Boy Scouts

As for my views being "socially deviant", the voting booth says otherwise. See North Carolina. No matter how much people will crumble to public social pressure on homosexual issues, when the same issues are voted on, the results tell you where society is and who is socially deviant.
 
Maybe they were just born that way, you might ask someone at NAMBLA. Is consensual incest ok? How about a son and mother that are both over the age of 21?? No problem if consensual??
 
How many men are girl scout pack leaders? That is the crux for me. Scouting is to a high degree about a bunch of kids going camping with one or two leaders. Trust is a big concern.

Like it or not, most parents won't trust their children to be going off camping with an adult who, naturally, finds them sexually attractive.(the reason we have separate bathrooms for men and women and why family bathrooms are the rage so small children don't have to go into the same sex bathroom alone)

Getting wrapped up in some of the other obtuse arguments is losing sight that parents will speak with their refusal to allow their kids to participate. Sad really. Why not form a G/L scouting organization?

Why would a gay man like to go camping with a bunch of boys?
 
I think there are some very good arguments against gay men being scout leaders. This is especially true if they do not have children in the pack. However, I cannot find in the scout code of ethics, mission statement, or oath, anything that would limit the involvement of a gay scout.
 
I think zork is hitting the most difficult issue. While I find it deplorable to dismiss a group of people as amoral deviants, I also find it understandable that some people are uncomfortable with gay scout leaders and even gay scouts.

We've become very legalistic in how we deal with issues. This may be one of those cases. There is no moral reason nor legal reason to separate gays from everyone else. Take that away and your left with the comfort issue.

zork writes, I believe, that he is uncomfortable with possible safety issues if his child should go camping with an adult homosexual. Presumable it's the potential for pedophilia. I appreciate that he makes the issue clear. It's a great starting point for real talk.

What is the data on gay scout leaders and their behavior? Have there been molestation cases? At what rate compared to the population of scout masters who are gay?

But here we stumble on the problem with the stigma so long associated with homosexuality. Who knows how many scout masters in the past have been gay? Being openly gay has been difficult in the century of scouting. Who was saying they were gay in 1920, 1940 or even 1960?

I think we can assume that there have been a proportionate number of gay scouts and gay scout leaders. Has pedophilia been a problem? Not that I've heard.

I think zork's decision about his child's involvement would be well served by people talking the points he raises. My guess is that the facts, if findable, would show gays in scouting have been no worse or better than anyone else.
 
This evening, I did some reading on the history of BSA allowing minorities to join. They appeared to be slightly behind the curve and followed the lead of society. When pressure mounted, they eventually gave in and made the right decision. I dont have a problem with this as BSA is not a group that needs or wants to be making political statements. I think that we are seeing the same set of circumstances with gays and following the lead of society. BSA made the correct decision in allowing gay scouts to participate, but not gay adult leaders. I hope that we eventually get to the point where gay leaders with children in the group can be more involved.
 
This all brings back memories of when I was a boy scout four decades ago.

Many of the scouts in my troop were convinced that our troop leader was gay, discussing it openly among themselves. I was relatively new to the troop and never really thought much about it until my first camping trip. Some of my friends in the troop jokingly warned me to be careful around him and to be honest I did feel some apprehension, although I never mentioned it to my parents.

Being the new guy, I was picked to share a tent with the troop leader on my first camping trip and while nothing at all inappropriate happened, I didn't get a lot of sleep on that outing. It did teach me the true meaning of the Boy Scout motto though - Be Prepared.

Was he gay? In looking back, he very well might have been, but he was also a really nice guy and a great leader.

True story
 
So its already done now but here is why I am vehemently opposed to it and will likely take my sons out of scouting.

1. I do view homosexuality as immoral and don't believe it is virtuous and worthy of being afforded the same regard as heterosexuality and ultimately marriage between a man and woman
2. There is a legitimate concern for the welfare of the scouts. When a boy enters this program he is going from 5th to 6th grade. In most cases between 10-11 yrs of age. There are scouts that are up to age 18 in the same troops. If the older scouts are sexually active and attracted to boys, there could be issues. I don't want my child exposed to this. At some point there is going to be a scout/scout gay relationship. When you go camping, how do you handle this? Do you forbid them from sharing a tent? What if something sexual does occur on a trip? Who is now held responsible...the scout leader? Do you kick them out for kissing? Teenagers are regularly bad decision makers when it comes to this sort of thing. Eventually two boys are going to kiss/have sex on a BSA campout...what then? This is not a problem when only straight boys are in the troop (or at least have to act straight)
3. If you've never been around this type of group you may not appreciate how quickly these 11 yr boys develop a groupie like affinity for the older scouts. To these 11 yr olds these 16-17 yr olds are like rockstars. Whatever that 16-17 yr old is or is not, is going to make a HUGE impression of these 11 yr olds.
4. It is only a matter of months before the LGBT community is back demanding gay adult participation. BSA will have a hard time arguing that the gay scout that was 17 yesterday and 'acceptable' is now unacceptable since he turned 18. This measure was the way to get their foot in the door. You could tell by the survey that they sent out ahead of time that their ultimate aim is complete inclusion of the gay community.

