yellow_hammer

packsaddle,

"I wonder sometimes if our attempts to provide every advantage for our children just allows them to appreciate things less."

I'm convinced of it. History is replete with rags to riches stories. Somehow, adversity is a motivator. Maybe it's because accomplishment is what gives people self esteem. Teach self esteem as much as you want in school - I think it is a waste of time unless you let them overcome some adversity and really earn their own self admiration.

Packsaddle,

I saw what you are talking about years ago when I was in school so it's not a new development. Many of the students really had no interest in going to school but were pushed into it by their parents (a familiar story in scouting). Many of those drop out BUT I've known a few who squeaked by and then (to the astonishment of many) became very successful at work. On the other hand I've seen some excellent students who were so socially inept that they never got far in the workforce. Good student often but does not always translate into most successful worker.

My degree is electrical engineering and having been in the business for a few years I can tell you with certainty that mediocre students often make good engineers. I've given this phenomena some thought over time and I think that one of two things is at work.

1. Reality finally hits them when they move into the workforce and realize that they have to do well or go hungry. Many get married at this point and have the dual motivator of a family to support and a spouse to keep them in line (more so for the males). I think that there is also an element of competition with the classmates that they keep contact with.

2. School is just a means of getting the job that they want and they are really not interested in much of what is taught. They didn't excel in school except for the subjects that they thought would apply to their work. I lost count of the number of times that I heard something like "What are the chances that we are ever going to use this?" or "When I start work as a [fill in the blank] do you really think they are going to care that I can write a paper on Shakespeare's sonnets?" The people I know with this attitude have done well as employees but were not very good students.

On another note... when I was in school I asked every chinese student that I studied with if they were going to go back to China after finishing school. The answer was invariably a polite version of "Are you nuts?". Point is, they may be from China but they will be Americans.

I've not read the studies that you mention but I've read that test scores show that students are well prepared coming out of the fourth grade but decline from then on. This could mean that we do a better job thru the fourth grade or it could mean that schools are better at cheating on the test in the lower grades.(This message has been edited by yellow_hammer)

If you're objective is to have maximum nature time and you consider eating and all that goes with it a nuisance then I suggest you go light to max - don't take any food at all. You can leave the pots, stove, and fuel at home as well. I did it in an escape and evasion course once for ten days in February. I lost 27 pounds but was none the worse for wear. Another side benefit - no need for cat holes. The first three days were kind of tough but after that I wasn't hungry anymore.

I went on a 5-day rock climbing trip once in fair weather. We only took summer sausage and some GORP to eat. No cooking gear needed. We took the food and water, ponchos and poncho liners to sleep in, ropes to climb with, and that was about it. We rolled everything except the ropes up in the ponchos and tied it all in a loop that we put over our shoulders like confederate soldiers did. It was one of the best times I had in my life.

Of course, I was a bit younger when I did those things.

The Out for Equity and Out4Good programs are taught in Minnesota and teaches children that homosexual behavior is a normal, natural, biological and social occurrence.

Most of the information taught in the programs, according to the associated manuals, was compiled by local and national gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgender advocacy organizations.

In some Minnesota schools classrooms are marked with pink triangles indicating that students can talk to the teacher in that room about homosexuality. Teachers refer the students to homosexual groups outside the school and parents are never notified.

The public school system in Boyd County, Kentucky forced middle and high school students to participate in diversity and tolerance training, telling them homosexuality cannot be changed and warning them not to say otherwise.

In Newton, Mass. first-grade teacher David Gaita "came out" to his students and told them he was homosexual and loved men "the way your mom and dad love each other".

With a grant from the Vermont Department of Health, Outright Vermont targets middle and high school kids and teaches them that homosexuality is normal. They sponsor parties, dances, and retreats where children are taught how to engage in homosexual sex.

In Northboro, Massachusetts, kids were invited by their high school history teacher to try homosexuality. Douglas Matthews an advisor to the schools gay-straight student alliance handed out a questionnaire that asked, If youve never slept with a person of the same sex and enjoyed it, is it possible that all you need is a good gay lover?

"In those instances where children do have sex with their homosexual elders, be they teachers or anyone else, I submit that often, very often, the child desires the activity, and perhaps even solicits it." - Larry Kramer, founder of ACT-UP

Hunt,

"Do you think that schools should be teaching children that homosexualilty is "abnormal," a form of sexual deviancy, and/or immoral, or do you think the school should be neutral on the subject."

