Is the tide turning?

[jmcquillan 10]

This is a copy of an article that has been circulating here in the Boston area via internet Scout sites. It deals with the recent National Meeting here in Boston, and a significant change in attitude among some big players in the scene. Apparently, the recommendations of this meeting are being forwarded to National for consideration. It will be interesting to see where it all goes. But the bottom line seems to be that the tide is turning, and the change is coming from within.

 

A Boston Globe Article relating to an action taken at the National BSA Conference.

Boston Globe, June 8, 2001

Box 2378, Boston, MA 02107

Fax 617-929-2098

E-MAIL: letter@globe.com

http://www.boston.com/globe

 

HEADLINE: Opening the door to gay Boy Scouts

--------------------------------------------

By Derrick Z. Jackson

 

In a quiet flex of muscle, with the hope that the sheer size of their cities signals an urgent need for compromise, nine council presidents and board chairmans, including the chairman of Boston's Minuteman Council, have positioned the Boy Scouts of America to open up its policy banning gay Scouts.

At the Scouts' national meeting last week in Boston, leaders of the councils of New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, West Los Angeles, Orange County, Calif., San Francisco, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Boston proposed that the Scouts allow churches, schools, and other chartering organizations to decide for themselves whether to have gay scout members and leaders.

The current national policy of the Boy Scouts of America, upheld last year by a narrowly divided Supreme Court, is to ban gay males. The Scouts have said, "an avowed homosexual is not a role model." In many cities and towns, the Boy Scouts' policy has resulted in an erosion of support from city agencies and funding sources that have nondiscrimination policies, most notably the United Way.

This week in Massachusetts, the Hampshire County United Way dropped its support of the Great Trails Council because the council would not sign a nondiscrimination policy. Last year, the United Way of Massachusetts Bay ended direct funding of the Minuteman Council, shifting support to the Scouts' Learning for Life Program. That program promotes leadership skills in the schools to boys and girls and has no gay discrimination policy. The resolution by the big city presidents asks that the Scouts adopt a policy that states that "membership and leadership positions are open to persons regardless of their sexual orientation," subject to compliance with Scouting's standards of conduct, and that "a Scout treat all people with respect, regardless of their sexual orientation."

The resolution asks the Boy Scouts to accept local rules of the sponsoring organizations that select Scout leaders. A troop could ban gay leaders if it wished. But a troop whose sponsor explicitly forbids discrimination would face no action from the Boy Scouts. This year, the Scouts, based in Irving, Texas, revoked the charter of several Cub Scout packs in Oak Park, Ill., because the sponsors, a parent-teacher group, adhered to a nondiscrimination policy.

"We're not a bunch of wild guys out here doing a palace revolt," said Mike Harrison, past chairman of the board of the Orange County Council. "We're trying to find another path that respects the beliefs of all Scouts and shows a truly tolerant attitude instead of one with broad stereotypical labels.

"There are troops sponsored by religious institutions, such as Mormons, Catholics, and others, where there is no way they are going to pick someone who has indicated they have a homosexual orientation. . . But many of us value Scouting also precisely because it values tolerance and diversity and that the Scouts' interpretation of 'morally straight' meaning only straight people is out to lunch."

Boy Scouts national spokesman Gregg Shields said the proposal will be taken up by its relationships committee. However, Shields said of the signatories, "These still represent a minority of councils. We have nearly 320 councils around the country. I think the majority want the policy that is currently in place. I would foresee that the existing policy would continue."

Shields' claim that the big city councils represent a "minority" is a risky brushoff given that the metropolitan areas are a quarter of the nation's population and are huge media centers. It is also risky because his prediction that the existing policy would continue flies in the face of the optimistic diplomacy of the signatories. They hold no press conferences to announce the proposal. They want the Boy Scouts to be able to save face over a position it has bitterly defended.

Minuteman Council executive Brock Bigsby said, "It was pretty easy for us to be part of this. I'd like to think one of the things our council is most known for is its diversity."

Don York, director of field services for the New York City Councils, said, "Let's not close the door up front" on gay Scouts.

Lew Greenblatt, president of the Chicago Area council, said, "If you believe in an organization, you want to make it as good as it can be. This is a way it can be better. Unfortunately, it is the kids who are suffering from the national policy."

Harrison said, "When I read the Supreme Court decision, I was appalled at the arguments the Boy Scout lawyers made. But I've had some good conversations with Catholic liaisons and some of our LDS [Latter-day Saints] cohorts. I'm encouraged that we'll get to where we need to be, whether it takes six months or a year."

 

[Rooster7 11]

Sorry...I don't see this as good news. To me, this is not about "diversity"...This is about political correctness. I am saddened to hear that such high-ranking council members are seeking the spotlight at the expense of BSA. Homosexuality is a choice in behavior. It's an evil pursuit. It's wrong...plain and simple. I am disturbed that there appears to be some in our organization who wish to normalize it. If you feel as I do, I pray that you speak up when the time comes. We need to stand together.

