AZMike

The Methodists voted at their convention in May of last year to continue to maintain language in their doctrine that says homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching, 61% to 39%. They also voted down a similar proposed change from gay rights advocates that would have said that Methodists could acknowledge their differing views on homosexuality while still living together as a church.

 

I'm not a Methodist, but I acknowledge their commitment to social justice and the work of men while John Wesley and William Wilberforce in the abolition movement and in prison reform. The views of many Methodists is that commitment to social justice is not the same as normalizing sin, apparently.

The Executive Council of the Southern Baptist Convention (which is supposed to be the 6th largest religious denomination among COs) passed a resolution (full text here: http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/02/20/southern-baptists-implore-boy-scouts-to-hold-firm/) on February 19th calling on the BSA not to change its position on homosexual membership. They don't come right out and say they will pull their COs, but the last paragraph of the resolution, which says "RESOLVED, That, irrespective of the decision of the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, we continue to lift up and commend Royal Ambassadors as a Christian values-based organized that, for 105 years, has taught Christian values to boys in Southern Baptist churches, educating at least two million boys in biblical missionary principles and winning tens of thousands to faith in Christ through chapter meetings, Royal Ambassador camps, and other Royal Ambassador activities," seems to imply that they will be likely to pull their charters from BSA and transfer their resources to their own in-house youth organization, waiting in the wings.

 

A doomsday scenario for the BSA would be if many of the denominations that have traditional moral codes (LDS, Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish) pull out of the BSA due to the Local Option being passed, but the potential secular chartering orgs that pulled out in the past due to the BSA's stance against homosexual and atheist membership (military units, schools, etc.) can't or won't step up to be chartering orgs for the orphaned troops because the Local Option is still insufficient to satisfy their political stances, or the stances of their own national headquarters and unions. National would then have to bow to pressure, ban any troops that have local policies against homosexual/atheist membership, and remove charters from any remaining religious groups that don't allow homosexual or atheist membership but have tried to stay in the BSA, further alienating remaining religious COs, if the Local Option doesn't work out.

 

See post #6, below, ghjim. The United Methodists, who appear to have some serious issues with the Local Option, accounted for 11,078 COs in 2011 (I can't find stats for 2012). My limited understanding is that the Methodists tend to be politically and theologically liberal, so that was surprising to learn. Those 11,078 troops are just behind the LDS (largest at 37,882 units) and just ahead of the Catholics (8,570 units). The next largest group after that are the Presbyterians at 3,663, Lutherans (themselves in schism over the homosexual issue) at 3,902, Baptists at 4,099, Episcopalians at 1,193, United Church of Christ at 1,221, Christian Church/Disciples of Christ at 1,199, and Community Churches at 1,060.

 

Civic COs are the American Legion (2,589), Lions International (2,378), Rotary (1,362), VFW (1,103), Kiwanis (943), Elks (794), Boys & Girls Clubs (610), YMCA/YWCA (367), Optimists International (254), and the Loyal Order of Moose (259). Many of the above saw some heavy negative % changes from 2000-2011 (the Moose went from 430 COs to 259 in 1 year. Other civic groups can be viewed here: http://www.scouting.org/filestore/media/ES_Chartered_Org_Trends.pdf

 

The letter is from Bishop James E. Swanson, Jr., the President of the General Commission on United Methodist Men.

 

It states,

 

"Since BSA announced a possible change in their membership policy dealing with homosexuality, our office has received many phone calls and emalls. We realize in the United Methodist Church there are people who have differing opinions on this issue. There are many questions of legal implications, and questions about how this new rule would be managed in our local churches. Many see this change to be in conflict with their understanding of Scripture. Many have stated they will terminate their relationship with BSA, as a leader and as donors. Many have expressed anger that our church was not brought into this discussion as this change was being considered. A few have told us they support this proposed change by BSA; however, overall, the responses have been overwhlemingly against the proposed change.

 

"This potential shift from BSA places GCUMM's primary goal, our core value - expansion and retention - at risk. If approved, scouting programs would decrease, and new programs would be harder to begin due to the uncertainty this proposal has generated."

 

The letter asks that the new membership proposals (the "Local Option") not be implemented at this time, as more time is needed for the 50 United Methodist Annual Conferences and the thousans of United Methodist churches to research what the change might mean, and politely requests that the faith communities that make up over 70% of the units and 62% of the membership in the BSA be kept better informed of such contemplated changes in the future. Bishop Swanson asks that the letter be forwarded to all voting members at the BSA's annual meeting.