I don't think that they should teach anything about it at all. The subject should not be part of their vocabulary and if a student asks about it they should be advised to ask their parents. That is what I do as a scouter when a boy asks me a question I think I shouldn't advise him about. But many groups, homosexual activists included, view public schools as their best avenue for creating long-term social change. Many parents disagree strongly.

"If you think the school should be teaching your point of view, I suggest that you shouldn't complain about people pushing back when they are pushed."

I'll teach MY kids what I want them to know about sexual issues. Everyone else should leave them alone.

"And why wouldn't people who are being discriminated against "whine" about discrimination? You may think the discrimination is justified, but there is no question that the laws discriminate against gay couples. You expect them to stop "whining" to spare your feelings? Maybe they're just "pushing back.""

You are missing my point. If they are being discriminated against it is because they insist on bareing their sex life in public and then insist that the rest of us are bigoted if we don't accept them completely as they are.

They should shut up about it, keep their sexual preferences to themselves and get on with life the way the rest of us do. Just because a person has sex with someone and shares a home with them does not mean that the object of desire should be covered under employer insurance and be automatically granted rights to act on one's behalf or get property if one dies. The partner can get their own insurance, be given power of attorney, and be written into a will. I'm sorry if homosexuals are not satisfied with that but don't expect the rest of us to change an institution that has existed for thousands of years to suit a sexual preference.

Homosexuals should lobby to get their own accomodations but should not mess with the basic unit of society - the family joined by marriage. They should teach their own children whatever they want but leave mine alone. It's simple - live and let live - just leave me and mine alone.

Brent,

"Well, maybe because those people aren't demanding to change the definition of marriage. Other than a handful of people in Utah, there really isn't anyone pushing for public approval and acceptance of their behaviour."

That's it. There is no resistance to people with other abnormal sexual desires such as S&M, spouse swappers, toe-suckers, etc. Largely, people with such proclivities keep their sex lives private and don't organize politically. Other sexual deviants don't have a publicly stated agenda that includes the intent to educate children to accept homosexuality even against the wishes of parents. When people are pushed they tend to push back. Accept that and quit whining about discrimination.

BTW, I'm right-handed but left-eyed so I have to shoot left-handed. I've experience the hot brass down my back that lefties complain about. I can only imagine what my drill sgt would have said if I'd complained about it.

The word sinister is latin for left - that about sums it up. Throughout history and all over the world left handers were persecuted. It has only been in modern times that left-handedness has become accepted. I'm sure it was a politically motivated decsion. ;-)

Interestingly, homosexuals are more likely to be left handed than heterosexuals.

"on second thought, don't even bother. I don't really feel like looking up a bunch of biased tripe"

Now this is truly priceless. Any study that I might produce that disagrees with your position is "tripe" but a study that is clearly flawed (Hooker's) but agrees with your position is "groundbreaking". Hoo hah.

"Again, so says you."

And so say members of the APA who were there and watched it happen. Did you not read the message about stacking committees to get a desired opinion, suppressing contrary opinions, short-cutting the normal process, using flawed "research", and meetings with activist groups? What more would it take for a reasonable person to doubt that the decision was not political?

"Ah, of course. They disagree with you, so obviously they must be on the political left. Priceless."

If you are a member of American Psychological Association then you get the Monitor. Read it some time. Your colleagues frequently write to the editor complaining of the American Psychological Association's liberal positions. It's not just me.

Quite clearly the organization is run by people who believe that "values" and "outcome" is more important that verifiable facts found in careful research. For them a political solution is not just an alternative but is preferable over one based on scientific study and deliberation.

If there is even a sliver of doubt in your mind on how these decisions are made I suggest that you take a look at "Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm". This is not a book by right wingers but by liberal psychologists. In it they document the many cases of suppression of scientific evidence by members of your profession who have a political agenda. Don't take my word for it, take theirs.

DanKroh,

"Oh joy, more unsupported fearmongering. There is tons of evidence and research supporting that pedophilia is truly a disorder of the mind, resulting in obsessions that interfere with normal functioning (see posts to LongHaul). Something that cannot be said for homosexuality."

Similar studies on homosexuality could be readily found in 1973. My entire point in this subthread is that the decision then was political and the decisions facing the APAs today will be political as well. They will change definitions when they think that there will be acceptance by the general public NOT when the carefully chosen evidence warrants the change.

"Wow, you seem to have a real problem with the APA (which one, by the way, Psychiatrists or Psychologists, or both?)."

Both. Though the latter has a far more leftward political bent.

