What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[HiLo]

Oak Tree, that's a fair call on those Australian membership numbers. You understandably used the first and last of those available annual reports and did the hard yards to create that table. I congratulate you.

 

My perspective came from less detail (now augmented because of your tips on where to get the numbers), and over the shorter period I've been paying attention. If you only go back three years there has been growth in that period. It wasn't too good before that though, was it?

 

In my own area we have had better growth than nationally. My own District and Group (not sure what that equates to in BSA) got awards for our growth achievements.

 

In addition, we all just got an email today from out national headquarters boasting of a 7.2% youth membership increase in the most recent twelve months. One thing I know is that turning membership number trends around can be a bit like turning an oil tanker. It takes a long time. So it's hard to truthfully know what is causing the movement in numbers. But we do allow females at every level, and no-one asks if you're gay.

[Eamonn]

Sometime back in the early 1970's there was a play in the West End titled:No Sex Please, We're British .

I never went to see it, so I don't know much about it other than the title.

I'd be happy if we had something in the BSA that read :

No Sex Please, We're Scouts.

 

I can't wait till the Billy Elliot the musical goes on tour or I'm able to catch it in London.

I loved the movie. My heart went out for Billy as I watched it. I really wanted him to be the hero that he was.

I don't know if a young Lad is gay or not.

Even if he turns around and says that he thinks he might be. I don't know.

I do know what is acceptable and what isn't.

In my book kids having sex is not acceptable.

I don't care what sort of sex it is.

I've had a few effeminate acting male Scouts over the years and some of the female Sea Scouts master skills that maybe at one time were seen as not being things that little ladies should be doing.

So what is the litmus test for knowing that a youth member is gay?

The young Lad at OJ's birthday party, might never have ever had sex. Is he gay?

Ea.

[Oak Tree]

HiLo - that's interesting data on Australia. So that means the decline was particularly steep for the years from 2001-2005, and then things started growing again.

 

Do you have any idea what might have precipitated the drop in membership? Was there any particular announcement, policy change, operating change? For a drop that steep, there has to be something driving it.

 

Likewise, any idea on what might have changed in 2005? Was it just that everyone who wanted out was now out? Or did some improvement happen?

 

As Merlyn points out, we can't ever really know what the cause was with certainty, but there certainly could be some pretty good clues.

 

And, while we're at it, let me ask a couple questions about what we call "youth protection" rules. Do you have restrictions on who can tent together? Same gender only? Any particular rules for gay Scouts (I'm presuming not). Was there any particular date when girls and/or gays were admitted to membership?

[Horizon]

What would HAVE to change if we decided to respect the religious beliefs of all faiths and allow CO's to determine if being gay is withing the CO's definition of Morally Straight?

 

1) Local control. That is your only hope of keeping the more conservative elements around. You will still have issues at camporee and summer camp, however. Certain Troops will become known as open, others as closed. Much as my Troop seems to get all of the autistic kids, other Troops never seem to have room for them during recruitment. There will be straight only troops and mixed troops. I expect the mixed troops to be much smaller, and to slowly attract a lot more gay leaders. I have seen this in churches, where one church opens up to everyone, so those excluded from other congregations start to, well, congregate.

 

2) Venture style camping requirements where if you have a gay leader, a straight leader has to be in attendance as well.

 

As for tracking how this (and going coed) might hit the numbers - make sure that you normalize your data for eligible youth. There are different numbers of kids being born each year, so that should have in impact on your total numbers.

[HiLo]

Oak Tree

 

As I see it there are two key rules in the youth protection area in Australian Scouting. Firstly, no adult leader is ever allowed to be alone with a single youth member. Secondly, if another adult leader becomes aware of that first rule being breached and does not report the breach, that second adult is guilty of an equally serious breach of the rules.

 

As for tenting arrangements, there are actually no formal rules for keeping boys and girls separate, but it is the overwhelmingly common practice to do so. As others have written, exceptions occur where sleeping accommodation is limited. The commonly spoken understanding is that with multiple girls and multiple boys of the moral character we usually see in Scouting, it would be quite difficult for a single couple (of any gender mix) with naughty thoughts on their minds to get up to much mischief while all the others were around.

