NJCubScouter

kwc says:

They need to be able to discern that a bottle of wine is off limits and a bottle of cooking sherry is not the same thing. Without a doubt you will teach your 15 year old son not to have sex with his girlfriend, but are you going to teach him to equate kissing her as the same thing because it is sexual too?

I think the second of these sentences reveals a problem with the first, and that is a lack of any distinction between the role of a parent and that of a Scouter. You obviously recognize that the second subject is primarily the role of the parent, but in fact both of them are. I do not think it is within the role of a Scouter to teach boys the difference between a bottle of wine and a bottle of cooking sherry.

I can think of another example from my own youth. I remember that sometime during my teenage years, my father said something to me along the lines of "If you ever decide you want to smoke cigarettes, come to me and I will get you cigarettes and we will go out back and smoke." If that sounds like an odd parenting technique, remember that this was 30+ years ago and attitudes are not quite the same as they are now. These days that invitation might qualify my father for a visit from DYFS (the NJ equivalent of child protective services.) But it was clear to me that he was really saying, "Don't smoke." There was perhaps a bit of intimidation involved, plus, if I ever had taken him up on the offer, I know he would have honored it, and used it as an opportunity to point out the negative aspects of what we were doing. I never did start smoking cigarettes, and in fact when he would occasionally smoke a cigarette instead of his usual pipe or cigar, I would tell him he shouldn't be smoking. (I remember him smoking on Scout campouts, how times have changed.)

So what is the point, you ask. The point is that what my father did, I do not think would have been appropriate conduct for a Scoutmaster in any era. I think a parent has much more leeway in how the lessons of life should be taught. And to relate this back to the original discussion, I think a parent has every right to venture into the "gray areas" -- offering to smoke with his son, letting his 17-year old son have a sip of wine now and then (yes, he did that too.) But a Scoutmaster does not.

Yes, Ed, "blotto" is the same as three sheets to the wind. I do not think it is the main issue here, however.

It would be interesting to see an authoritative statement of the reasons for the policy, and if there is more than one reason, what the primary issue is.

When I get home I am going to check my son's handbook and see what is in there about alcohol. I think there was something in there about alcohol even back when I was a boy, riding my dinosaur to troop meetings. If the attitude in the book is the "just say no" approach that I would expect to see there in 2003, then I really would be surprised to learn that the "no alcohol at Scouting activities" rule is unrelated to "role modelling." I'm pretty sure there has to be a connection there.

I mainly agree with TwoCubDad here. The cooking sherry, if it is so salty that it is undrinkable, or if it actually contains no alcohol, may not in and of itself violate the rule against "use" of "alcoholic beverages." But it is a road that does not need to be started down. There are other things to eat.

I also think that bringing the bottle of non-alcoholic and/or undrinkable cooking sherry may violate the "spirit" of the rule. (Pun intended.) In the factual scenario that was presented, a youth (the quartermaster) saw right away that there was a questionable item being brought on the trip. That suggests that there was a perception, maybe even a reasonable perception, that a bottle of alcoholic beverage was being brought along. I think that if the boys can reasonably perceive that a prohibited item is being brought along, that is as bad as the item itself.

Let me illustrate with this hypothetical situation. On a camping trip, I bring a beer bottle, with a "Budweiser" lable, with a cap on it, and liquid in it. The glass is dark so you can't actually see the color of the liquid. I take out the bottle in front of the boys, and drink from it. The liquid in the bottle is water... or to get a closer color, it is iced tea (non-alcoholic.) While still at home, I had emptied out the beer, washed out the bottle, put in the iced tea and stuck the cap back on. Now I am drinking a perfectly acceptable, non-alcoholic beverage. Is that ok?

It's not ok, at least I don't think it is ok. Why? Both the boys and adults on the trip "see" me drinking a bottle of beer. The fact that I am not actually drinking beer is almost beside the point. Now, if I drink ten bottles of iced tea in beer bottles, it WILL matter that it is just iced tea. But let's say it's only one. It's still not right because I appear to be drinking beer.

Why does the BSA prohibit consumption of alcoholic beverages on Scout trips? Is it because they don't want leaders to become intoxicated? If that is part of the reason, it is a small part. I am not going to get drunk on one or two beers. However, I am going to show the boys that drinking beer is a good thing to do. (And it is a good thing to do, at least it is for me, if it is one or two beers; but I am an adult. It is not a good thing for the boys to do.) And I am going to show them that, even if the liquid in the bottle is iced tea.