DanKroh,

"He mostly presented the research of Evelyn Hooker"

And Hooker's report was very flawed. She did not use a random sample of subjects but instead used people that were referred to her by activists. She had no previous clinical experience in the field of study. Her report stated that there was no difference in pathology between homosexuals and heterosexuals but it was little more than her opinion dressed up as science.

Evelyn Hooker, Judd Marmor, and others were long-time advocates of the change. Marmor was an active anti-war demonstrator in the sixties and took part in many far left wing causes. John Spiegle was prominant in the movement and became president of the association the next year, almost simultaneously revealing that he himself was a homosexual.

They stacked the committees with people that agreed with them but had no credentials on the matter at hand. They excluded those with differing opinions from taking part in the process even though they were published and well qualified on the subject of homosexuality. Many members who voiced differing opinions were prevented from presenting papers and some received threatening phone calls. At the same time that the pro-homosexual members were shutting out their collegues Marmor and others were holding meetings with the Gay Liberation Front and the Mattachina Society. The member lists of the APA were made available to these organizations so that they could send them mailings urging them to vote for the change.

Not quite the picture of deliberate scientific reasoning that you would present.

"I was not there at the meeting. In 1973, I was happily playing with my Star Trek dolls. Were you there?"

In 73 I was working on the farm and spending my spare time hunting and fishing when not on scout outings. I was not there. That does not mean that what I say isn't true.

"And you are making an assumption here that the 15,000 members who did not attend/vote would have voted to overturn the recommendation. What makes you think that the 10,000 who were there were not a representative sample of the entire membership?"

In 1977, ten thousand psychiatrists, who were members of the American Medical Association were polled. Of twenty five hundred replies received, 68% answered yes to the question "Is homosexuality usually a pathological adaptation (as opposed to a normal variation)?"

What's the difference? There were no threats, intimidation, or political mailings sent to the people who participated in this vote.

"And both APAs and the American Pediatric Association have since declared that reparative treatments do far more harm than good. So what's your point?"

My point is that people were sold one thing and given another. They didn't stop there. Today both organizations are firmly in the grip of political activists and are in the process of removing the references to pedophilia in the DSM. Similar considerations for sado-masochism, incest, and beastiality are unders consideration as well. Is there no perversion that the APA of today does not approve of?

"We were prompted by the homosexuals pressure..." - Dr. Robert L. Spitzer

DanKroh,

"Nice try, yellow_hammer. Care to play again?"

Sure, I'll play again. Just let me point out that Spitzer is your boy. Pointing out his inconsistencies only strengthens my point that the decision was rushed and did not follow the usual practices when making this sort of change.

"Spritzer brought RESEARCH to support his proposal,..."

Spitzer didn't present his own research on the topic because he had none. He had no previously published papers on the topic of homosexuality or sexual deviations . And yet he was appointed the chairman of the Nomenclature Task Force on Homosexuality after Dr. Henry Brill was removed from a similar position. Spitzer presented a *position paper* and the board made its decision based on the paper. The idea that they carefully reviewed volumes of research before voting, as you seem to think, is just not true.

"... and after the Board of Trustees overwhelmingly endorsed his recommendation, the decision was supported by 58% (a majority if I remember my math correctly) of the membership."

Not 58% of the membership - 58% of the ~10,000 who voted in a ~25,000 member organization voted not to overturn the board's recommendation. That is not the same as an endorsement. MY MATH tells me that only about 23% of the membership voted not to overturn their board. (Nice try, care to play again.)

Notably, a significant minority of your profession disagreed. They had access to the same research as well as much research to the contrary.

The APA position statement following their decision has some interesting statements...

"Modern methods of treatment enable a significant proportion of homosexuals who wish to change their sexual orientation to do so."

"homosexuality (and perhaps some of the other *sexual deviations*" (emphasis mine)

"What will be the effect of carrying out such a proposal? No doubt, homosexual activist groups will claim that psychiatry has at last recognized that homosexuality is as normal as heterosexuality. They will be wrong."

Even though the decision was wrong and politically motivated it was not a statement that homosexuals are normal. Even after this decision the APA considered homosexuality to be "deviant" psychiatric condition, just not a disorder when the person was comfortable with his condition.

It was a spineless decision to remove themselves from the political debate and in so doing leave homosexuals who might have sought treatment with the impression that they were healthy if they declared themselves so.

DanKroh,

My source is a member of your profession whom I know personally. I assure you that the person is well qualified.

