What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[HiLo]

I think Lisabob has it pretty right there. Sexual activity on Scout camps is unacceptable. Rape or sexual assault is unacceptable anywhere. Putting women in the military hasn't caused the problem there. Without women in the ranks, armies just had camp followers, a long tradition dating back at least as far as the Romans. Also very common was raping and pillaging the defeated enemy's property (because women were often seen as just another form of property)

 

While obviously the definition of the term morally straight is part of the problem in this discussion, it would never allow for unwanted sexual advances.

[Oak Tree]

Lisa,

 

All your points match my experience as well. It is not something that I would worry about either. Thus from a practical perspective of running a troop, I don't think it would be an issue, so the discussion serves as an academic exercise in that respect.

 

While the probability is quite low, though, I'd guess it would still come up somewhere. More than that, though, I think it would likely need to be addressed to deal with all the possible objections coming from COs/parents/volunteers. Not just for gay Scouts, but for gay Scouters as well.

 

So I'll grant you the probability is quite low. But that still doesn't address the theoretical difference in the situations. It also doesn't really deal with the shower situation, either. Just as 10 girls would probably be pretty uncomfortable having one guy showering with them in the same shower room, many teenaged boys would be likewise uncomfortable showering with a gay guy, even if there was only one.

 

I'll add a couple of points on your side of the argument, though. Females tend to be smaller and less strong than males, have been discriminated against historically, and generally feel more vulnerable than males. Those facts are not true, in general, about straight males when compared with gays. One other difference is that girls can get pregnant, but boys cannot.

[CalicoPenn]

As most know, I counsel gay and lesbian teens and young adults in crisis. Most of these teens are runaways, throwaways and takeaways. Most of these teens express suicidal thoughts and many have tried to kill themselves. Most of these teens fall into crisis because of the way some adult has over-reacted to an event in these teens lives. When kissing a boy is a beating offense in a family dominated by some BS pseudo-Christian morality, and that causes a boy to want to kill himself, as far as I'm concerned, the parents have committed the worst sin, and the worst crime, in the world.

 

A surprisingly large number of males that I've counseled were Scouts. An even more surprisingly large percentage are Eagle Scouts (I believe the current estimate is that 4% of Scouts become Eagle - I've kept track and 37% of the ex-Scouts I've dealth with are Eagle Scouts). I can count on one hand the number of these ex-Scouts who talked about having a sexual experience on a Scouting trip. I think I can safely say it happens, but it's not that common. Most of these kids have had sex in their parents home, when the parents were away - or in a tree house, or a fort in the woods, or the basement, when the parents were home. Anyone who reads the literature on adolescent sexual behavior is pretty safe to say that most experimentation takes place at someone's home - and usually not in an unsupervised party situation. There's also a significant number of teens (based on self-reporting surveys of adults) that experiment with the same sex at an early age - usually starting about 10 and ending by 13. Most people who deal with adolescent psychology consider this to be a normal and healthy phase of development - provided it isn't obsessional.

 

Frankly, this whole folderol of whether two gay boys could share a tent, or a gay and straight boy could share a tent, is just an issue with insecure adults with their own deep-seated emotional and intimacy problems. And frankly, these kind of people should never be allowed to mentor, let alone parent, young people. I dream of being able to say that the need for my services is no longer there - but as long as there are parents and adults who project their own insecurities on their children, I'll continue to try to keep children from killing themselves because they got caught naked with another boy.

 

Calico.

 

 

 

[Lisabob]

Oak, in regard to the shower situation, many camps and youth facilities are moving toward single stall showers. That situation is becoming a non-issue as a result. But even in those places where group showers remain, many boys opt to shower in their swim trunks. Not because (to my knowledge) they're afraid of being spied on by a gay youth, but rather out of a general sense of privacy. That seems especially true for the younger fellows, who seem to be rather insecure about their body images. Given this trend toward only quasi-nude group showering, and individual stalls with doors or curtains, I think this is a smaller issue every year.

 

Calico, I agree with you. And I am glad there are people like you out there, for kids to turn to in times of crisis. Growing up is tough enough for any kid.

 

On a side note, my son has gone to non-scout camps for several years too. He has never once voiced any sort of worry about whether the other boys in his cabin might be gay. Nor has any other parent, staffer, or camper ever expressed such concern in my ear-shot. Why this is such a big deal for some in scouting, I really do not fully understand (except through non-rational explanations).