 

The Executive Council of the Southern Baptist Convention (which is supposed to be the 6th largest religious denomination among COs) passed a resolution (full text here: http://juicyecumenism.com/2013/02/20/southern-baptists-implore-boy-scouts-to-hold-firm/) on February 19th calling on the BSA not to change its position on homosexual membership. They don't come right out and say they will pull their COs, but the last paragraph of the resolution, which says "RESOLVED, That, irrespective of the decision of the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America, we continue to lift up and commend Royal Ambassadors as a Christian values-based organized that, for 105 years, has taught Christian values to boys in Southern Baptist churches, educating at least two million boys in biblical missionary principles and winning tens of thousands to faith in Christ through chapter meetings, Royal Ambassador camps, and other Royal Ambassador activities," seems to imply that they will be likely to pull their charters from BSA and transfer their resources to their own in-house youth organization, waiting in the wings.

 

A doomsday scenario for the BSA would be if many of the denominations that have traditional moral codes (LDS, Southern Baptist, Roman Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish) pull out of the BSA due to the Local Option being passed, but the potential secular chartering orgs that pulled out in the past due to the BSA's stance against homosexual and atheist membership (military units, schools, etc.) can't or won't step up to be chartering orgs for the orphaned troops because the Local Option is still insufficient to satisfy their political stances, or the stances of their own national headquarters and unions. National would then have to bow to pressure, ban any troops that have local policies against homosexual/atheist membership, and remove charters from any remaining religious groups that don't allow homosexual or atheist membership but have tried to stay in the BSA, further alienating remaining religious COs, if the Local Option doesn't work out.

 

 

You know all of this speculation is interesting but is strictly individual opinions and not much else. All of us will have to wait until the decision is made and has been in effect for a while before you can draw any factual conclusions. At the rate National moves it may be another year before they actually make their final decision.

 

Barry, come on now, you really think that this will really destroy the BSA, I rather doubt it, besides the deemphasizing of the outdoor program and skills started in the 70's had already started that process and the watered down program of today is the main reason so many scout packs, troops and crews have lost membership, along with incompetently run councils by incompetent professional scouters who lack any kind of ethical or moral work ethic.

It's interesting that most liberals believe that once you're homosexual, you can't change to heterosexual, and no therapist should be allowed to try to change you, and it should be illegal to run a counseling program that claims to be able to change you...until you molest a boy. THEN you instantly and magically become "straight."

You know all of this speculation is interesting but is strictly individual opinions and not much else. All of us will have to wait until the decision is made and has been in effect for a while before you can draw any factual conclusions. At the rate National moves it may be another year before they actually make their final decision.

 

Barry, come on now, you really think that this will really destroy the BSA, I rather doubt it, besides the deemphasizing of the outdoor program and skills started in the 70's had already started that process and the watered down program of today is the main reason so many scout packs, troops and crews have lost membership, along with incompetently run councils by incompetent professional scouters who lack any kind of ethical or moral work ethic.

Those male scout leaders who molested boys weren't "straight," moosetracker. Straight men don't have sex with other men. They were liars. And homosexuals. And pederasts.

You know all of this speculation is interesting but is strictly individual opinions and not much else. All of us will have to wait until the decision is made and has been in effect for a while before you can draw any factual conclusions. At the rate National moves it may be another year before they actually make their final decision.

 

Barry, come on now, you really think that this will really destroy the BSA, I rather doubt it, besides the deemphasizing of the outdoor program and skills started in the 70's had already started that process and the watered down program of today is the main reason so many scout packs, troops and crews have lost membership, along with incompetently run councils by incompetent professional scouters who lack any kind of ethical or moral work ethic.

Beavah's estimate sounds about right. I'd say 25% to 35% initial drop in membership, followed by a slower gradual decline in membership over the years to the point of irrelevance to society. If there are couple of significant publicized cases of molestation by gay scout leaders or by gay scouts, you'll see the same rapid decline the child abuse scandal caused the Catholic Church in the past decades. No parent will trust the BSA with their son again. No one will shoulder any blame, either.

I have asked this before, and will again, Why when the talk of the local option first started years ago did no one bring the arguments we have today?

 

Next, there are several Churches that do not accept "openly gay" members. Do they get sued because an openly gay person wishes to join them? Why would a BSA troop sponosred by that church be any different?

 

At Camporees and other Distrct and Council events there is a fear of "mingling" with gay scouts and scouters? Do you ever go to State and National Parks? Or a commerical Campground? Are all those people straight?

 

As to your second paragraph, the current administration in pressing their HHS mandate on requiring insurance payments for abortifacients and contraceptives has set out the novel legal theory that while churches themselves are religious institutions, the hospitals and adoption services and food banks and such that they operate under the dictates of their religious conscience are not (much less individual members of the religion who operate their own businesses), and so must pay the cost of providing abortifacients and contraceptives to their employees. SCOTUS will ultimately deal with this issue, but I see no reason why, under this argument, providing a meeting space for a chapter of a national youth organization (and moreover, one which may alter its own policy on this issue) would be held to be part of the church's core religious values.