"The assumption I am now challenging is this: that every desire for change in sexual orientation is always the result of societal pressure and never the product of a rational, self-directed goal. This new orthodoxy claims that it is impossible for an individual who was predominantly homosexual for many years to change his sexual orientation -- not only in his sexual behavior ... and to enjoy heterosexuality. Many professionals go so far as to hold that it is unethical for a mental-health professional, if requested, to attempt such psychotherapy. ... Science progresses by asking interesting questions, not by avoiding questions whose answers might not be helpful in achieving a political agenda." - Dr. Robert Spitzer, Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University

"Now I do have to say that one of the concerns of people who have criticized the the study has been criticized severely by many people particularly gay activists who apparently many feel quite threatened by it. I think they have the feeling that in order for them to get their civil rights it's helpful to them if they can present the view that once you're a homosexual it can never change. Which may actually, they may be right, politically it does help them but it may not be scientifically correct." Dr. Robert Spitzer

Doesn't sound like an advocate of your "born gay" theory does he.

Spitzer lobbied to have the definition changed so that it did not include those with homosexual desires but were not conflicted by them. Those troubled by their desires were included in the new definition. Under pressure, the APA siezed on this and made their decision in a way that was not usual practice.(This message has been edited by yellow_hammer)

The DSM was first published in 1952 and classified homosexuality as a sexual disorder. It was that way until, after several years of having their association meetings disrupted, the APA Board of Trustees voted to remove homosexuality as a disorder. This was not done thru scientific research and discussion leading to change but by a vote by a few members at the top.

Does this tactic sound familiar?

DanKroh,

"Yellow_hammer, what you dismiss as strawman arguments, I assert are simply different instances of equivalent "deviations", but which are considered socially acceptable to you, where homosexuality obviously isn't. No amount of discipline/fortitude/determination is going to change a person's sexual orientation, either. Or are you one of these people who believes that homosexuals can be "cured"?"

I see now the point where we will never agree. You think that homosexuality is a state that someone is born into, something that they cannot control. You think that homosexuality is equal to being born left-handed or black. Since they are born with the desire for other people of their own sex it is right and proper that they act on that desire.

I, on the other hand (pun intended), think that homosexuals choose to be what they are. They may be following an urge that compels them but they still choose to act on that urge. The left-handed and black never have that choice, they just are. Similarly, no one can choose to be left-handed or black as they could choose to live a homosexual lifestyle. It should be clear to anyone without blinders on that a sexual preference for someone of the same sex has far more to to with other sexual preferences than it does with being left-handed or black. The logical leap you are making in this argument is too broad for me to take.

I don't know whether someone who has the irrational urge to have sex with someone of their own sex can be cured. I do know that they can choose not to act on that urge. As with anyone else that has a sexual problem - celibacy is a noble option.

To answer Gernblanston's question, I would not change my opinions if it were proved that homosexuality had a genetic basis. It would not prove that all homosexuals had this genetic marker. It would only show that some homosexuals may have a predisposition toward being attracted to someone of their own sex. It would still be an act of volition to engage in the relationship.

packsaddle,

"Gays are already in scouting. I know this as a fact in a real-life situation. In this case, at least, they will not leave. They pose no risk whatsoever to the boys. Your arguments are yesterday's news. Tough luck."

Yawn. If it is my tough luck, yesterdays news, and my side has already lost then why all the fuss?

I don't think it is healthy for children who are still forming their sexual identity to have an authority figure who is homosexual. There are closet homosexuals in scouting or those serving with a wink and a nod but are they really TRUSTWORTHY since they are being dishonest?

Fuzzy Bear,

I think it is wonderful that your gay friends are in church. But if they continue to practice homosexual sex then they ignore the scripture at their peril.

All,

I get tired of the suggestions that anyone against "gay rights" is a bigot or is trying to oppress homosexuals. Here is my opinion as succinctly as I can put it.

1. Homosexuals have every right to do what they want with thier private parts as long as their partner is a consenting adult. However, choosing to be different in our society often has a cost. The cost can be ridicule or even ostracism. You have a right to live as you wish within legal bounds - you don't have a right to be accepted no matter what you do. Choose to cover yourself with tatoos, sport a fuschia mowhawk, or carry on an openly gay lifestyle if you please but don't whine when people treat you as what you are... abnormal.

2. Marriage is the basic unit of society. It has been between a man and a woman for many centuries. We should not change the marriage contract in a drastic way to suit the desires of a vocal minority. Homosexuals should be able to have a legal agreement of some sort so that they can act for each other in emergencies. (I think that they can already do this, but whatever.) But I think that homosexuals don't really care to have other equal provisions - changing the definition of marriage is part of their path to acceptance and homosexual activists will accept no substitutes. I resent that.