This question is about something more serious, but I think it is an analogy. If you walk into a bank with what appears to be a gun, but it is a toy gun, and you point it at the teller and say "give me the money or I'll shoot", are you guilty of armed robbery? Even though you did not have an actual weapon in your possession? The answer (at least in most states) is, yes. If the victim reasonably believes that you are armed with a deadly weapon, that is enough. The fact that it was a toy may get a couple (or more) years shaved off your sentence, but it will not change the nature of the crime.

I remember pictures of Linda Ronstadt in her Cub Scout uniform Acco, but please don't say it was so long ago. I remember another example, either from 1975 or 76. Somewhere on or in the cover of one of Fleetwood Mac's albums (I believe it is the one simply entitled "Fleetwood Mac", which was actually about their ninth or tenth album, but I digress) is a photo of the group including Stevie Nicks wearing a Cub Scout shirt. I do not think she was wearing any other uniform parts. It must not have been a bad photo, as I still remember it.

More recently, there was a photo that went around in Internet-Scouting circles, probably about 2 years ago now, of the ladies of Destiny's Child wearing Boy Scout shirts. Some were tied and some were cut to display the ladies' midriffs. (How delicately I put that. Actually the photo was rather stunning as I recall.) I think Mike Walton had either the photo or a link to it on his web site, with a negative commentary on the use of the Scout uniform for publicity or non-Scouting purposes. It may still be there for all I know.

I believe someone from the BSA contacted Destiny's Child about this and they apologized, and said they did not realize they were doing anything wrong, and would not repeat it. No word on whether the BSA ever contacted Stevie Nicks.

OGE, next time I am at my father's house I could look up the First Class requirements from 1965... or for that matter, the requirements for any rank from some time in the 40s (I believe) through today.

I believe that the handbook you are talking about is the same set of requirements as the ones I used through the rank of First Class (1969-1973) -- before switching to what I call the red beret handbook which came out around '72, and which totally changed the rank requirements. (Anyone remember Skill Awards? Or when they changed "rank" to "progress awards"? Leadership Corps? That all came in while I was a Patrol Leader.) My guess would be that the NUMBER of ranks is similar to today, but that what the requirements actually are is much different. I remember the ones you are talking about, stalking, semaphore (that's the one I chose, and as I recall I passed the requirement after semaphore was no longer in the handbook, because I had started in the old book), all gone. There was a First Aid requirement then and now, but again, probably different.

FatOldGuy says:

I think that the use of the term Nazi to refer to a dictatorial person started long before Seinfeld took to the stage.

It did. I said Seinfeld "popularized" it, which he did. I could have said "many people use 'Nazi' to refer to..." It doesn't matter. What matters is that it is offensive to some people to use a word that signifies the murder of millions of people to indicate someone who merely is arbitrary about who can apply for a Quality Unit Award, or any of the other things that the annoying registrars of the world like to do. But the council registrar didn't kill anyone, and more to the point in my case, they didn't kill about two-thirds of my great-grandparents, great-aunts and uncles and the cousins of my parents. The Nazis did. OK? You can string together all the dictionary definitions you want, I still don't think it's appropriate.

Trucker, welcome to the forums.

As for whether what you said has anything to do with the subject, I wouldn't even venture a guess as to what the subject of this thread is right about now. Sometimes these threads take on a life of their own... though in this case "life" is probably an exaggeration, it seems like more of an "un-dead" quality...

Could I make a tiny little request here? I know Seinfeld popularized this use of the word "Nazi" for people who make our lives inconvenient or unpleasant by their arbitrary rules or other unreasonable behavior, so it is difficult to complain when the "general public" does it. However, I have to tell you that it really does bother some people (including me, obviously, or I wouldn't be mentioning it.)

Unless the person in your Scout Shop is actually an adherent of an ideology that supports mass murder based on religious and racial characteristics, he or she is not a "Nazi." I know you did not mean anything by it. I just wanted to point this out.

Absolutely right, TwoCubDad. That is what I was trying to say earlier, but you said it better.

Thanks Dave. Although I had not specifically thought of the chaperoning/counseling function (which makes a lot of sense!), your post does confirm what I thought about the claim made by FatOldGuy, that the function of the female leader on a co-ed outing is NOT to "protect" the girls from the "evil", "predatory" male leader(s) -- except for the 2-deep leadership that is part of YP, which can be fulfilled equally well by 2 men, 2 women, or 1 of each, regardless of the composition of the youth membership.