 

A "divide and conquer" legal strategy would also be ruinous to the Local Option. If the local chapters of GLAAD and the ACLU target each individual Local Option troop/CO that chooses to continue under the traditional policy, will the BSA fund the legal defense for 20, 30, 100 or more local legal challenges?

AZMike - here's the flaw in your logic:

 

"Lemons are yellow. Lemons are fruit. Therefore all fruit is yellow." ... is equivalent to ...

 

"Homosexual sex is practiced by homosexuals. Homosexual sex is practiced by pedophiles. Therefore all homosexuals are pedophiles." This latter statement summarizes your position, correct?

You should probably refer to what I wrote instead of trying to rephrase it as a strawman argument, as I am the best reference for what I said. If you think I wrote "all homosexuals are pedophiles," or in fact discussed the medical diagnosis of pedophilia, please reference that.

 

Go back and read what I actually wrote, and please don't mistake the map for the territory. Once again, we are not talking about "pedophilia," or any mental box you have constructed in which mental concepts about rigid modes of behavior can be neatly organized. We are talking about adults who have sex with juveniles. In the environment with which we are concerned, the greatest risk, based on the statistical evidence, is from homosexual and bisexual males. This is sufficient reason for a private organization to make a decision to deny them access to the juvenile males for whom they act in loco parentis. This is also consistent with the stated moral values of the organization.

 

EmberMike essentially said that having homosexual sex with boys is bad. Gays aren't inherently bad. So gays aren't likely to have sex with children. Again, it's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

ghst, to begin withl, that 'problem' is speculative. It is just as likely that IF there is some such controversy, it will be focused on that particular CO and NOT the rest of us. It's their problem, not BSA's.

Local option, local responsibility.

Sounds like we should be looking for a new title for our Balkanized organization, then no longer - the Boy Scouts of America, but The Boy Scouts of the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 123, The Boys Scouts of St. Dymphna's Church, The Boy Scouts of the Ancient and Benevolent Order of the Platypus, The Boy Scouts of the Reverend Joe's Church of Total Inclusion and Check Cashing Service.

It works best to do everything in some other photo editing program...and get the dimensions just right...before you submit it. Then repeat the exercise if it still looks wrong.

Speaking of profile pics, what the heck is that thing in your profile pic, packsaddle?

Per Lara's Wikipedia bio, the bill's sponsor is openly gay and is one of 8 members of the California Legislature Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgendered Caucus, so I think it's a personal issue with him, NJCubScouter. He ain't gonna drop the bill to support your Local Option. That 3.2% you mentioned has a lot of political power and friends in California politics.

NJCubScouter, have you asked the writer of the bill if he plans to back off if the Local Option is passed? What if we don't allow atheists in, or if the local boy's football league doesn't allow girls to play?

 

Having thrown his hat into the ring and gotten massive support from the gay community, not to mention the disaffected atheists, do you really think he will back down if only the local option is accepted? None of the gay organizations have said they would be satisfied with the local option. I may be wrong in that.

 

NJCubScouter or anyone else, are you aware of any statements by any gay political group that says they would be satisfied solely with the Local Option, ot do want total capitulation?

I'll respond on all your comments at once, here.

 

 

You asked, "Why are you assuming that gay men are more likely to abuse boys than straight women?" It is not an assumption, it is supported by the evidence. Read the cites I posted. Most of the people who sexually abuse either boys or girls are men. That is a simple fact, which is supported by the NIS study. See the cite. It is also a fact that that the vast majority of the offenders who specifically sexually abuse boys are males. This is supported by the the study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine. See the cite. Those instances of abuse are homosexual acts, by definition and common usage.

 

You have then shifted your argument to claim that, well, maybe straight women could be more likely to abuse boys, so we shouldn't exclude gays if we are not willing to include straight women. That is also not supported by the evidence. Again, see the cite from the AJPM study. I posted these cites in response to your request for more studies, ones that were not "religious."

 

Your anecdotal sense from news stories you have seen that there is a burgeoning population of female offenders against boys, or your unsupported personal belief that "the risk level has to be at the very least equal" is not supported by the research you requested.

 

You are of course free to ignore the research and believe whatever you desire, but if you want to engage with the argument, you should at least read the research you requested.

 

Instead, you have posted a reference to a 1993 study (the original of which I have read), which you presumably read about in the first reference you found when you Googled the subject. That is, however, a testament to the original poster's knowledge of search engine optimization rather than the relevance of a 20-year old research study which is fundamentally flawed in its premises. It is flawed because it is examining a group of victims that skew toward those much younger than our victim population; because the study was done by examining medical charts for physical signs of molestation (such as inflammation or tearing of the anus or vaginal tissues, or signs of an STD), which may identify sexual offenses against the very young, but which is inadequate to detect sexual offenses against more physically mature minors, and which can include acts such as fondling and fellatio, which will not usually be physically detected in the victim. A properly conducted juvenile forensic interview, performed using court-accepted protocols, will be able to effectively identify both such homosexual and heterosexual child sexual assaults, but these protocols were still in their infancy at the time when this study was conducted and were not used. It also relies on a perpetrator identifying himself or herself as gay or bisexual to the clinician, which is unlikely in an individual who is already looking at criminal charges and would be likely to see this as supporting evidence against his own interest, especially back in 1993.

