What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[Oak Tree]

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

 

Well, yep. Heck, just reading through this thread gives a pretty good sense of it.

 

I probably phrased my question in an overly rhetorical fashion when I asked, "How would this be any different if the BSA were to officially acknowledge the existence of gay Scouts and say the BSA wouldn't generally kick them out?"

 

I meant this more in the practical sense of running a troop. If you have a Scout today who is trying to seduce other Scouts, you kick him out. Same would be true after the change. No difference. In terms of people's reactions, though, there would clearly be a large difference, as you say.

 

The BSA is not yet ready to make that change. It would need to prepare its membership for quite awhile in advance, and would have to figure out how to make the transition with its COs. I believe both the members and the COs would vote against such a change today. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that the BSA will either 1) eventually need to make that transition, or 2) accept a shrinking membership and shrinking CO base as its units become almost exclusively sponsored by conservative religious congregations.

[Eamonn]

Maybe at the end of the day, the change will just happen with little or no fuss?

While where I live things tend to be "Ozzie and Harriet, type normal" - Whatever that might mean?? I guess it isn't going to be long till we have little fellows signing up to join packs who have two same sex parents. What happens when these parents want to be involved with their son and his Scouting activities?

What happens when the CO wants them to be involved? Or states that preventing them is just wrong?

 

What changes had to be made in 1964 after The Civil Rights Act became law?

From what I've seen and heard about Scouting in the UK. No big or even small changes were needed. It just happened and was accepted.

I have had a few Sea Scouts in the Ship (Male and female couples) who have been dating.

I sat them down and we set a few rules of what was and what wasn't acceptable at Scouting events. It really wasn't a big deal (The big deal came when they stopped being boy friend and girl friend. As a rule one of them ended up quitting the Ship.)

Many of us who are youth leaders had had Scouts who have done things that were wrong or we have heard about Scouts doing things that they ought not to have done.

I was a Scout and used to sneak off for a quick smoke!

My brother-in-law, some years back had to send a patrol of Scouts home from a summer camp for smoking marijuana. Scouts have been known to take alcoholic beverages to camp with them.

We have learned to deal with just about every situation that has come along.

I know that there is no way that I can watch over a bunch of Scouts 24/7. The truth is that if I felt I had to, they wouldn't be Scouts. Trust and being trusted is a big part of being a Scout.

Still if two young people to sneak off and do "Whatever" I really think that there isn't very much I can do about it.

But being as this is an organization that is all about helping and teaching young people to make ethical choices, I can do my best at the front end to help and teach them.

Eamonn.

[HICO_Eagle]

Didn't wade through the 9 pages of discussion but I think there'd be a lot of fundamental changes -- most for the worse (I take issue with Gern's statement that it would be better for BSA in the long run but you wanted to discuss changes to the programs politely so I'll leave it at that). From a youth protection standpoint, you'd have to treat homosexual youth tenting together like a mixed heterosexual couple -- forbidden -- so how would you handle it? Allow girls in as well so you can have the homosexual boy tent with the heterosexual girl? I'll presume that for some reason the boys won't have an incentive to claim to be homosexual just so they can get a female tentmate ...

 

The group shower or changing facilities? We're going to have to revamp them to allow more privacy which also means allowing more time to get all the boys through the shower/changing rooms. A lot of camps have already put in single shower stalls with doors or curtains but not all.

 

We'd probably have to be much more careful in things like First Aid classes. I already do my hands-on demonstrations on myself or another adult but we might have to think about the boy-on-boy practices.

 

We might have to alter the buddy system somehow so there aren't any "couples" wandering off. Things were bad enough when there was a Girl Scout camp 3 miles downhill from the Boy Scout camp ... In fact, we'd probably have to reassess YPT somewhat when you consider the case of the 16-17 year old open homosexual doing 1-on-1 counseling or training with a new scout.

 

When it comes to homosexual adult male leaders, one could argue to treat them like heterosexual adult female leaders but statistically male pederasts have been more of a problem than female pederasts (until recently anyway). The situation is equivalent IMHO to the heterosexual male adult wanting to coach the girls' volleyball or girls' basketball teams. On the other hand, we've now had YPT guidelines for years because of past incidents so perhaps adults would be easier to handle than boys.