This has implications for FatOldGuy's statements about gays as predatory toward boys, but Dave, I will be nice and not draw you into that discussion -- not that I think you would allow yourself to be drawn into that one anyway.

Why, thank you, packsaddle!

OGE asks, I assume rhetorically,

The only issue is, how would BSA verify a males, or females for that matter heterosexuality?

Of course, it couldn't. At least, not without adopting a highly intrusive attitude that would probably drive away all volunteers. And it has said that it will not even try. The statements on the "gay policy" specifically say that the BSA will not ask anyone about the sexual orientation. Only if someone announces ("avows") that they are gay does the policy come into play. Now, this forum has gone-around a few times about how many and which people one has to "tell" before he/she becomes "avowed." (Such as one member of the forum who seemed to be in a "gray area" in "real life," though he had "come out" under his pseudonym here.) But if you keep it a secret, it's a secret (Yogi Berra strikes again?), and BSA's policy is not to check.

Which I think supports the point I was making. You never know with 100 percent certainty that anyone on a trip is heterosexual. Maybe 99, but never 100. Think back to the stories that appear every year or so about a Scoutmaster somewhere who was molesting boys in his troop (oops, I mean the troop he serves, though in this case, dis-serves.) It never seems to be someone who was openly gay. On the contrary, it always seems to be someone who is married with children, and the friends and neighbors are all shocked, shocked they are to find that this guy was anything but the happily married family man they thought he was. So using someone's "orientation" as a youth protection device just seems foolish to me, because you don't necessarily know what you think you know about a person.

FatOldGuy says:

GSUSA requires that a woman be on all excursions. BSA requires that a woman be present if female youth are present, this rule pretty much applies only to Venturing (section of G2SS on adult Leadership, page 5). Why are these rules in place? Because heterosexual men are seen as predators when it comes to young women. Oddly, no one finds the rule that requires a woman be present with girls to be unreasonable.

I would argue that homosexual men should be considered as predatory toward young men as heterosexual men are toward young women. It then follows that a heterosexual male must be present on all excursions.

FatOldGuy, you had me getting a little nervous there for a day or two. I served you up what I thought was a real "softball" on Monday on this issue, and when you didn't take a swing at it for a few days, I was wondering if maybe you had joined the other team, so to speak, and were out there on a picket line with Scott Cozza or something. However, it is good to see that the world is still spinning in the proper direction.

As for the rule on co-ed excursions, I looked up that part of the G2SS. That does appear to be in the YP guidelines, maybe I did not notice it previously because I have not been involved in any BSA program with co-ed youth membership. It does at least partly answer my question to dsteele, but not completely. I notice that it does not apply to "all excursions" as you say the GSUSA rule does, but specifically to "Coed overnight activities." (Underlining added by me.) Interesting.

However, I doubt that the BSA would agree with your statement that "heterosexual men are seen as predators when it comes to young women." That sounds like a pretty broad generalization to me. I don't think most of us heterosexual men here think of ourselves as "predators" when it comes to young women. I personally am attracted to women, though only in the academic sense outside the boundaries of my marriage. However, I would not accept the label of "predator."

As for what people think of the rule that a woman be present at a GSUSA or BSA coed overnight outing, I do not know whether anyone considers it unreasonable or not. I do know that if it is intended as an absolute ironclad foolproof guarantee against sexual abuse, there is (unfortunately) no such thing. The whole point (or at least part of the point) of the two-deep leadership rule and no one-on-one is that you can never be absolutely sure what is going on in someone's brain or what they might do, and the BSA therefore requires "barriers to abuse." These barriers are not only required when there might be a "suspicious" situation such as a male leader on an outing with female youth. They also exist when the outing is all-male and the leadership consists entirely of men who are married, have children, have stable home lives, are rock-ribbed all-American Republican supporters of the BSA anti-gay policy or any other indicia of heterosexuality and non-pedophilia you may wish to think of. The point is that you never know with absolute certainty, so if someone does turn out to be have "predatory" intentions despite all outward appearances, the BSA YP rules make it as difficult as possible for him to have access to a youth in a situation where abuse can occur.

