Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[David CO]

My Scouts are not so isolated that they unaware of what takes place at gay pride parades, raunchy rock concerts, and the like. For Pete's sake, the pride parade goes right through the middle of town and right past our church/school. It is on the news. We've all seen it.

 

I'm not happy about it. I don't condone it. But let's face it people, our Scouts already know about it. Good or bad, this is the world they live in.

 

Yes, we do not discuss sexual issues at Scouting activities. Scouting is the wrong time and the wrong place for discussions about sex. But don't let this confuse you into thinking that we, as conservatives and believers in traditional religious based morals, never talk to our kids about sex.

 

We talk at home. We talk in Religion class. We talk in Health class. We talk.

 

Listening to the kids, I get the impression that they are not nearly as shocked and traumatized by the popular culture as we might think, or want them to be. They mostly take it in stride.

 

This sometimes worries me. It worries me that the kids will become so conditioned to what they see and hear in the popular culture that they will come to view such things as normal, or even worse, morally acceptable. This is certainly what the organizers of gay pride parades have in mind.

 

My kids assure me that this is not the case. They know the difference between right and wrong. And though they may be somewhat amused by the bizarre antics and spectacles they see, their values and morals are not changed by them.

 

Thank God.

Edited July 18, 2015 by David CO

[Scouter99]

By that logic, the BSA should ban straight females leaders and have no issue with lesbian leaders.  The straight females are attracted to males- do they too put our boys in danger?  Lesbians aren't attracted to males, so by this logic the BSA shouldn't have an issue with them.

 

How on earth would this be applied to a coed Venturing Crew?  Gay leaders would be banned for posing a threat to youth of their respective sex, and straight leaders would be out for posing a threat to the opposite sex.  Who will lead our Crews?

 

This line of thinking unravels pretty quickly when you follow it through.  It's well intended, I'm sure.  Keeping Scouts out of danger?  Count me in.  In this case however, the perceived danger is based on the concept that gay men are somehow less able to control themselves around young men than anyone else when interacting with members of the sex they find attractive. 

 

Are there adults looking to take advantage of youth in our program?  Unfortunately yes, and this is why we have youth protection principles in place.  Notice there's not a word about the sex of predators or their orientation in YPT.  It recognizes that predators come in all sexes and orientations.

 

BSA prohibits co-ed sleeping arrangements precisely because the assumption is that sexual tensions are high, men and women are attracted to each other, and it is inappropriate for the opposite sex to share sleeping, bathing, or RR facilities.  Yet BSA explicitly states that gay youth are not to be separated from males. 

Again, it's all willful placing of a political aim above practical sense.  If there is no reason to separate gay members from the same sex, there is no reason to separate straight members from the opposite sex.

If it is "hateful," "ignorant," "bigoted," "prejudiced" or whatever-else political pejorative to believe that gay members should be separated from the sex of their attraction, it is equally so to argue that heterosexuals should be separated from the sex of their attraction.  Only IngSoc party members can argue for both.

 

Gay members have no business in tents, showers, or RRs with other boys.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Scouter99

[David CO]

Miami Chief is partially right. We do not separate our kids from every person who might find them attractive. We don't do so at church. We don't do so at school. We don't do so at Scouting. Why would we? We also don't separate our Scouts from every person they might find attractive.

 

Our kids want to be attractive. They like it. They like the feelings of being attractive and having attraction to other people. Attraction is a God-given normal part of life. It is a good thing. It can be a blessed thing.

 

Attraction also has a dark side. It can be disordered.

 

My religion teaches me that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, so I have to differ with Miami Chief when he tries to equate normal attraction with disordered attraction.

 

I can agree, as I often have, that gay youths and adults are able to exercise the same amount of self control over their attractions as are the rest of us. I have no hesitancy in agreeing to that.

 

I will never agree that gay youths and adults are not seriously and intrinsically disordered. I will never consider their attractions to be morally equivalent to the attractions that I, and most people, feel.

Edited July 18, 2015 by David CO

[David CO]

Scouter99, it may surprise you that at in my conservative, traditional, church and school, we occasionally have co-ed sleepovers.

 

We don't feel that is immodest for kids to see each other in their pajamas. We also don't feel that the kids are in any danger of loosing either their self-control or moral compasses. To the best of my knowledge, no serious incidents have occurred at any of our sleepovers.

 

The kids enjoy the sleepovers, and I intend to continue to authorize them.

 

Yes, you are correct when you point out that BSA's youth protection policy is based on an entirely different assumption. We could not allow events similar to our sleepovers to take place under the umbrella of our Scouting program.

 

Unlike BSA, we do not think it is always inappropriate for people of the opposite sex to share sleeping facilities.

Edited July 18, 2015 by David CO

[Rick_in_CA]

Scouter99, it may surprise you that at in my conservative, traditional, church and school, we occasionally have co-ed sleepovers.

 

We don't feel that is immodest for kids to see each other in their pajamas. We also don't feel that the kids are in any danger of loosing either their self-control or moral compasses. To the best of my knowledge, no serious incidents have occurred at any of our sleepovers.

 

The kids enjoy the sleepovers, and I intend to continue to authorize them.

 

Yes, you are correct when you point out that BSA's youth protection policy is based on an entirely different assumption. We could not allow events similar to our sleepovers to take place under the umbrella of our Scouting program.

 

Unlike BSA, we do not think it is always inappropriate for people of the opposite sex to share sleeping facilities.