 

In short, the 20 year-old study you cited, which is frequently used by those advocating for gay adoption and gay access to youths, is quite simply junk science.

 

You further state in reference to the study on childhood sexual assault against homosexual men, "Not seeing anything here that talks about the sexual orientation of the men these boys had relationships with. I am seeing some indications that some of these men were relatives, some fathers, men who would self-identify as straight."

 

Let's try it again. If you are a male who has sex with another male, that is a homosexual act. It is not a heterosexual act. If you are homosexual or bisexual and claim you are exclusively heterosexual, that is not a self-identification, that is not your "sexual orientation," that is simply a lie. "Sexual orientation" is not based on what you say, it is based on what you do. Behavior is the truth. If we are looking at homosexuals as being the (overwhelmingly) greatest risk to sexually molest a boy (which the medical research cited above, as well as numerous other studies, clearly supports), simply declaring yourself as homosexual does not reduce your risk potential. It just means you are more honest about being in the group that has the greatest risk potential. That really shouldn't be a hard thing to understand.

 

"How exactly would the BSA policy have kept these men out?"

 

It would have kept out the portion of men who have self-identified as being in the greatest risk group. Other means should be used to protect against homosexual men and bisexual men who are concealing their sexual orientation, who are also dangerous. These means include effective background checks and reference interviews. They will not, unfortunately, be effective at reducing all risk, but nothing is.

 

You also ask, "Where's the study that says simply that gay men are more likely to abuse kids than straight men? If it's just that simple, surely there is some evidence to support that idea."

 

You are pursuing a strawman here, as that is not relevant to what we are discussing. We are concerned in this instance with whether homosexual men represent a threat to juvenile males. Clearly, they do. I can cite some studies that show what percentage of self-identified gay males have stated that they have had sex with minors, but let me ask you first - what would you consider a level of sexual contact with minors within the gay population that you would consider sufficient to deny such a population access to a youth organization which conducts activities like the Boy Scouts?

 

You opine, "I have to add, also, that your assumption that all men who abuse boys are gay is flawed. People who abuse children have obvious mental disorders, regardless of their own gender and sexual preference. Some mental health professionals go so far as to call those kinds of attractions a "third sexual orientation". I don't think I'd agree with that..."

 

I agree with you, that is a stupid concept and clearly politically motivated. But if so, why bring it up as an argument?

 

"I think they're just screwed up individuals, but nevertheless there is a flaw in thinking that all abusers can be defined in their sexual preference only by the gender of who they abuse."

 

Why?

 

 

 

Interesting - so the Local Option, which is being touted as the answer to all our problems, will not suffice for those who are pushing for total capitulation. Or will they only remove tax-exempt status for troops that don't follow the New Model of Boy Scouting? How will THAT accounting work?

 

Here is the text of the bill: http://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB323

 

Groups named in the bill are Little League, Bobby Sox, Boy

 

 

Scouts, Cub Scouts, Girl Scouts, Campfire, Inc., Young Men's

Christian Association, Young Women's Christian Association, Future

Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, 4-H Clubs,

Distributive Education Clubs of America, Future Business Leaders of

America, Vocational Industrial Clubs of America, Collegiate Young

Farmers, Boys' Clubs, Girls' Clubs, Special Olympics, Inc., American

Youth Soccer Organization, California Youth Soccer Association,

North, California Youth Soccer Association, South, and Pop Warner

football.

 

 

 

 

Notwithstanding any other law, an organization organized

and operated exclusively as a public charity youth organization that

discriminates on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual

orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation shall

not be exempt from taxes imposed by this part.

 

So it would also require the Boy Scouts to admit girls, the Girl Scouts to admit boys, and all youth sports organizations to admit both sexes.

I like this comment in the comments section:

 

"Who do you think builds community gardens for feeding the poor? Who installs benches alongside trails for weary hikers? Who assists elderly people with yard work without charge? Who encourages loyalty to our nation by placing flagpoles at athletic fields? Who takes inner city kids on their first campouts and teaches them how to be safe and comfortable in the woods? Who remembers annually those who have given their lives in defense of this country? Who creates habitat for bats, songbirds, and wild ducks? Who trains other young people to communicate and educate and lead? Who urges boys and their parents to follow the counsel of our first President, George Washington, to give definite attention to the religious life in order to become the best kind of citizen? The Boy Scouts of northern California, that is who. I have witnessed all these examples personally! These kids and their leaders are not whining moochers, but servants of their neighbors, high achievers and patriots."