 

 

[Oak Tree]

Calico,

 

Let me also add my thanks for your service. I'm sure it can take an emotional toll over the years, constantly dealing with people who despair of ever having joy in their life again. And more than that, I'd fear constantly being angry at how awful some people treat one another if I had that job. Kudos to you.

 

The more I think about it, the more I agree that there would not need to be any (or any significant) changes in the youth protection rules. We know there are already gay Scouts out there. As Calico says, there are even a handful who have had a sexual experience on a Scout outing. How would this be any different if the BSA were too officially acknowledge the existence of gay Scouts and say the BSA wouldn't generally kick them out? Exactly the same rules would apply both before and after. Anyone caught doing sexual experimentation would be in trouble under the current rules and under the new rules.

 

As an aside, is it actually written anywhere that Scouts must avoid any/all sexual activity while on Scout trips? LisaBob wrote sexual behavior of ANY KIND is unacceptable on scout outings and I think everyone on the thread has pretty much been presuming that is true - but I don't recall ever seeing such a statement. If we've gotten by without such an easily-findable printed statement thus far, it's not obvious to me why things would have to change.

 

Still, if in some alternate universe I were to actually find myself with a gay youth couple on a camping trip, I don't think I'd let them tent together any more than I'd allow a straight youth couple to tent together. But between the probabilities being so low, the position of the BSA, and the position of my chartered org, I'm not thinking that's likely any time soon.

[Troop24]

I have been meaning to respond to this thread for sometime but have been somewhat at a loss about how to go about it. I am quite dismayed at the level of disdain for others that some members of this forum are willing to share. I understand that not everyone feels that they are getting the values based education they feel they deserve for their children so they homeschool. I can accept that as a valid option provided the children can still pass standardized tests that all other are required to pass for graduation. Tolerance for the faiths and belief systems of others, a Scout is Reverent! However, I fear that too often the homeschool process simply continues the propagation of bigotry and fear based hatred of things unknown onto the next generation through the guise of religious views.

 

GBH: I feel like you should start your comments by saying "I always thought these letters to Penthouse forum were made up until. . . " You must be a true Adonis; women want you, men want you and I bet fish fear you! I have never met anyone who has had so many people of both sexes make passes at them. I am not trying to make light of your life I am simply sitting here shaking my head in utter shock that you have survived this long. Your seemingly casual mention of rape and molestation of women in the the U.S. military is particularly troublesome to me. You appear to think that men should not be capable of controlling their sexual urges and that since they are the stronger gender they are simply going to have their way. "Good grief, I'm in my 50's and even now, I don't want to have to try to sleep in a tent with an attractive woman, unless she's my wife! Some of you have either forgotten a lot, or have some broken junk." Even you may have issues with self control, eh?

 

Funny thing is I took a vow some time back to be faithful in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, in poor times and in wealth . . .a Scout is Trustworthy!

 

Maybe we should have all the women around here start wearing abayah and hijab so that the temptations would not be so great.

 

The concept that people cannot control their sexual urges is ridiculous. Your reference to raping of women soldiers is simply another tool used by men to show women their "proper" place in the society of the Army. It is an act of terrorism, plain and simple. Don't try to dress it up.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

Troop24,

 

Balance and moderation and good judgement. Balance and moderation and good judgement. There's always the question of whose judgement is more correct, but I don't think you can go 100% to the self-control side, without doing anything to address the system that creates the situation. Some of the rules we have are explicitly set up to reduce temptation. Not letting boys and girls share a tent. Not letting them shower together. I agree that we expect people to behave properly in all situations, but that doesn't mean you want to set up situations that are ripe for things to go wrong.

 

Of course people can control their sexual urges. But not all of them do, not all of the time. Hence we have school dress codes, and lots of other rules.

 

When setting up such rules, the rulemakers need to evaluate and weigh what is the probability of the event, what is the seriousness of the event, how effective the rule will be at reducing the likelihood of the event, what are the impacts of the restrictions, and how likely it is that people will follow the rule. Based on his personal experience, GHB appears to view such events as relatively more likely. Lisa argues much less so. Calico focuses on the impact that such societal rules have (i.e., the continued ostracism of gays makes people suicidal). But I don't think we necessarily want to throw out all rules and just rely on people's judgement entirely.

 

Are you really advocating that all Scouters should be able to sleep with a beautiful woman sharing their tent? Actually, now that you mention it, that doesn't sound all bad...

[BrentAllen]

Troop24,

Sorry, but I can't help but notice two very different, and apparently contradictive, statements from you.