I would also point out something else about outward appearances and how they are not foolproof. The fact that an outing has all female leaders and all female youth, or some female leaders and co-ed youth, does not mean that one of the adult women is not attracted to one of the female youth. There are closet lesbians just as there are closet gay men. There are also women who commit sexual abuse against girls. I have not heard of a case of this in Venturing or in the GSUSA for that matter, but I would be rather surprised if it had never occurred sometime in the 91-year history of Girl Scouting. I am sure it has. I am also fairly confident that the GSUSA also has a 2-deep leadership rule, which in their case can be satisfied either by 2 women or 1 of each gender. So neither the GSUSA nor the BSA relies on the fact that a leader "appears" to be "straight," law-abiding, and non-predatory. Both have barriers to abuse that disregard what a person may "appear" to be.

As for considering gay men to be "predatory" toward young men, obviously I do not equate being gay with being a child abuser. We have had this discussion on this board numerous times so I won't repeat the arguments. But apparently the BSA agrees with me; or at least it is the BSA's view that it doesn't matter, from a youth protection standpoint, as opposed to a morality/role-modeling standpoint, from which it clearly does matter to the BSA. But the BSA literature on child sexual abuse disclaims any connection between homosexuality and abuse.

And remember what the policy is: Exclusion of openly gay leaders. I'm curious as to how likely you think it is that an openly gay man who was permitted to be a BSA leader would do something improper, even if he was inclined to do so. He would know that all eyes were on him. He would be under a microscope. A "normal" gay man who had no inclination toward child abuse would still feel very uncomfortable and many would probably shy away from even normal interaction with youth, for fear of what people "might think." (Which is one of the reasons why this whole issue is so silly. If the BSA ever did allow local option and units could admit gay leaders, if the total number in the entire country exceeded 50, I would be very surprised. Who would want to put up with the kind of scrutiny that an openly gay leader would have to put up with to be a leader, even if the policy were formally changed? Not many, I'd bet.)

Dsteele says:

It is a rule that applies most specifically to co-ed Venture Crews and Explorer posts. It normally doesn't come up with Boy Scout Troops, but should probably apply if it does.

First of all, I'm not sure, but I think that last sentence is at least halfway a Yogi Berra-ism. Like "It ain't over till its over" or "Nobody ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded." I mean that in a good way.

Second and more importantly, I am wondering what the rationale(s) is/are for that rule. Is it:

a) A Youth Protection rule in the sense that the adult female leader is there to keep an "eye" on the adult male leader(s)?

b) A Youth Protection rule in the sense that if a female youth suffers an injury or illness that requires assistance from an adult, and that assistance would (how shall I put this) involve an intrusion on the girl's privacy, we would rather have a woman doing that than a man? (That is what seems to me to be the best justification for such a rule; whether that is the actual justification is a different story.)

c) To have an adult female as a role model for the female youths?

d) Something I did not think of?

I think I see the problem here. It is a question of logical reasoning. Bob says:

When you say "My troop" often enough you act as if you are "the boss". The Scoutmasters who say say "if you don't like the way I do it find someone else" see it as "my troop". The leaders who set their own rules rather than follow the scouting methods see it as "my troop". The SM who takes offense to scouts who are absent due to school, family, or sports conflicts see it as "My troop". The SM who "tells" the committee what to do sees it as "My Troop". When you say "my troop" you behave like it's "My Troop".

There are 6 sentences here. Sentences 2, 3, 4 and 5 are in the form, "If you say (or do) this, then you must believe that." (The belief being that "they" "see it" as "my troop.") These 4 sentences make perfect sense. The statements or actions in the first part of the sentence flow logically and inevitably from the second part. I am sure they are true at least 99 percent of the time.

However, these sentences are not what this thread is about (or what it has come to be about.) This thread is about sentences 1 and 6 above. They are in the form, "If you say this, you act (or behave) like that." These statements are not necessarily true. They are probably true sometimes and untrue other times. The second part of the sentence does not flow logically or inevitably from the first.

That is how discussions on here go off track so easily and quickly.

By the way, when I observe the SPL of my... er, my son's... er, the troop in which my son is a Scout, I wish he would consider it "his troop." I think the SPL's father (the SM) also wishes his son would consider it "his troop." That's part of the problem with this SPL, he seems to think any boys not in the "senior patrol" are those "new kids" and that he doesn't want to have anything to do with them, either directly or through their "new kid" patrol leader. A little "ownership" of the troop on this SPL's part would be more than welcome to all of us people standing on the sidelines, and I would suspect to the boys as well.