There was a huge backlash to the gay adult thing so the survey read like " OK....so what can we get away with....for now".
 
While it is likely true that there have always been gay scouts and gay leaders in our ranks, changing the policy to allow gay scouts to openly proclaim their homosexuality and retain membership is dramatically different. When you say I'm gay, you are essentially saying I have AND WILL CONTINUE to feel and be this way. You aren't saying that I stumbled and will try to do better. It is akin to proclaiming yourself a drug user or a thief. If you came out and said 'I'm a drug user, deal with it'...you'd be kicked out. If you smoked a joint but proclaimed 'I never will again' then there would be attempt to help you back on the straight and narrow.

I wouldn't want an avowed and unrepentant drug user or thief in the troop being an example to my sons any more than I want a homosexual. Doesn't mean that I want to take these people out back and stone them, just means they are most certainly not the examples I want set for my children.
 
I visited with a really nice 15-year-old who serves as senior patrol leader of a very large and successful Boy Scouts Troop based where I go to church. I asked about the gay thing and he said he' not especially hostile to openly gay kids, but he wouldn't want to share a tent with one or assign another Scout to do so. Obviously we are dealing with nice kids and we can't just pretend nothing is changed. Scouts are great learners and great at following/enforcing rules .

This isn't something I want 12 year olds or even 17-year-olds having to sort out without rules, guidance and a chance to get questions answered in a comfortable environment where a kid won't be attacked for asking hard questions.
 
Sexual deviants are NOT people that should be in a position of power over young people. When 13-17 year old scouts are learning leadership skills such a patrol leader, they are put in charge of younger scouts aged 8-11. There is no doubt that an older sexual deviant in a position of power will molest a younger scout, it is just a matter of when. The BSA is absolutly negligent for allowing the situation to occur and will most likely be on the losing end of the law suits due to this change in policy.
I am sure this is not the end of the matter and there will most likely be a split in the scouts with the scouts banning sexual deviants surviving. I could very well see a BST - Boy scouts of Texas split from the BSA. Too bad it has come to such a sad situation where people do the wrong thing because of pressure.I don't care for Governor Perry, but agree with him that it is time for a change of leadership in the BSA.
 
There have always been gay scouts in these positions. The only difference is that they are allowed to say they are gay now. How many times have they had trouble with these issues? If there have been a lot of issues, it would have been time to pull the kid out a long time ago. If not, I don't see why this would cause an increase in incidents.
 
"There have always been gay scouts in these positions."

Sorry, but that simply is not true. Were there unknown exceptions? Probably so, but very few. The innuendo that it is common place or usual for sexual deviants to be in those positions of power is misleading and blatantly false.
 
"And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says there are no gays in Iran. "

Not sure how that pertains to either a total lack of knowledge of the BSA or a blatantly false innuendo.
 
I don't claim to be a Bible scholar, but I have read the book a few times in various translations. I've never understood how someone can have such a strong opinion on the "morality" of homosexuality based on bible translations that have varied pretty greatly, but have absolutely no concern about very explicit definitions of sin in the Bible, such as divorce and remarriage. The Books of Mark, Matthew, and Luke are very explicit in every translation I've read. Mark 10:2-12 "...Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." Why shouldn't the BSA ban any divorced remarried parents who are committing adultery every day. How can these "morally corrupt" individuals be allowed to lead our children. They are violating one of the "big 10", every day. Why is that of no "moral" concern to the BSA? Is it because it is more common? Does the frequency of the sin make it less morally objectionable? Are those Books of the Bible, less regarded in defining morality? I'm not trying to be a wise *** here, but just trying to understand why the two perceived "sins" are viewed so differently by so many people.
 
Lil Earl's point would be valid if completely true. It is not.
The difference is that most people that have committed adultery or have had marriages fail for whatever reason realize their personal failure and have regretted their failure and prayed about their failure.
I agree with Lil Earl, in part, in that people that do not have a consciense or regret about their personal moral failures including sexual deviancy have no business being around our youth.
 
Ivan, Your response seems to imply that the divorce was the sinful act, and that the prayerful person could ask forgiveness for that. The "sin" isn't the divorce or the failed marriage, it is the re-marriage. The divorced remarried individual is making a conscious choice to continue living in an adulterous relationship, committing adultery against their former spouse every day they are married. Is adultery not a moral failure?

Just for the record, I am not saying that I consider someone who has divorced and remarried to be morally deficient. I am just trying to take an objective view of the literal translation of passages in the Bible and try to understand how one chooses such a strong position on one issue, and completely ignores another, even when the ignored issued seems so much more direct and uncontestable based on Bible passages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top