 

"The concept that people cannot control their sexual urges is ridiculous."

 

"I simply cannot understand why society deals the hatred and spite onto the poor soul that cannot change their desire."

 

So, which is it? There are many men out there who married, had children, and then "found out" they were gay after "trying" the other side. The $64,000 question is - were they gay, or not? If they had "control their sexual urges," would they still be married and straight? Should they live up to their marriage vows, as you also stated?

 

My take - if they treated homosexuality as a sin, as my religion teaches, these men would still be married fathers, hopefully being the spiritual leaders of their families. If they had homosexual urges, shouldn't they be able to control them, as you suggest GHB should be able to control his with another woman?

[Troop24]

"My take - if they treated homosexuality as a sin, as my religion teaches, these men would still be married fathers, hopefully being the spiritual leaders of their families. If they had homosexual urges, shouldn't they be able to control them, as you suggest GHB should be able to control his with another woman?"

 

Unfortunately the real lie began a long time before this when these men and women first realized that they were in fact attracted to people of their own gender and chose to cover their feelings and real desires in the name of faith, propriety, or self control. This denial is forced upon them because they have been raised to believe that it is sinful and evil to love someone of the same sex, even though you cannot control it. So these people live lives of shame and fear of discovery of their true identity. They seek out their true desires in the seedier areas that most of us never visit. They destroy the lives of their spouses and children through often loveless and sometimes abusive marriages. Simply because they were forced to lie to themselves from the beginning. You really think Larry Craig just had a "wide stance"?

 

HIV/AIDS was a long ignored illness because many thought it was simply a homosexual disease. But then those men who were hiding their real lives from their spouses brought reality home with a death sentence.

 

Time has come for bigotry and fear to take a back seat and for education to take the lead. Homosexuality is not a choice it is genetic and has been around since the dawn of man no matter how you think man came into existence.

 

[BrentAllen]

That sure doesn't match your earlier statement to GHB:

 

"The concept that people cannot control their sexual urges is ridiculous."

 

How do explain the discrepancy?

[vol_scouter]

Troop24 wrote:

 

"Unfortunately the real lie began a long time before this when these men and women first realized that they were in fact attracted to people of their own gender and chose to cover their feelings and real desires in the name of faith, propriety, or self control. This denial is forced upon them because they have been raised to believe that it is sinful and evil to love someone of the same sex, even though you cannot control it. So these people live lives of shame and fear of discovery of their true identity. They seek out their true desires in the seedier areas that most of us never visit. They destroy the lives of their spouses and children through often loveless and sometimes abusive marriages. Simply because they were forced to lie to themselves from the beginning. You really think Larry Craig just had a "wide stance"? "

 

First, not all of these people 'knew' that they were homosexual - some say that they 'discover' it later. As to controlling their desires, I thought that was the argument that it is OK to allow a homosexual to tent with a heterosexual of the same sex. So which is it, are they expected to control themselves or not? I believe that some (perhaps most) homosexuals have a genetic proclivity for that behavior. That does not make it 'right'. Many alcoholics have a genetic propensity and males with an extra Y chromosome have a proclivity to commit murder (often many) but we do not say that it is OK to be an alcoholic or to murder. So whether homosexuality is right or wrong is based primarily upon religious view points.

 

"HIV/AIDS was a long ignored illness because many thought it was simply a homosexual disease. But then those men who were hiding their real lives from their spouses brought reality home with a death sentence."

 

It is not correct to state that HIV/AIDS was long ignored. When the disease was actually understood to be a disease, enormous efforts were brought to bear to discover how to treat and prevent the disease. The expenditures were greater than research efforts affecting much larger groups of patients. The response was vigorous and swift by government standards. Considering that there were few effective treatments for viruses and that retroviruses were a particularly difficult virus to treat, progress was remarkably rapid. Part of the rapidity of the spread of the disease was continued promiscuity in the homosexual community despite being made fully aware of the risks. Multiple partners and unprotected sex allows the disease to continue to be spread in the homosexual community.

 

HIV/AIDS was and is a disease primarily of IV drug abusers and homosexuals.

 

Have cared for some of those spouses who were infected by their spouses and have no kind words. In the cases that I treated, the spouse knew that they were infected but knowingly infected their spouse which is tantamount to murder in my thoughts.

 

 

[Oak Tree]

Brent - I read Troop24 to be saying that a person cannot control their desires - that is, who they are attracted to. However, they can control their urges - the impulse to act on that desire.