Fortunately, an election is coming. But as I said in another thread, Be careful what you wish for, you may get it. We shall see what the new SPL's attitude is.

Getting back to OGE's "slavery" reference, I have heard SM's refer to the troop as "my boys." I don't think they are claiming legal title or anything. I think it is more a "term of endearment," in a good sort of way, expressing kinship with the boys. Kids talk this way now, "my peeps," which I guess started in one ethnic community, but my daughters throw in expressions like that too once in awhile.

It's a matter of semantics. If you mean something in a bad way, it's bad, but if you mean it in a good way, it's good, as long as you say it in a way that others can tell which is which.

OGE, if I understand what you are asking, you are talking about "ownership" in the more "modern" sense of being a "stakeholder" or having responsibility for something, as opposed to legal "ownership."

In that sense, and not to duck the question, I would say that the troop is like a "joint venture" and is "owned" collectively, but that each person's actual "ownership rights and responsibilities" extends only to the role and position they hold in the troop. If that concept is accepted, then I as a Committee Member and a youth member of the troop with no leadership position are both part of the collective "ownership," but our roles are quite different. And, of course, my "ownership" role lasts only so long as the CO decides to keep me on the charter.

As for the use of the phrase "my troop," I don't think that implies ownership in EITHER sense, unless some SM was to stand up like Louis the Sixteenth and say "This is My Troop!" On these boards, I have used the terms "my pack" and "my troop" many times to refer to the unit in which I am a registered leader. Sort of like "this is my country" (hey, good name for a song, oops it already is). In other words, when I say "my troop", or "my town" or "my country", I mean that I belong to it, not that it belongs to me.

Yak, that looks like more proof of my second-favorite saying, Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

My favorite, by the way, is "No good deed goes unpunished," which is also evidenced in this forum from time to time (though not this time.)

Merlyn, I want to make sure I am understanding you. You are not equating the absence of belief in an "anthropomorphic" or "personal" God with atheism, are you? My understanding has been that someone with that belief CAN be an atheist, or can instead still believe in a concept of a "creator" or "God" (under whatever name) and thus be a Deist -- not an atheist. My way of telling the difference would be that if someone says "I do not believe in (g)od," they are an atheist, but if someone says, "I do not believe in a personal god," they are trying to indicate that they are NOT an atheist -- but they also are not a member of what we might call a "traditional religion" either.

Do you disagree?

I remember reading Hawking's book (the one for non-rocket scientists, a Brief History of Time) when it came out in paperback (probably 15 years or so ago?) and becoming sort of confused about his references to God as being this sort of vague concept without being very specific about what he actually believed. I suppose he might have been trying to avoid having the book banned or burned or shunned or whatever.

But, if I am correct, what he actually believes is not atheism, but some form of deism -- just like some of our Founding Fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine (though arguably he was an atheist), and according to some but not all historians, George Washington. I remember reading an article once about whether George Washington was a "Christian" or not, and the conclusion was "not," but there was an acknowledgement of disagreement with other authorities.

So I just want to get that straight. It is personally important to me for reasons I have written about in the past.

Craneace says:

... it is courious to me that some profess atheism and some profess Christianity, but each one seems to condem the other for their opinion.

Like OGE, I am having difficulty thinking of a second person who has "professed" atheism on this board. I seem to recall one awhile back but I do not remember the name and I am not sure about it. Then I think there was another person who was criticizing everybody and everything including religion (but while also supporting the BSA's "membership policy", but I did not believe a word that person said about anything anyway.

And then there is the implication that people on this board, or maybe it is only people who have discussed religion on this board, have all professed EITHER atheism or Christianity. That is not the case either. There are at least three people (including myself) who have made clear that they (we) do not fall into either of those two categories. There also are a number of people who have not been specific about their own beliefs, though chances are that a majority of them are Christian, chances also are that a few are not.

As for Merlyn being "asked to leave", the last time I recall someone doing that was a few months ago. There are a few people on this board who have, over time, asked or suggested that a number of other people (either named or by group) leave (either Scouting or this board or both), or might want to leave, or might be happier elsewhere, or might want to keep quiet about certain topics, or whatever.

It is just part of the "charm" of this forum.

SMT376, you say:

Question, since most of these boys will be working on 1st class by May 04 if they do this could it be counted as a service project?