 

Potted history of girls in Australian Scouting: In 1972 a number of females attended a national Rover Moot as "Associated Ladies". The Rovers of Australia voted and decided at that event that they wanted girls admitted. It took around 3 years for that to gain national approval from Scouts' governing body. The trend spread downwards through the age groups until the first girl Cubs started around 1980. This happened in the area where I now live, and one of those girl Cubs is now the mother of one of our present girl Cubs, and a very active parent in supporting Scouting. I reckon I'll get her into uniform again as a leader within 18 months. That's my goal, anyway.

 

I suspect that the membership slump and recovery reflect several things. Scouts had become very introverted and nerdy looking to outsiders. We got some new chiefs at the top with better media and PR skills, a new uniform - dramatically different, some great TV ads, and some good PR around the centenary. No single negative, nor magic bullets. A lot of hard work was involved too.

[HiLo]

Just realised I ignored the one question from Oak Tree that's directly relevant to this thread - "Any particular rules for gay Scouts (I'm presuming not)."

 

That's exactly it. Being gay, or not, is not an issue. We don't ask. There is no legal requirement surrounding it.

 

Personally, I see homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, as something for consenting adults in private. It has nothing to do with paedophilia. (Since I'm talking about Australia now, I'll use our spelling of that word.)

 

All adults in Scouting are required to go through extensive police checks for financial propriety and other legal aspects and, at least in my state, be registered in an active system of Working With Children cards where the "Employer", Scouting in this case, is advised as soon as any issue regarding child related offences arises. Schools and sporting clubs for juniors also require these cards.

[GaHillBilly]

HiLo: "I suspect that the membership slump and recovery reflect several things. Scouts had become very introverted and nerdy looking to outsiders. We got some new chiefs at the top with better media and PR skills, a new uniform - dramatically different, some great TV ads, and some good PR around the centenary"

 

Its OT in this thread, but I'd be interested in knowing how & why Scouting became "nerdy" in Australia. That perception is a huge impediment in the US, but I didn't realize that it transcended national borders.

 

Has Scouting ALWAYS been 'nerdy'?

 

My perception of 'old-time' Scouting may have been warped by the fact that the handful of old Scouts I know are sort of the ultimate in toughness. But, come to think of it, they may well have been perceived as something along the line of 'loner nerds' as youths.

 

Regardless, I'd really like to understand better the association between Scouting and 'nerdiness', if there's interest in spinning off a thread on that topic.

 

GaHillBilly

[Mr. Boyce]

I strongly believe that advocates of the various homosexual social goals tend to HEAVILY DOWNPLAY the negative aspects of homosexuality.

 

I think we know them, or many of them, and yet choose to ignore our reservations simply because no one wants to be perceived as "mean" or "unfair."

 

A lot of tough choices can be avoided out of fear of how others view you, or fear of getting tagged with the famous slam of "homophobic."

 

I think scout policy is ultimately wise.

[GaHillBilly]

"I strongly believe that advocates of the various homosexual social goals tend to HEAVILY DOWNPLAY the negative aspects of homosexuality.

 

I think we know them, or many of them, and yet choose to ignore our reservations simply because no one wants to be perceived as 'mean' or 'unfair.' "

 

I think that's true (the downplaying) in part. But, as I've read through some of the pro-gay-Scouting posts here, and have started collecting data on the top US gay advocate (Kevin Jennings, asst. US sec. of ed.), I've begun to change my mind. I'm beginning to suspect that pro-gay advocates do not view teenage participation in sex the same way I do.

 

I'm not sure that the majority here are consciously planning to help their own kids be virgins at margin, but it's my guess that most 'wish' or 'hope' they will be.

