I rather doubt it. Once again, I cannot make a cogent argument that allowing homosexuals in scouting would not increase the rate of molestation. I would like to believe that it would not be statistically significant but that is the crucial question.

[DanKroh]

Well, GHB, I do thank you for your comments. I recognize that there is distortion on this issue, and yes, it does occur on both sides. That's why I always examine experimental and interpretive methodology before taking any data at face value. I dislike few things more than scientists who let their agendas get in the way of their ethics and objectivity.

 

"So, I'm left with trusting the data I actually know for myself, which includes things like my wannabe pedophile (now deceased) homosexual uncle, my experiences as unwilling "fresh meat" for homos to hit on in Europe in the '70's, friendship with an old homo couple years ago, current public homo 'cruising' in the parks we go to nearby, and employment (as a contractor) by a number of homosexuals, well, mostly lesbian couples. I'm not currently friends with anyone I know to be homosexual, but have both been friends and have worked with homosexuals in the past."

 

It is extremely unfortunate that you have not been able to find a better class of gay people to experience. Not making a judgment here, but perhaps your feelings about homosexuality (and hopefully you don't call them "homos" to their faces) are exactly the reasons why you have not developed any acquaintances or friendships with the quality of gay people that I have.

 

I have, with very few exceptions, the exact opposite experience as you. My best friend from HS came out to me in college, and I had several good friends in college who were gay and lesbian. Never got hit on (other than a joking manner), and even shared close quarters with some of them. My sons' godfathers are a gay (married) couple, as are several family members (a nephew, and a sil), all of whom have babysat for me. And that doesn't even begin to cover the friends who are bisexual, who would probably currently be viewed by the rest of the world as heterosexual, since they are in het marriages. And that also doesn't include the many, many gay and transgender clients I know professionally. They are not perfect people, and there are a percentage of them that engage in unhealthy behaviors (such as cruising), but so do many heteros I know of.

 

So you have your emperical data, and I have mine. Given the disparity of our experiences, it's not really any wonder that we have such polarized views.

[HiLo]

vol_scouter - in Australian Scouting we don't know who's gay. We never have. Can't really collect statistics on their impact.

 

No doubt just like the USA, we have extremely strong youth protection policies. In my experience, they work.

 

I just wish all within Scouting could lighten up, relax, stop worrying about those "others", and continue to deliver great Scouting experiences to whoever turns up, and wants all the positive stuff we have to offer.

[GaHillBilly]

Dan, I don't doubt that there are gays like you describe. And, it's quite true I probably have experienced something closer to the worst, than the best.

 

But none of those things to me are 'core' issues.

 

The first issue is that you don't put people likely to sexually attracted to each other in close quarters. I'm simply arguing that you need to apply the same rules to gays that you would to male/female pairings. Thus it seems to me that the only possible way to handle this -- if gays were allowed -- is to adopt a 'one Scout, one tent' policy.

 

The second issue, which I've tried to totally avoid, is moral. I'm not going to argue the correctness of orthodox morality on this point. But, I do want to point out that those moral values are a fact: orthodox religious people DO hold those values, and WILL act on them. Please remember that most of these churches are not hypocritical on this point, at least in their official stance: they simply say that anybody who is not heterosexually married should not engage in sex. Period. No exceptions. (But I'm not claiming that practice always measures up to principals.)

 

Troops with orthodox religious sponsors, whether Mormon, Muslim, Jewish or Christian are not going to support an organization which allows boys who identify themselves as practicing homosexuals. Troops with secular sponsors, or with modernist religious sponsors (which may Jewish or Christian -- I'm not aware of Muslims or Mormons who are modernist in that sense) may well be comfortable with gays in Scouting.

 

Within the context of such a church, a boy with gay 'feelings' or thoughts who is not acting on those feelings or thoughts would not be excluded.

 

But, there's no way for such organizations to support BSA if it becomes pro-gay, in the sense of allowing declared and 'active' gays into Scouting. To do so would be dishonest and hypocritical on their part.

 

 

The BSA ended up as this odd beast of parts, combining the almost 'Wiccan' religion of BP with the almost but not quite Christian "American Civic Religion". These things don't really go together, and one result is discussions like this one which go on and on, because there aren't really any consistent BSA principles one could look to for resolution. The BSA has principles, such as they are, on BOTH sides of this issue.

 

 

But, I do think there is a pretty clear bottom line, empirically speaking.

 

1. You can't put sexually attracted people together in showers, beds or tents.

 

2. The BSA will lose most of its 'orthodox' sponsors (Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Muslim) as soon as it permits declared gays in Scouting.