 

That gets overlooked often - is the tremendous amount of good that is done by the BSA trumped by the need to allow the 3.2% of men in who define themselves by their sexual desires for other males into the organization? If so, we live in a very screwed-up world.

 

 

 

Double post

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_congress_full_pdf_jan2010.pdf

 

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is mandated by Congress to do regular surveys of the rates of all forms of abuse (physical as well as sexual) against children, the National Incidence Study (NIS). The NIS reports are the standard references used by researchers and therapists in the field of child sexual abuse. NIS-4, done in 2010, found that, again, males are the most likely perpetrators of all forms of abuse, as well as sexual abuse in particular:

 

The predominance of males as the perpetrators of abuse holds true for each specific abuse category and is most pronounced for sexual abuse, where 87% of sexually abused children had male perpetrators.

 

Table 6–3 further reveals sex differences across the different perpetrator relationships, for overall abuse and for the specific abuse categories. Among all abused children, those abused by their biological parents were nearly equally likely to have been abused by mothers (51%) as by fathers (54%), but those abused by nonbiological parents or parents’ partners and those abused by other persons were much more commonly abused by males (79% and 74%). This pattern applies for emotionally abused children, where the percentages of children with male perpetrators differ across the relationship categories. However, there are no differences across relationship categories for female perpetrators of emotional abuse. Moreover, the pattern is also different among physically abused children. When biological parents or other persons were perpetrators, males were the abusers for only about one-half of the children (48% and 56%, respectively), whereas when the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, nearly three-fourths of the children were abused by a male (74%).

 

The mirror image of this pattern is evident in the differences in percentages of children with female perpetrators across the relationship categories. When the perpetrator was a nonbiological parent, then this was a female for less than one-third of the children (29%); when the perpetrator was a biological parent or other person, then it was more likely to be a female perpetrators (for 56% and 43% of the children, respectively).

 

Among sexually abused children, the majority of perpetrators were male, regardless of their relationship to the child. However, they were much more likely to be male when they were the child’s nonbiological parent. Also, the percentage of female perpetrators differs significantly depending on their relationship to the child. Children who are sexually abused by their biological parents have the highest percentage of female perpetrators (22% versus 6% or less in other relationship categories).

 

The study does not break down stats by the victim’s gender, but male offenders were responsible for 87% of all sexual abuse; 80% of sexual abuse by parents; 97% of sexual abuse by non-biological parents or caregivers; and 86% of all sexual abuse by non-parents or caregivers. Again, women are statistically unlikely to sexually abuse boys compared to males; and as we can assume that roughly half of the children in the NIS are boys, the majority have been victimized by homosexuals or bisexuals.

 

I can cite many more research studies if you need them, EmberMike.

 

One could try to argue that, well, these people committing homosexual acts, weren't really "gay," they were actually heterosexuals who were committing homosexual acts. If you feel prone to make this argument, you should first Google the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.

 

http://www.jimhopper.com/pdfs/Dube_(2005)_Childhood_sexual_abuse_by_gender_of_victim.pdf

 

A 2005 research study in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine (also not a religiously funded study), “Long-Term Consequences of Childhood Sexual Abuse by Gender of Victim†by Shanta R. Dube, MPH, Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, Charles L. Whitfield, MD, David W. Brown, MSPH, MS, Vincent J. Felitti, MD, Maxia Dong, MD, PhD, Wayne H. Giles, MD, MS

 

In a survey of 7970 men and 9,367 women who were members of an HMO, who were asked if they were sexually abused as children (defined as touched in a sexual way or forced to touch an adult in a sexual way, attempted sexual intercourse, or completed sexual intercourse,) 16% of males and 24.7% of females reported childhood sexual abuse.

 

Any form of sexual abuse is wrong, but of those who reported sexual abuse (1,276 of the males and 2,310 of the females), the males were more likely to have been the victims of abuse by sexual intercourse than non-intercourse sexual abuse - 41.8% were the victims of full intercourse (compared to 22.9% of the females).

 

91.9% of the girls were victimized by male(s) (heterosexual), and only 2.1% by another female. (3.6% by both male and female, 2.4% non-specified gender). So, including those who were abused by both genders, 95.5% were abused by men.

 

51% of the boys were abused exclusively by male(s) (homosexual abuse), 20.8% by females, 18.3% by both male and female, and 9.9.% not specified. So, including those who were abused by both genders, at least 69.3% were abused by men (including a much larger “non-specified†gender group that can be presumed to be mostly male. Considering that less than 5% of males are homosexual, the rates of child sexual abuse by homosexuals/bisexuals reflect that homosexuals and bisexuals molest boys at a much higher rate than they are represented in the population by even the most optimistic estimates of the LGBT community.