 

I'm presuming that most married men (other than Tiger Woods, say), would agree that they are not able to really control to whom they are attracted, but they can control whether or not they act on it.

[Beavah]

We know there are already gay Scouts out there. As Calico says, there are even a handful who have had a sexual experience on a Scout outing. How would this be any different if the BSA were too officially acknowledge the existence of gay Scouts and say the BSA wouldn't generally kick them out?

 

Yeh must be jokin'.

 

Can yeh imagine the response of da parents of a scout so approached by a gay fellow scout?

 

You're nuts if yeh think that this wouldn't be settin' scoutin' up for a catastrophe. We may or may not, by virtue of environment or nurture, be able to influence the desires of a person, but fact is we can't control that environment. Likewise, we don't have control of the attitudes or behaviors of parents.

 

Arguin' over an Eagle award is enough to tear some troops apart, eh? Can yeh imagine da arguments over this sort of thing? Even the most supposedly "enlightened" families can get pretty darned un-enlightened when it comes to their own son.

 

Now Calico's figures are interestin', eh? As we are one of da only single-sex bastions left in society, it's within reason that we become attractive to young gay males. Mens' clubs used to be an old-boys-network thing when we had a largely gender-segregated society. Now that we've got a gender-integrated society, mens' clubs tend to be more likely to be a gay social gatherin' than they ever used to be.

 

Beavah

 

[Hal_Crawford]

"HIV/AIDS was and is a disease primarily of IV drug abusers and homosexuals."

 

True, those are the two largest catagories of infected individuals. Next in line is women who contract it through heterosexual contact (>102,000) and then men who fit into both of the first two categories followed by men who contract it through heterosexual contact (>60,000, still significant).

 

http://aids.about.com/od/dataandstatistics/qt/exposure.htm

 

So Vol, the largest number of new AIDS cases are African American men (49% for 2006).

 

Would you say that this would justify barring African Americans from membership in the BSA? I hope not. Or could it be that AIDS is just a convenient excuse for demonizing and excluding gays?

 

As to the women victims you have treated. It is truly tragic that they were deceived by their husbands or boyfriends and now are faced with this dreadful disease. In the case of those who were infected by men who also slept with men, how many of the women knew that their partners slept with men? I suspect that number is very small. Of course the men who pretend to be straight even though they are actually engaging in homosexual sex are not barred from being scout leaders. As many have pointed out, they are already among us.

 

Hal

[vol_scouter]

Hal,

 

I don't know what I posted leads you to imply that the BSA should exclude a group. I did not say that. As to the numbers, here are the CDC information:

 

Following is the distribution of the estimated number of cases of HIV/AIDS diagnosed among adults and adolescents in the 34 states with confidential name-based HIV infection reporting, by transmission category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.

 

 

Transmission Category Estimated # of HIV/AIDS Cases, in 2007

Adult and Adolescent Male Adult and Adolescent Female Total

Male-to-male sexual contact 22,472 - 22,472

Injection drug use 3,133 1,806 4,939

Male-to-male sexual contact and

injection drug use 1,260 - 1,260

High-risk heterosexual contact* 4,551 9,076 13,627

Other** 102 96 198

*Heterosexual contact with a person known to have, or to be at high risk for, HIV infection.

** Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal exposure, and risk not reported or not identified.

 

From numerous talks at medical meetings (such as at Harvard), most of the women in the High-risk heterosexual contact are prostitutes who have a high rate of IV drug abuse while the high risk behavior for heterosexual males is with prostitutes.

 

I feel that it is important that people make decisions based upon what is known rather than on mis-information. Early on in the HIV/AIDS disease research it was believed by some researchers that it would sweep through the heterosexual community. However, the scientific consensus opinion turned out to be false. Several homosexual rights groups pushed that point because they were concerned that if this was a homosexual disease, that the public would not be inclined to push funding. That is a sad statement on our society but unfortunately likely to be true. Male to female transmission is more common than female to male. This is especially true in the case of anal intercourse.

 

The transmission pattern for HIV is not reason to conclude anything about the homosexual community. As with venereal disease, monogamous couples who were virgins prior to meeting, are not likely to ever suffer from these diseases (still a small risk with blood products so not quite 100%). Homosexuals being more likely to have HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with whether they should be a scouter or a scout. It is not the person that one knows or highly suspects to have HIV/AIDS that will transmit it via an injury, it is the person that no one would suspect who will transmit the virus.