 

3. There are a lot of parents who are not religious and who may be fine with gays at school or at work who will still be very uncomfortable with a gay Scoutmaster. And, since Scouting is an OPTIONAL recreational activity, comfort counts. In this case, it will count enough to cause them to just pick another opportunity for their boy.

 

 

GaHillBilly

 

 

[HiLo]

GaHillBilly says.... "You can't put sexually attracted people together in showers, beds or tents."

 

But that must happen all the time in Canada, UK, Australia, and most of Europe, because those Scouting organizations have no idea who's gay.

 

I understand the existence of moral issues, but logic makes that "practical" one a complete non-issue.

[DancesWithSpreadsheets]

GHB wrote:

" Please remember that most of these churches are not hypocritical on this point, at least in their official stance: they simply say that anybody who is not heterosexually married should not engage in sex. Period. No exceptions. (But I'm not claiming that practice always measures up to principals.)

 

Troops with orthodox religious sponsors, whether Mormon, Muslim, Jewish or Christian are not going to support an organization which allows boys who identify themselves as practicing homosexuals."

 

One question GHB, how do these CO's feel about supporting an organization which allows boys who identify themselves as practicing heterosexuals, who are unmarried? By your analysis is that not immoral behavior as well? Or do these organizations recognize levels or immorality with homosexual activity at a higher level than unmarried hetero dalliances? Or are we just dealing with a double standard?

 

Regards,

 

DWS

[GaHillBilly]

Spreadsheets asked, "One question GHB, how do these CO's feel about supporting an organization which allows boys who identify themselves as practicing heterosexuals, who are unmarried?"

 

I'm not sure if you are a Scouter or not, but if you are, you'll know that many COs, conservative or not, tend to treat troops with a sort of not-quite-benign neglect. In such cases, they will only know about Scout behavior if it becomes public news (like gays into Scouts would be) or gossip or if the SM tells them.

 

With that reservation in mind, the type of churches I'm aware of would deal with "practicing heterosexuals" the same way they would with "practicing homosexuals" -- they would be asked to leave.

 

Again, there's a difference you have to keep in mind. Like it or not, our culture is such that a gay who is "out" will be publicly known leading to questions. But, a boys are assumed to be hetero -- a correct assumption 98+% of the time -- and so no questions are asked. Both the troops I have encountered AND the conservative churches I have known tend to operate on a "If I don't ask, I won't hear about something I don't want to hear about" basis, EVEN THOUGH this is contrary to their theologically defined duties.

 

One other factor you have to keep in mind. A hetero boy is not going to be perceived as a sexual threat or risk to other Boy Scouts, at least till Scouts are coed. By contrast, a homo boy will be so perceived, for precisely the same reason a hetero Scout would be perceived to be a sexual threat to a Girl Scout.

 

So, from the purely practical necessity of preventing Scouts from tenting, showering, etc. with those they are sexually attracted to, bring 'out' gays into a troop introduces (for most troops) a whole new set of housekeeping and segregation requirements.

 

None of this is hypocritical, except the tendency of conservative churches to keep their head in the sand about immoral (and unsafe!) sexual practices of their youth. But that tendency is contrary to the teaching of the churches I've known, not consistent with it. Again, contrary to what many outside the church expect, the preachers I've known are FAR more open about sex -- having had to deal with it in counseling so much -- than most of their congregation.

 

GaHillBilly

[DancesWithSpreadsheets]

GaHillBilly, I appreciate that you made an effort to answer honestly and completely, with an emphasis on what goes on in the real world, but somewhere in all that I think you made my point for me. No church I know of excludes celibate homosexuals. They may consider the thoughts and desires that even celibate homosexuals have to be sinful, but as long as they do not act on those impulses (or they are sufficiently discreet, at least in those churches that have their head in the sand) then they are not excluded. Why should the scout units they sponsor be any different?

 

As others have stated previously in this thread, I believe that youth members of the scouting movement should not be engaging in sexual activity, period. That said, what happens outside of a scouting activity is largely outside of our control (and yes, I am a scouter, albeit an inexperienced one, currently registered with a CS pack sponsored by an RC church).

 

I guess what set me off in your previous post was this idea that, by allowing gays into BSA we would be somehow condoning homosexual practices. I think that if we firmly state that sexual activity (regardless of orientation) is incompatible with scouting then we are no more condoning homosexual behavior than we are condoning the behavior of our heterosexual scouts who go parking with their girlfriends on Friday night after the football game.