 

But, I'm coming to realize that many gay advocates, outside this forum, wish no such thing: they plan for, and actually prefer, that teens be sexually active and 'experimental'. I'm not sure that all are completely conscious of this, or of the contrast between their goals and those of others here. What I've noticed, HERE, is that the idea of Scouts having sex together, at camp or on a campout, whether it's homo or hetero sex, seems to fall into the 'ho-hum' category for the gay advocates. If I'm right, they may be 'downplaying' the negatives because they don't SEE them as negative.

 

I'm not sure about all this. But if I'm right, it would explain why some of the arguments here seem to fly right past opponents. Each side is assuming that what's critically important to them . . . is critically important to their opponent. I'm no longer sure that's true.

 

At a minimum, the literature coming out of the GLSEN, the organization founded and run for years by Kevin Jennings, not only assumes, but encourages teens to be sexually active. (An interesting side note: apparently, a number of gays either had their first homosex experience in Scouts, or else fantasized about doing so.)

 

Anyhow, it may well be the case that the real split in this thread is between those who, consciously or unconsciously, see Scouts as a tool that helps prepare boys to be a faithful husband to one wife and a conscientious father to one set of children . . . and those who see those goals as unrealistic or unimportant.

 

 

GaHillBilly

[GernBlansten]

Of course you think we HEAVILY DOWNPLAY the negative aspects of homosexuality. Conversely, I think you HEAVILY EXAGGERATE the negative aspects of homosexuality.

 

We all agree, we have homosexuals already camping with us, don't we? We don't have a problem with boy on boy sex. Those scouting organizations who don't have the ban also don't have a problem. Who's exaggerating and who's downplaying what?

[GaHillBilly]

"We don't have a problem with boy on boy sex."

 

Wow! Do you really mean that?

 

GaHillBilly

[GernBlansten]

maybe its regional, but our council doesn't have an outbreak of boy on boy sex.

You fellas in Georgia seeing a lot of it?

[Oak Tree]

So after reading all the responses on the thread, I'm trying to summarize what I've learned...

 

- any change would absolutely have to be a local option

- there may or may not have to be any change in the youth protection rules (well, there obviously wouldn't *need* to be any changes, but some might be wanted by different people for various reasons.)

- any change would have to deal with a potential backlash and loss of members among certain groups.

 

And one more thing I learned - OGE still keeps perspective. Even though it wasn't on this thread, it was on this topic. being only able to speak about things from my own experience and where I live, if a scout was seen kissing his boyfriend at the football game, or any place else, having me see them would be the absolute least thing they would have to worry about. I just laughed out loud when I read this. It rings true to me, and it's a reminder than BSA is not about to be taken over by some tremendous influx of gays.

 

I still think the change is coming - today's youth are much more tolerant than their elders - but the BSA is walking a fine line between alienating its core supporters or alienating more and more potential members.

[HiLo]

I would like Mr Boyce to list the negative aspects of homosexuality. He thinks he knows them, and that we all know them, but downplay them. I'm sorry, but that's a nasty kind of writing.

 

I have no idea what he's talking about.

 

Now, that's not because I'm homosexual. I am boringly straight. As far as I know, everyone in my extended family is too. There is only one Scouting person out of many hundreds that I know who I think may be gay, but I'm not certain about that. He's never told me. It's not an issue. Based on statistical evidence, chances are there are others.

 

I don't see the gays who no doubt are in Scouting creating problems. So please tell me what those problems are.

[Lisabob]

While we're at it, GAHillBilly, I am not sure I understand how you came to the conclusion that people here, in this discussion, are "ho hum" about teen sexual behavior. Perhaps this is a matter of interpretation, but I have not read that here at all. I've not yet seen one poster say "well everybody is doing it, so what if they do it at scout camp" or anything even remotely like that.

 

Admittedly I have skimmed some posts in this thread - it is a busy time of year - but I was pretty dumbfounded by your claim on this matter. As far as I can tell, most "pro-gay" folks here have said that Scouts should NOT BE HAVING SEX of any kind at all at scouting events. That is really quite, quite different from your suggestion that people are indifferent about the issue.