Most of the western world agrees with you. If check the policies of most of the international scout camps in Europe, you will see that single gender sleeping accommodations are by "special request only". The default assumption is that boys and girls will share sleeping facilities.

 

Also in the BSA, the rules are often ignored in large group settings. Our cub pack will sleep everyone (parents, cubs, siblings, male and female) together when we do things like museum overnights (the USS Hornet Museum for example, they do scout nights with 800 boy and girls scouts at one event - everyone sleeps in large unsegregated bunk rooms). This is technically a YP violation, but no one appears to care.

[Scouter99]

Most of the western world agrees with you. If check the policies of most of the international scout camps in Europe, you will see that single gender sleeping accommodations are by "special request only". The default assumption is that boys and girls will share sleeping facilities.

 

They understand the issue, but instead of attempting to curtail it, they hand out condoms.  Maybe we should just make condoms available to any boys who find themselves tenting with a gay Scout and all Venturers.  After all, 25% of new HIV infections are among 13-24-y-olds, gay and bisexual men are increasing their share of new infections while new infections overall are stable, and gay males account for 54% of total infections despite being just 4% of the population.  Just like us indeed.

 

My male pal's GSUSA troop often needs him to come camping with their troop to make the trips happen, and when they arrive in camp he is promptly sent as far away as possible.  I don't mean his own tent like us libertine Boy Scouts, but that he is made to camp in an entirely different site hundreds of yards away, or in his own cabin hundreds of yards away.

Edited July 18, 2015 by Scouter99

[eagle77]

 

 

My male pal's GSUSA troop often needs him to come camping with their troop to make the trips happen, and when they arrive in camp he is promptly sent as far away as possible.  I don't mean his own tent like us libertine Boy Scouts, but that he is made to camp in an entirely different site hundreds of yards away, or in his own cabin hundreds of yards away.

 

  Yeah I had a friend who had two girls in the GSUSA, he went through that twice then both he and his daughters agreed to leave the program. One of his daughters said "What good is it to have my daddy there if he can't be around me". They go out and camp privately now 1 tent for dad and 1 for his daughters and they are in the same site too.

[David CO]

Our policy regarding restrooms and showers at our church/school is that you use the correct sex-segregated facility that corresponds to your anatomy.

 

Even though we are very conservative, we don't completely ban gay people from our buildings. What restrooms and shower facilities ought they to use other than the ones we direct them to?

 

Scouter99 says that gay youth and adults have no business using our restrooms and showers. The only way to do that would be a total ban from our church, and that is not going to happen.

[packsaddle]

I took a 6-week, around-the-continent camping trip with my daughter. We shared the tent. She was 18yo. The only problem was my snoring and an occasional banana slug intruder in the Pacific NW.

Scouter99, you linked to a previous thread about a 'touching' incident. I point out that the touching was by another boy and there was no information about the contact itself nor its context. We basically don't know much about that incident.

[Gone]

Local option is best, it ensures that the boys who get seduced are the sons of the people who wanted gay leaders there.

Unless they go to summer camp.

 

My CO is NOT going to change unless they get sued. How long until that happens. Our entire SM corps has said they will leave if that happens.

 

If anyone thinks this will increase scouting membership they're deluded. I'll bet we see 15% losses year on year for a long while.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

My CO is NOT going to change unless they get sued. How long until that happens.

 

Why would they get sued?  People have to have grounds for a lawsuit, and suing just to punish someone is illegal.

[skeptic]

Once again, we have the few that seem to feel that somehow allowing "COR" to make the leadership decision will trespass on their unit that may not agree with the other's choices.  Makes no sense at all.  YP, adhered to, should continue to eliminate most any district or council interactions that might be of concern.  

 

Basically, it just means going back to what was the status quo prior to the wave making that began in the late 80's.  

 

As noted, there are those that will never accept any decision that does not cater to THEM.  Little can be done for those few, as they will always be unhappy. I for one will welcome hopefully a lot less having to fend off idiots with political or overtly religious opinions about the organization.  

 

I do hope that the militant agitators for the LGBT will have far less support from the general public for not accepting logical and fair rules, as no longer will they not have the opportunity within the broader BSA.  Even in the church supported units, there are half or more that will have no issue at all as long as the prospective leader is otherwise eligible.  And if the agitators choose to challenge the decision by trying to join a unit that does not allow them, then they should be stopped by the legal system as having no standing, since they can apply elsewhere, either in an non religious sponsor or one of the other groups that sponsor.

 

Those on here that have already screamed we will leave; I wish you well, though I cannot help but question your decision a bit.  

[Gone]

Why would they get sued?  People have to have grounds for a lawsuit, and suing just to punish someone is illegal.

Seriously? One gay person wants to join my unit. Our CO says they don't allows gays. There's your standing.

[Gone]

As noted, there are those that will never accept any decision that does not cater to THEM.  Little can be done for those few, as they will always be unhappy. I for one will welcome hopefully a lot less having to fend off idiots with political or overtly religious opinions about the organization.  

 

Odd, that describes the people that have been pushing BSA to make this change perfectly.

[NJCubScouter]

BadWolf, I take it your CO is not a religious organization? Without identifying it, what kind of organization is it?

 

I think we all need to remember that the BSA has said that the CO's usual discretion to appoint leaders is still in place. Does this hypothetical gay person just show up from out of the blue with no connection to the troop and unknown to any of the leaders or families? I think most troops would be very wary of such a person, regardless of this change and regardless of avowed orientation.