 

As far as the issues of tenting and showering, I think the issue there is the perceived risk more than the actual risk of sexual behavior. I think you are right that a lot of conservative parents will balk at the idea of their son sharing close quarters with a gay scout, but the reality is that the risk of improper behavior is not that great. If six boys are sharing a group shower facility, and one of them is gay, whats going to happen if he tries something? Unless hes built like King Kong I think hed be wise to keep his hands (and his eyes) to himself. And how often do boys shower at camp anyway? As for tenting, like others have said, no scout should be forced to tent with someone hes uncomfortable with. If that means the gay scout tents alone, ok so be it. I do think that if I was a scoutmaster and had two or more openly gay scouts in my troop I would be hesitant to let them tent together unless I had a very high level of trust with them, but thats a judgment call, not something that needs 6 pages of bold print in G2SS.

 

But perceptions are important too, especially of the parents who entrust their children to us. As with overcoming many such problems, I think communication is the key. First off, the parents, as well as the scouts, should have an opportunity to get to know the boy in question as a person, not just that gay kid. If they refuse to or still have qualms, well perhaps they would be better off finding a troop that shares their feelings on the matter.

 

This is longer than I intended it to be, and I think it will be my last post on the subject, so let me say this; I believe that all boys (and more than a few girls) can benefit from scouting, and we as adult leaders should be looking for ways to include them. By turning away young people because we are afraid of the reaction of some of our COs, we not only harm those who are excluded, we also set a bad example for those who are under our tutelage.

 

Regards,

DWS

 

[HiLo]

GaHillBilly - I notice you ignored my last post about what happens in Canada, Asutralia, Uk and the rest of Europe. Right now an Australian Scout Jamboree is underway. There are around 10,000 Scouts there. Around 3,000 are girls and, going by your figures, 200 of those present will be gay. Naturally we know which ones are girls, but we don't know which ones are gay.

 

This is not the first event of its kind. It won't be the last. I don't expect the media to mention rampant sexual activity there.

 

Ignoring the CO issue for the moment, why couldn't it work in the USA?

[GaHillBilly]

HiLo, I haven't read every post on this thread. But in particular, I find the "it works elsewhere, so why won't it work in the US" arguments so flimsy that I haven't bothered to read most of them.

 

But, since you ask, I will. You write, "I don't expect the media to mention rampant sexual activity there."

 

I wouldn't expect them to report anything either, regardless what happened.

 

Why would they?

 

And, how would they know?

 

It's not like any MSM organization is going to have a reporter "embedded" in a troop, or do anything other than send a photographer (or videographer) and a note taker. Any text published (or spoken) will come directly from PR releases or interviews. Somehow, even in Australia, I'm pretty sure that the interviewed Jamboree official won't say something like, "Well Bob, we're really having a bit of a problem with rampant sexual activity this year, but we feel like we'll have good grip on the issue shortly."

 

Even if the "rampant sexual activity" did occur and was uncovered by the reporter, unless it involved a Scouter or Scouts running around naked, the media would be unlikely to pay attention.

 

There's another problem with this argument. When folks offer it, they end up declaring something to the effect of "it works elsewhere". But, I don't know if that's true, either.

 

I was just reading a text today on the history of the Comanche Indians. It's a well sourced book, based on primary texts. Apparently, among the Comanche it was normal and expected that older unmarried girls would get with newly post-pubertal boys and provide hands on instruction in sex. If the girls got pregnant, that increased their desirability to single warriors, since they had proven their ability to conceive. There were really no limits to when or what was allowed, as long as it wasn't with your full sister or someone else's wife.

 

Thus, someone holding to Comanche ethics ( as apparently some New Agers claim to do ) would consider a Jamboree in which "rampant sexual activity" occurred to be just fine and dandy, as long as it didn't involve adults or excessive coercion. I gather the French, today, pretty generally take that approach to youth sexual activity. I'm not sure what Australian attitudes would be.

 

But, I am quite sure, that without an extensive knowledge of differing national sexual ethics, I have no way to interpret a statement from say, an Australian Scouter, that all went well with gays in Scouts. That could mean, "Nothing happened". Or, it could mean, "A good time was had by all!"

 

So, without a formal and carefully validated sociological study of sexual behavior within Scout troops of varying nationalities, there are no conclusions I can reach from the presence of gays in Scouts elsewhere. Even with such a study, it would be necessary to have specific and definite determination of precisely what sexual activity took place, exactly how much coercion was involved, and who the parties involved were. That's not a study Scouts are likely to allow, nor one many grad schools would be interested in sponsoring.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[HiLo]

Oh, well, since my word isn't good enough on its own, I simply recommend that you do some travelling and see for yourself. I can assure you that Scouting folk in Australia would welcome you in the enthusiastic and hospitable way I assume you would welcome a Scouting visitor from elsewhere.

 

If travel to here is a bit expensive, maybe try the UK, or even Canada.

 

But do have a look around. The world is a wonderful place, especially the Scouting part of it. We may have our cultural differences, but the things we share are amazing.