 

 

http://www.sfu.ca/psyc/faculty/bartholomew/faq_files/stanley1.pdf

 

From “Gay and Bisexual Men's Age-Discrepant Childhood Sexual Experiences†by

 

Jessica L. Stanley, Kim Bartholomew, and Doug Oram, Simon Fraser University, published in The Journal of Sex Research Volume 41, Number 4, November 2004: pp. 38t-389

 

“This study examined childhood sexual abuse (CSA) in gay and bisexual men. We compared the conventional definition of CSA based on age difference with a modified definition of CSA based on perception to evaluate which definition best accounted for problems in adjustment. The sample consisted of 192 gay and bisexual men recruited from a randomly selected community sample. Men's descriptions of their CSA experiences were coded from taped interviews. Fifty men (26%) reported sexual experiences before age 17 with someone at least 5 years older, constituting CSA according to the age-based definition.â€

 

"Fifty of the 192 men (26%) reported sexual contact with someone at least 5 years older before the age of 17. On average, the men were 10.10 years of age {SD = ]4.45) at the time of sexual contact with a range of 2 to 16 years. The age of the older person ranged from 11 to 60 years with a mean of 24.61{SD = 8.70). The age difference between the youth and older person averaged 14.25 years {SD = 7.71) and ranged from 5 to 45 years difference. The vast majority of older sexual partners were men (92%) with only 4 (8%) of the 48 men who indicated the sex of the older person reporting that it was a woman. Most commonly, the sexual contact occurred only once {n - 21, 48%), although the duration of sexual contact ranged up to 12 years. Ten of the 45 men (22%) who described the duration of sexual contact reported that the sexual contact lasted for more than 1 year.â€

 

“Forty-five men indicated they had a relationship with the older person (see Table 1). Fifteen men (33%) reported that the older person was a member of their community (e.g., shopkeeper, leader of a youth organization, or babysitter). Family friends {n = 7, 16%) and strangers {n [/i]= 7, 16%) were the next most commonly mentioned relations. Sexual contact with a member of the extended fam- ily (e.g., cousins and uncles) was reported by five men (11%). Another five men (11%) described the relationship as an acquaintanceship. Four men (9%) reported sexual relations with older brothers, and two men reported sexual relations with fathers (4%).â€

 

(As you will see in the studies cited below, the rate of CSA for homosexual males as victims is much higher than for heterosexuals, and 92% of the offenders in the study above were homosexual males.)

 

 

“Homosexual†is defined by Merriam-Webster, as well as most dictionaries, as

 

1.: of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

 

2: of, relating to, or involving sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex.

 

Not adults, simply persons of the same sex. The heterosexual definition uses equivalent terms. Adult males of homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual orientation sometimes have sex with children. It doesn’t matter how someone defines their own orientation, as we are concerned with behavior. To try to redefine the word to benefit your argument, or to try to carve out a third or fourth preference is a logical fallacy known as “moving the goalposts.â€

 

Our concerns are, who represents a greater risk to our potential victim population?

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual males do not represent a risk of sexual molestation of juvenile males.

 

Common sense would tell us that heterosexual females do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys. (Statistically, however, it is a much lower risk.)

 

Common sense would tell us that homosexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

Common sense would tell us that bisexual males do represent a risk of sexual molestation to boys.

 

So, since homosexual and bisexual males (by definition) represent the greatest risk factor of those groups to boys, our question then becomes, what is the level of that risk, and do the potential benefits of allowing homosexuals and bisexuals as scouts and scout leaders (increased self-esteem and self-actualization of the homosexuals involved) outweigh the risks of same (potential criminal sexual molestation)?

 

Here are some relevant studies, which were not commissioned by religious institutions, as per EmberMike’s request.

 

EmberMike, the mean age of the victims in the Colorado study you cite was 6.1 years, Not exactly the age of the victim group we are looking at in the BSA.

 

 

EmberMike: "I'd be happy to read any study you find that suggests otherwise, provided it's not a study commissioned by a religious group. The overwhelming evidence among psychiatric institutions and medical professionals is that gay men are no more likely to molest kids, and in fact most evidence suggests that they are statistically LESS likely to molest children than straight men."

 

Okay, let’s not try to move the goalposts on your argument.

 

We are discussing the risk factors to a potential victim population of (exclusively) male juveniles. Whether adult homosexuals or adult heterosexuals commit more criminal sexual molestations to the victim population of all children (boys and girls) is not relevant to the issue that we are discussing. (In fact, however, gay and bisexual males commit a higher proportion of sexual offenses against minors than their representation in the population would suggest.)

 

Quite clearly, more females than males were the victims of child molestation. This is because, as you might have guessed, males commit the majority of sex assaults (both heterosexual and homosexual) and there are just a lot more heterosexual men than homosexual men (otherwise, the species would have died out long ago...)