I will leave the actual answer to that to others, but I just want to make sure we are all understanding each other and that the rank requirements have not changed in the last few weeks. Do you mean that the boys will have EARNED First Class and will be "working on" Star? There is a service requirement for Star (and for Second Class, Life and of course Eagle), but none for First Class. Right?

FatOldGuy: Just out of curiosity, where is that rule, anyway? (The one about an adult female leader must be present if there are girls along.) It makes sense, but where is it published as an actual rule? I did not remember it from YP training, and I just checked the YP guidelines online and it isn't there. Is it a special Venture crew thing, because that is the only kind of unit that is co-ed? (That term is probably out-dated, but then so am I.) Evidently the leaders of my son's troop don't know about it either. My son's first camping trip was billed as a "family outing," but it was really wasn't. (I can see sctmom's ears perking up again.) One female was present -- the 17-year-old (or so) older sister of two of the Scouts, and daughter of one of the fathers who was there. She is a Girl Scout but as I said, was there as part of a family. But there was no adult woman there. Were the rules broken?

DS:

What I think this demonstrates is something I have known about this forum, but which some people refuse to "get", and that is this:

ALMOST everybody on this board -- and I mean everybody with 3 or 4 exceptions that I can think of in the 18 or so months I have been posting here -- is fundamentally PRO-BSA. "We" (there's that word again) do not all necessarily agree with all of its policies, but it is OUR organization. We love it. It is part of our lives. It is part of our families. My son is the third generation of Scouts in my family, and my father reached his 65th year in Scouting this year. "We" spend every week doing it, if sometimes only (in my case when I am otherwise occupied) to drive my son to a meeting. We camp in the rain to do it. We send our precious children out to camp in the rain and snow WITHOUT US to do it. And they love it, and they are (without necessarily knowing it) becoming better people along the way.

So here's the point: If someone started a thread (and maybe someone has and I didn't see it) that said: "Tell me how the BSA can improve", I am sure a lot of us would have some ideas to put on the list. In fact, sometimes some of the topics in effect become big lists of how the BSA could improve. Some would list improving the uniform pants, others would list being able to order Scout Stuff over the Internet, some would list getting their council a new registrar, and some would also list having the BSA modify part of its membership policy. (I had to get that in there.)

But when the question is phrased the OTHER way -- tell me all the other things you have ever heard of that were BAD about BSA units and how these things were handled -- I think our collective antennae go up. A lot of us are not interested in jumping on that bandwagon. The BSA is our friend and our family. We want to improve it, not tear it down.

FatOldGuy asks me:

NJCubScouter, since BSA requires an adult woman along on any excursion involving girls, do you think that all trips with boys should require a heterosexual man?

I'll ignore the premise about what leaders must be along on a trip when girls are present, as I don't think it has anything to do with the question. As to whether I think all trips with boys should require a heterosexual man... well, actually there is no such requirement now, nor is there any guarantee that it always occurs. (I would venture a guess that it almost always does.) The BSA policy expels openly gay persons, not all gays. Plus, you say "heterosexual man," meaning that a trip with only female leaders would not qualify. This definitely happens now. I know of one troop that had only women leaders at summer camp two years in a row.

But let's take the question at face value. In order for this question to even arise, we have to know that someone is gay. That would mean, I guess, that it is based on the hypothetical situation in which a unit has an openly gay leader, meaning that the BSA has adopted local option. I think it also means that a particular unit has at least two gay leaders, because under the rule of two-deep leadership, there would always have to be at least one heterosexual (though not necessarily a man, and the "heterosexual" could still be a closeted gay person) on the trip.

So let's cut to the chase. If what you are really asking is that if I think it would be ok to have an outing with only openly gay leaders, my answer is...

... I would leave the issue of who goes on trips up to the unit.

And I think the parents in a unit should be made aware of what the unit's policies are regarding gay leaders and the "assignment" of leaders on trips.

In the real world, given the very small number of openly gay persons who have actually expressed interest in being Scouters, I doubt this would ever come up. If it did, and the preceding paragraph were the case, I think the "issue" that is really behind FatOldGuy's question would never actually come up. In other words, one or more fathers would mysteriously appear in the parking lot at departure time with their sleeping bags, all ready to go for the weekend.

I think we also need to remember that the BSA itself says that the anti-gay policy is not a youth protection device. So by the BSA's own statements, if local option were adopted, the BSA would have no problem with the answer to BSA's question being "no" -- as it could be under my rule as well.