3. We who feel that homosexuality is wrong should continue to have the choice not to have homosexuals in positions of authority over our children. Political offices are excepted for obvious reasons.

4. No one in this forum has suggested denying homosexuals the rights that they already have. We are against a redefinition of the laws so that they suit the homosexual agenda, which is mostly about acceptance and not a need for the things they are trying to change.

(This message has been edited by yellow_hammer)

DanKroh,

"Someone who is left handed is a "deviant" in the strict sense of the word"

We are not discussing lefties, blacks, orientals, handicapped, etc. They have no choice in their condition and no amount of discipline/fortitude/determination will change their condition. Bringing it up is a strawman argument meant to detour the conversation toward feelings instead of reason.

"Using the lungs to mainline nicotine is a deviation fom the natural and best purpose. Let's put a stop to that practice, as well."

Another strawman. Nowhere in this discussion has someone said that we should "put a stop to that practice" (homosexuality). What we have said is that homosexuals should not expect to have special protections under the law.

"So since lesbian sex does not involve anuses, does that mean it is less deviant?"

Ya know, I knew when I wrote it that someone would answer with this. To answer truthfully on a personal level I have to say YES. As a man the thought of sexual contact with other men really creeps me out.

But logically, no. Reference my previous statements on procreation and natural purpose of the sex organs as the argument basis. The true purpose of one's private parts is clear to any reasonable person. Arguing otherwise seems silly to me.

It is not my goal to shut down discussion - obviously since I keep coming back. But it is my nature to call something what it is without regard to politically correct speech requirements of the day. Homosexual sex is deviant. To me that is as plainly true as the sky is blue. That may hurt someone's *feelings* but it is no less true in my view.

"Equating homosexual relationships/marriages with "relationships" to children, animals, and inanimate objects (like blow up dolls) is a common tactic for de-humanizing gays, relegating them to a sub-human status."

I'm trying to calculate how many strawmen add up to a pile of BS. I have relatives who are homosexuals, I have hired homosexuals, I have invited them to church to sit beside me and pray. I am not interested in dehumanizing them. They are humans deserving of love and compassion. BUT, I am strongly against a redefinition of marriage to suit their desires, I am strongly against special protections for homosexuals because it opens the door for other lunacy, and I am strongly against having them in a position where they can influence children - even indirectly. You are trying to call me a bigot without actually using the word. Say what you mean.

"these types of comparisons also fail, because everyone understands that a consenting adult is NOT the same thing as a child, an animal, or an inanimate object"

Do tell. Why does everyone understand that? Why shouldn't someone in love with an inanimate object expect not to be discriminated against?

Trevorum said, "Do you understand that the people we're talking about DO see injustice in the way they are treated by society? That fact, in and of itself, should give one pause to reflect."

I understand. I'm sure that they are sincere in their perception. I run into people almost daily who are sincerely wrong. I've taken my pause to reflect and here is what came into my mind...

Just for the sake of argument lets say that I like to have sex with mail-order blow up dolls. Let's say that I state so openly and publicly... often. Let's say that I take my blow-up doll, properly clothed, out to public places with me. Only consenting adults are involved in this loving and happy relationship.

To say the least, most people would treat me differently.

If I lived such a lifestyle, would I be correct in insisting that people let me teach their children? (My blow-up doll is clearly an adult.)

Why shouldn't I have special protection from certain discrimination in the workplace? Or are we only to be protected from descrimination if we limit our sexual partners to humans? Only a bigot would say such a thing.

Please take a pause to reflect on this: We live in a free country where it is possible to do things that are legal but deviant. The price one pays for being deviant is to be riduculed and even ostracized. Changing the law that gives you the freedom to practice your deviancy so that it then becomes illegal for others not to accept it is what is truly immoral and unethical.

DanKroh said, "And just because you call a homosexual a sexual deviant doesn't make it so, no matter how many times you say it."

The natural purpose of sex is for men and women to procreate and recreate as in men with women and women with mean. Anything else is clearly *deviation* from the natural and best purpose.

The anus is clearly meant to be an exit port for body waste. Any other use is a *deviation* from the natural and best purpose.

Your assertion that homosexuality is not a a sexual deviance is not based on reason but purely on your feelings on the matter and what you wish to be true.