[HICO_Eagle]

I don't think there are quite as many gays among us as Gern and Merlyn would have us believe so yes, the ratio WOULD go up if the ban were lifted. Unfortunately, you have to treat tenting, showering, etc. arrangements based on the POSSIBILITY of hanky-panky, not the probability. This isn't an anti-gay reaction, I have exactly the same reaction to the idea of inviting girls along on our camping trips (female adult volunteers are another matter).

 

Oh and to address Gern's question about adults, 2 of the last 3 troops I've assisted in have had official policies addressing adults engaging in carnal activities on troop outings (one troop didn't have any mothers interested in participating in the outings at all). It's just not appropriate on a Scout outing, hetero- or homosexual, youth or adult.

[GaHillBilly]

Just in the FYI category:

 

"South African Epidemic Of Schoolboy Sexual Abuse"

[ http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080728192809.htm ]

 

 

Not sure what to make of it, but it seemed relevant. (BTW, the article ID's adult woman on adolescent boy sex as the primary problem, there.)

 

 

GaHillBilly

[CalicoPenn]

For those worried that they would have to change tenting rules, or keep better control of buddy partners, etc., my question is "do you worry about it now, and if not, why not?". To put it bluntly, there are already gay boys in troops all over this country - and they are already tenting with straight boys. Anyone who believes their Scouts aren't experimenting when they get a chance (with sex, cigarettes, alcohol, etc.) is naive beyond belief.

 

If you're that concerned about the possibility of gay and straight boys sharing tents and showers, you better start doing something about it now because it's already happening. Otherwise, you're just a bunch of ostriches with their heads in the sand justifying your blindness because the BSA "doesn't allow openly gay members".

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

HICO_Eagle writes:

I don't think there are quite as many gays among us as Gern and Merlyn would have us believe

 

Refresh my memory here, HICO_Eagle -- when have I ever made a statement as to how many gays are "among us"? I count.... hmm.... never.

[GaHillBilly]

To the contrary, Calico, I for one am well aware that gays are among the Scouts today. You may recall I even pointed out -- only to have my comments pooh-poohed by guys on YOUR side of the issue -- that having first gay experiences in Scouting apparently has a somewhat iconic character in gay lore. But, it appeared to be gay lore with some basis in reality.

 

Again, speaking for myself, I was very cautious about an SPL who I already knew to be a bully, when I encountered some evidence that he might be also gay. I specifically warned my son not only to avoid being alone with him, but come to me immediately if he saw this guy try to corral one of the younger and weaker Scouts off by themselves.

 

However . . .

 

I also know that this guy was TERRIFIED of being ID'd as gay (there'd been some accusations -- accusations I was NOT connected to in ANY way -- I'd kept my observations to myself). Under current Scout regulations, he'd have been out in a flash as soon as there was anything more than a unsubstantiated accusation. And he really, really wants that bird decoration on his uniform.

 

Under current Scout regs, the instant that there was any substantiated evidence that he was gay, I could have pushed him out of the troop, all by myself no matter what anyone else wanted. He knew this, and though we'd never discussed that particular issue, he also knew that he could not 'roll' me the way he had the SM, and several other leaders.

 

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that -- if he is gay -- the fear of being caught and pushed out of Scouts restrains his behavior. (Did I note that he really, really, REALLY wants that bird on his uniform?)

 

But, under pro-gay regulations, everything about that hypothetical situation would have changed. Instead of being a concerned parent and leader who was applying long standing Scout principles, in the face of some wishy-washy adults, I would have become a bigot in need of diversity training.

 

The kid he had (hypothetically) fondled would have been said to be 'exaggerating' (the young weak kids had uninvolved parents; his parents are leaders); the matter would have been discussed and handled in a way 'to protect the needs of ALL the boys (especially his)'

 

Let me make it clear: ANY incident of him fondling a boy is purely HYPOTHETICAL, but the weak and unethical protection of the older boys (with parent leaders) at the expense of the younger boys was a well established tradition in that troop.

 

So, changing the rules would change a lot even with the existing group of Scouts, long before the effects of the resultant influx of gay boys appeared.

 

GaHillBilly

[HiLo]

If the gay boy wants and deserves that bird on his uniform, he will still restrain himself, no matter who else joins.