 

As Atlantic Magazine reported, “In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found thatmembers of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, ]approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.†("http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/05/americans-have-no-idea-how-few-gay-people-there-are/257753/"]

 

As per the latest Gallup Survey, only 3.4% of Americans identified as LGBT. Even if the number of closeted homosexuals and bisexuals is much larger, the number of offenders as shown in the research below is grossly out-of-proportion to even the most optimistic estimates of the LGBY culture.

So do the small proportion of the population that is homosexual present a molestation risk to boy scouts? Is the risk substantially greater than the small proportion of the population would indicate?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Working on technical issues...

Numerous studies have proven that gay men are no more likely to molest children than straight men. In fact, pedophiles are sometimes classified by mental health professionals as being of a "third sexual orientation."

 

So the issue of the single gay guy who wants to volunteer with the troop is a non-issue. If his enthusiasm is the cause for concern, you should have the same concern over the enthusiastic straight guy as well.

Decisions about youth safety must be made based on prudence - weighing the risk of calumny against a group, against the need to protect a vulnerable population. In such cases we should err on the side of caution and protecting the young. A person may be annoyed or their feelings will be hurt if they are not allowed to become a Boy Scout leader; the cost will be far greater to the victim of molestation if we err in judgment.

 

We must also be very careful not to base our decision on what is blithely claimed to be "numerous studies;" science is an observational method and a way of analyzing data, nothing more (and also nothing less). Scientists are as prone to bad reasoning, observational bias, and political/academic pressure as anyone else. We can point to correlations, we can point to statistical studies, but we must also be guided by our own human experience and reasoning in making prudential choices.

 

The "science" of the 1970s posited that child abusers could be cured of their attraction and returned to positions of authority, a view that the bishops in the Catholic Church accepted despite the Church's millennia-long experience to indicate otherwise; we Catholics are all paying the price for that overly-optimistic reliance on the "science" of that era.

 

The statistical research does, in fact, support a view that homosexuals are more prone to having sex with minors than heterosexuals, in that the research reflects that a) homosexuals who molest boys have far more more victims than do heterosexuals who molest children of the opposite sex, and b) a far greater percentage of homosexuals report that their first sexual act as a minor was with an adult (male) than do heterosexuals with adults of the opposite sex. Who was having all those homosexual sex acts with juvenile boys, heterosexuals?

 

We also know, based on the research and arrest reports, that homosexuals who are "out" can and do molest teenagers. The LGBT Community Outreach Coordinator for my local police department just got arrested for molesting two teenagers. He was openly gay and claimed to be interested only in adult partners. His visibility as a gay man in a position of authority who was "out" did not protect his victims.

 

This is not really an issue of "pedophilia." Lots of males (gay, straight, or bisexual) try to have sex with juveniles without being "pedophiles." The 28 year-old Police Explorer Scout Advisor who has a sexual relationship with a 16-year old girl isn't a "pedophile," he''s an adult who committed a crime with a teenager to whom he was sexually attracted. As the risk group that is represented by Boy Scouts consists of largely pubescent boys and boys entering into puberty, many of whom are physically sexually (if not emotionally) mature, a prudential judgement tells us that whether a person identifies themselves as homosexual or heterosexual in orientation, many people make a sinful choice to have sex with a minor. It is a rare day when my local paper does NOT have an article about a school teacher, neighbor, explorer post adviser, youth group leader, juvenile correction officer, youth minister, or other individual who was arrested after having sex with a teenager. Although both sexes do this, and the rate for women appears to be rising, males of all sexual orientations seem to do this most often. Because of this, we do not allow males access to pubescent girls on GSA campouts because of this risk, anymore than we should allow those with a sexual interest in other males access to young males in the scouting environment. Youth Safety precautions only take you so far. It is not calumny against all homosexuals, any more than it is a calumny against me as a heterosexual male because I am not allowed to accompany a group of young women on a GSA campout. It is practicing prudence, based on our knowledge and experience with human sexual behavior.

"Atheism. There are a good many men who have no religion, who don't believe in God; they are known as atheists. In Great Britain alone there are nine societies of these. They are welcome to have their opinions in this line, but when they try, as they are always doing, to force these ideas on other people, well, then they are like the Germans trying to force their "kultur" on the world, they become enemies of the worst sort."

 

- Lord Baden-Powell.

 

From this, I learned that atheists are like the Weimar Republic of Life, Merlyn.