Gern,

I'm no law professor but I'm pretty certain that the laws governing marriage make no mention of love. There is no right to marry whom you love. Marriage is a social contract meant to (among other things) protect wives and children from nitwits who think that the tingly feeling they mistake for love is more important than duty.

DanKroh,

Assertion without facts fit my description of baloney just as well as flawed logic.

"gays also are denied the option to serve in our country's armed forces." Only if they break discipline by opening their mouths about their preference. Most any other sexual deviant can have a successful military career if they are discreet. Serving in the military is not a right, as a matter of fact all members of the military agree to give up some of their constitutional rights to be a member.

"Also, not every state has anti-discrimination laws for sexual orientation that guarantees their right to fair employment, housing, etc." Just because there isn't a law against something doesn't mean there should be. I am certain that there is no such law in my state and yet homosexuals seem to be employed and living quite comfortably.

Trevorum,

"Using religious arguments to perpetuate an injustice is, in my opinion, unethical and immoral."

Your argument assumes that there is an injustice in the first place. I don't accept that there is in the case of homosexuals. They insist on behaving outside the norms of society but then insist on being fully accepted nonetheless. The "injustice" is one of their own creation.

*Logic* has and can be used to perpetuate injustice. By your reasoning it is immoral and unethical to use logic in an argument. That leaves us with feelings and the argument that if I "feel" it is right or wrong then it is right or wrong. That is a basis for anarchy not society.

Hay! We've strayed from the mane topic haven't we? Who will rein supreme in this wordly canter?

Gernblanston,

There is no right that I have that a homosexual does not also have. They can marry just like I can - as long as the person is of the opposite sex. They can get insurance coverage for their family just like I can - as long as their family meets the definition that has existed for several thousand years. [Please don't point out that the Ugabooga tribe of Lower Watusi had a different definition until they were forced by Missionary zealots to change. I'm talking about the rule not the exceptions.]

Homosexuals want to change the rules that help to define the basic unit of society so that they can further legitimate their sexual desires. I just don't see how this can be a good thing for society as a whole. Where does it stop?

Trevorum,

Equating the horrors of slavery with the economic desires of a relatively small but vocal group of sexual deviants is pure baloney.

I think someone hit the New Topic button when they meant to hit the Reply button.

I'm an ASM who recently joined the troop when my son crossed over so I can relate to the guy.

It takes a while to get out of the habit of doing things for the boys or fixing things for them after you've been like a third parent to them for a few years. It's been months and I still get, "You're doing it again." from the SM every so often. Talk to the guy about what he is doing and what he should be doing. If he is a reasonable person he'll understand and try harder to change his ways.

About whether he "is trying to relive his experience as a Scout"... maybe he had such a good time then that he wants the same for his son. That's the way I feel about it. Give him the benefit of the doubt here.

I would definitely let him know that he stepped out of bounds on the question of which camp the troop would go to. He is due for a tactful discussion to point out that you are the SM and he is not.

Good luck.

uz2bnowl said,

"The size of the fight in the dog matters a lot too. One of the biggest muscle-bound Marines I know was also the biggest whiner when it came to carrying a pack and other heavy implements of war."

I noticed this phenomena in my younger days in Army Special Forces. Time after time I saw big guys fall out and quit while the wiry types kept on humping the same weight until the end. All the extra upper body weight might have had something to do with it but I'm convinced that it's the heart that matters. If you've got heart you can push yourself, if you don't you'll quit and do something easier.

I've also noticed that who you're with has something to do with whether you will quit. Guys who were isolated would throw in the towel quicker than those who were part of a team because they don't want to let their buddies down or don't want to be shamed in front of them.

As far as pack weight for boys goes - I don't think that you'll be going far enough or long enough to do any of them damage if they carry too much weight. The real danger is that you'll turn them off of backpacking with a bad experience. Truth is we have some couch potatoes that have trouble carrying their own body weight and some other new scouts that could carry 25% of their weight with little trouble. I would try to get them to go as light as possible but let them make a reasonable mistake, and learn from it. Carrying too much weight in things you don't need is not a mistake they will make very many times and it's probably a lesson learned best from experience.

What you've described is true of every organization that I've been involved with. People come and go but there is hopefully a core group that sticks around and makes things happen. I think that the answer is to recruit many, count on the few that like scouting to stick around, and don't sweat the ones that don't.

The really sad situations for me are the boys that are interested but have parents that are not supportive or even work against the boys desires. You know the ones... dads that want their boy to be the ball player they never were and see scouts as a competing interest. Almost as sad are the dads that love scouting but their sons are not interested.