 

Admitting gays to the movement would not mean rampant sexual activity. That would still be totally unacceptable.

[DancesWithSpreadsheets]

GHB, your hypothetical left me scratching my head. Are you saying that if, in your outfit, a heterosexual boy abused, molested or otherwise inappropriately touched a younger scout, he would most likely get away with it, but if there was evidence that the perpetrator was homosexual, he'd be expelled in a heartbeat?

 

To me, the orientation doesn't matter, it's the conduct. And that goes for homo, hetero, whatever. Allowing gays (openly) in the program would take some adjusting, but I think it would be more of an adjustment to the attitudes and perceptions of small minded people who think that the value of a person depends on who he is attracted to.

 

A gay scout would have to be told, in no uncertain terms, that a scout troop is not Club Med, but in most units I've seen, I'd worry more about the abuse that a gay scout would be subjected to rather than what he would commit.

 

 

Regards

DWS

 

[packsaddle]

"A gay scout would have to be told, in no uncertain terms, that a scout troop is not Club Med..."

Huh? What the heck does that mean? You completely lost me with the Club Med thing and why does this only apply to gay scouts? Please explain "...in no uncertain terms..."

[DancesWithSpreadsheets]

Sorry if the reference was confusing. What I was trying to convey, is that a scout troop is not the place to be looking for a hook-up. And this applies to gay or straight scouts, but since at present aside from Venturing, BSA is boys only, I think this would warrant special emphasis to a homosexual scout.

 

Regards,

DWS

[Lisabob]

I understand what you are saying, DanceswithSpreadsheets. In the overwhelming majority of cases, I don't think this would take any special emphasis though - as you say, the greater challenge would probably be to limit the teasing (or less kind) treatment of the openly gay scout, by other scouts. As we see here in this thread, the notion of a scout being a friend to all, and helping his brother scouts, is one that some folks would apply only to their hetero, or maybe closeted gay, brethren.

 

In the rare instance where a gay scout did need to be told in no uncertain terms to stop cruising for hook ups, I would like to think that this would be in response to an actual problem (and not the only response) as opposed to a pre-emptive thing. I say this too, because we do not ask boys to identify their sexual orientation upon joining a troop - and I would not want to, either - so knowing when to issue this sort of pre-emptive warning would be really tough. Hmm, Jimmy here seems to dress a little different...he might be gay...better tell him not to look for boyfriends at the troop meeting... The guess work involved in that!

 

 

[DancesWithSpreadsheets]

Lisa, I'd say it shouldn't require any special emphasis, but I like to make sure expectations are clear up front. Of course the way things stand now it should be pretty clear that "cruising" behavior is not tolerated. But I was talking about what would happen if a policy change allowed an openly gay scout into the program.

[GaHillBilly]

"a heterosexual boy abused, molested or otherwise inappropriately touched a younger scout, he would most likely get away with it, but if there was evidence that the perpetrator was homosexual, he'd be expelled in a heartbeat?"

 

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

 

(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.)

 

But, if you are referring to non-sexual abuse and harassment, it was already going on -- AND being swept under the rug -- in that troop.

 

 

Lisa, inadvertently I think, pointed out the key difference. A homosexual will be removed pre-emptively, where as a non-sexual likely abuser will only be removed AFTER abuse has occurred, and in some troops, not even then.

 

If you think getting shoved around and verbally humiliated by an older Scout is just as bad as getting homosexually fondled by an older Scout, than you're not going to have problems with gays in the troops.

 

OTOH, if you see, as I and many other parents do, being homosexually fondled as far worse than being punched around and verbally humiliated, you WILL have problem with opening troops to gays.

 

The fact is, in our most recent troop and in many other troops, the abusers (of whatever type) are often older Scouts with parent leaders, who are often in denial, and who can and will protect them. Current BSA regulations make it possible to protect Scouts who engage in physical or verbal abuse, but impossible to protect those that engage in sexual abuse.

 

You want to change that to make it possible to protect -- EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY NOT BE YOUR PRIMARY PURPOSE -- sexual abusers.

 

You can say all day long that physical and verbal abuse should not be allowed. But you know, and I know, that it's common and that it's common for parent leaders to protect their sons.

 

GaHillBilly