 

I read this after I went to the Visiting Nurses Auxiliary Book Sale today at the fairgrounds, and found an original copy of "Rovering to Success" by Baden-Powell for a buck. It's a book for young men (older than scouts) full of advice (quite a bit on STDs, where babies come from, how to choose a girlfriend and wife, how to choose a career, how to improve yourself, etc. - actually, pretty good advice for a young man, then and now - I would guess that the Rovering program was a young adult program of its time.). The quote above is from the chapter on "Irreligion," which B-P defines as one of the Rocks standing in the way of your path to success. (He also includes a pretty funny (well, to me, anyway) caricature of a typical atheist, that looks a great deal like Richard Dawkins.) B-P wrote that chapter as an apologetic of answers to anti-religious atheists, as well as those "fellows who, though not violently opposed to religion, are not particularly interested in it. In some cases they have never been shown what it is; in others it has not proved very attractive or inspiring and they have let it slide." B-P provides some arguments based on the wonder of the natural world and the Natural Law, especially to inspire those in the latter category.

 

B-P makes the interesting point that "Some of these [atheist] societies directly attack the religious belief of others in a very offensive way, but I believe that by doing so they are, as a matter of fact, doing more good than harm to the religions concerned, since it makes people buck up and sink their own differences in order to combine together to repel these attacks."

 

Probably correct, as the rise of the "New Atheism" (as well as the rise of the Internet) recently triggered a corresponding greater interest in Christian apologetics, and a greater knowledge of the answers to the simpler atheist arguments by a lot of younger believers. So out of evil, good.

 

The chapter is actually pretty good, and provides a very non-denominational series of arguments for God, although it draws on a number of very different faith traditions - Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Shinto - and makes an apologetic use of the observation, and reverence for, nature as a way to coming to know God. If a troop wishes to discuss the "Reverent" part of the code, the sections of this chapter would make a good series of starting points, without offending anyone's particular religious beliefs.

 

 

Of course people who lack a belief in God can possess some kind of a system of morality. Most do. Many of them are quite good people, in some respects. Their morality is just not based on whatever beliefs they commonly bring into their atheist mindset to support it, whether those beliefs include naturalism or materialism or what have you. It will be inherently subjective, and so the individual's choice of moral guidelines will be ultimately a simple aesthetic choice with no moral force compulsion. To the extent it is modeled on an objective standard it will be close to a good one, but the atheist will still be driving a car with borrowed gasoline. No offense intended.

AZMike wrote, among other things

 

Thanks for bringing this up, as it probably is an issue that hasn't been fully addressed in this discussion. If people will dissolve their congregations and long-standing synods over their moral stands, which are presumably much more important and intense relationships for them than which scout troop their sons are in, what does that bode for the future of Scouting under the New Model?

 

This formerly thriving church in St. Paul closed its doors after the congregation rejected the pastor's new hobbyhorse of support for gay marriage: http://www.twincities.com/stpaul/ci_20975779/pastor-whose-congregation-dwindled-after-supporting-gay-marriage

 

The Lutheran schism over gays will wind up impacting many of the social service networks they have built up, which also doesn't bode well for the BSA - again, the demands of the few will outweigh the needs of the many: http://www.pewforum.org/Religion-News/Lutheran-split-over-gays-and-the-Bible-shakes-up-multibillion-dollar-social-service-network.aspx

 

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2010/08/lutherans_split_over_gay_pasto.html

 

The Ethiopian Lutherans just severed their relationship with the English church over this issue: http://www.christianpost.com/news/ethiopian-church-severs-ties-with-lutherans-over-homosexuality-89745/

 

First of all, your constant reference to the proposed new local option policy as a "New Model" of Scouting is clever, but I don't think it's correct. The new policy would really just be a slight expansion of the very wide latitude that local units already have in selecting their own leaders. Almost all factors that I can think of are already matters of local option. The exceptions are child abusers, criminals (generally speaking; even there, ther is some local latitude) and atheists -- and currently, people who are openly gay. Maybe there are one or two others but I cannot think of them at the moment. All the new policy would do is move openly gay people from one column to the other column -- the one that already contains most factors that go into selecting leaders. This does not seem like a "new model", especially not with capital letters.

 

Second, your observations about the different churches only confirms what is already obvious: Our society is deeply divided over how to treat gay people. It is inevitable that this division will be reflected in our institutions, including religious organizations and the BSA. Since the BSA tries to encompass all segments of society, including all religions, a policy that reflects this division, and allows the unit-owners (the CO's) to make the decision that works for them and their members, is the right policy.

My (admittedly somewhat snarky) Cromwellian reference refers to the acceptance of a range of potential new policies, as we do not know for sure what will arise - a local option that survives legal challenges from homosexual political committes, a local option that causes the collapse of Dale under legal challenge from the same committes, or as some have demanded, the removal of any restrictions in any troop for homosexual membership. It's a convenient shorthand for a range of possibilities, all of which their individual proponents are eyeing with revolutionary zeal.

 

My comment on the recent history of churches and denominations and synods collapsing after the change of their doctrine to the acceptance of homosexuality (in the face of opposition by many of their members, who had devoted much of their lives and their tithing to their denominations) was in response to a request for information on the subject, which I thought was common knowledge. I bring it up merely because I was asked, and as a cautionary tale.