[eisely 13]

Rooster7 touches on what to me is the most important point in this debate. Recent polling in the United States reveals that the population is largely split on the view of whether or not homosexuality is a choice, or whether or not people just are that way. In the gay rights movement, it is taken as a proven scientific fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Based on the casual reading I have done to date, the science behind this claim strikes me as ambivalent at best. I intend to do more serious reading on both sides of this issue. My own view at this time is that, pending some really convincing evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, I will continue to treat it in my mind as a bad choice. Thus I agree with rooster7 in terms of the current policy position of the boy scouts. If homosexuality is a choice, I, as a parent and a scout leader have both a right and a duty to choose the role models I put in front of my own sons, and the sons of others entrusted to me. This is not equivalent to teaching homophobia. I don't think that the scouts are teaching homophobia, and the current scout policy has it right, based on the presmise that homosexuality is a choice. In the meantime I will continue my personal search for more and better information.

[Rooster7 11]

Mr. Eisely, I appreciate your comments. I hope most Scouters support the current BSA policy. However, you implied that you might feel differently if it can be proven that homosexuality is not a matter of choice. If this is true, than I would like to offer you this food for thought:

 

What if it can be proven that there is genetic proof that pedophiles are predisposed to be the way they are? I'm confident that you would not support such behavior even if it were not completely by choice. From birth, many things are not within our control (birth defects, genetic makeup, who our parents are, what religion we are brought up with, etc.). Even with genetic evidence of a predisposition, I still see behavior (of any kind) as a matter of choice. It may be more difficult for some than others to resist certain behavior. Certainly, an alcoholic cannot resist a drink as easily as the non-alcoholic. Nevertheless, we (society) do not condone the life of an alcoholic. We hold him accountable to get his life together and resist the urge to drink.

 

I see a counterpoint on the horizon, see let me anticipate and address these exceptions. By all means, we should be tolerant of behavior that is the result of brain/nerve damage (or other physical ailments) and/or psychologically problems. I realize, sometimes, behavior is not a reflection of a moral choice.

 

In today's world, homosexuality is not being portrayed as an ailment or psychological problem of any kind. The homosexual community would have us believe that it is not only a product of genetics, but as natural as heterosexuality. I don't know if genetics is involved, but I don't see it as excusing the behavior. In regard to it being natural, any casual study of nature proves that claim to be false.

 

Thanks.

[eisely 13]

Rooster7 you are correct I think in pointing out that, even if there were incontrovertible (spelling?) proof that homosexualtiy was not a choice, it would not necessarily mean that BSA policy should be reversed. Your comparision with alcoholism is apt. We now know that some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism because of the way that their systems matabolize alcohol. That does not mean that we ahould all embrace alcoholism as a good thing.

 

Pedophilia is a separate but related issue. BSA takes the position that not all homosexuals are automatically pedophiles. The data support this position. One wonders what would happen if all legal barriers to adults having sex with minors were lifted, and all barriers to homosexuals being in BSA were lifted. Personally, this is not an experiment I am willing to undertake.

 

As far as I know, no scientific body has officially bought into the premise that there is a "gay gene." While both the psychiatrists and the psychologists no longer officially view homosexuality per se as an illness demanding treatment, neither discipline offers any explanation for why some people are homosexuals and others are not. As far as I know, both disciplines attribute homosexuality to a variety of potential causes, without singling any single cause out above all others.

 

My primary point is that the question of genetic determination of sexual orientation is a very legitimate question. It behooves people of good will on both sides of the question to seriously examine what little evidence has been put forward and try to arrive at conclusions in a scientifically unbiased way. My hunch is that the evidence will not support the hypothesis of genetic determination.

 

The difficulty arises for youth organizations such as scouts when the advocates of current policy come across as appearing to refuse to even consider the argument about choice versus pre-determination based on evidence. I think we can win this argument, but the approach has to be based on facts. The more rational elements of the gay community and the popular media will not give scouting a serious hearing if we rely simply on a contradictory belief system.

[Rooster7 11]

Mr. Eisely,

 

You make good points. I do feel we need to examine the facts. The more we base our arguments on facts, the more apt we will be heard. However, I wouldn't throw out the "belief system" argument. After all, the BSA exclusion of pedophiles is really based on a belief system. It is wrong for adults to have sexual relations with a child. If someone could scientifically prove that a particular child was not harmed by such an act, we still wouldn't endorse it. It would still be wrong. Likewise, most folks believe it is wrong for one man to have sexual relations with another man. For the most part, this premise is based on a belief system as opposed to scientific fact. Regardless, I see it as having merit. Some truths are self-evident. The natural order of things indicate that this behavior is wrong (not to mention most religious faiths). Not everyone chooses to acknowledge these truths, but it doesn't invalidate them.

 

Any way, I don't want to pick an argument with an ally. I was just hoping that most Scouters feel as do. This behavior is wrong (scientific proof or not). Thanks.

 

[eisely 13]

I don't want to create a false impression that belief systems are unimportant. This ground has been covered amply in other threads. While I think that the belief systems underlying scouting and most religions are at least as valid, and likely far more valid, than belief systems based on denial of god and hedonism, the mutual rejection of each others' belief systems by the participants on both sides of this argument make rational discussion difficult at best. This is why I emphasize an argument based on evidence and scientific interpretation of that evidence.

 

There are many things that science cannot solve, such as ultimate causation. However, I think that scientific argument has not been seriously tried in this debate so far, and that science has something to offer.

[Glenn 10]

My main argument in the support of the current BSA policy simply deals with not putting our children (sons in this case) in a possibly damaging situation. Yes, not all gay men are pedophiles, but why take the chance? I would not allow my daughter to attend any girl scout overnighters with a male leader either. Why put your children in that situation? I say better safe than sorry.

[Stan Riddle 10]

I'm not a genetic scientist, but I've always had one question. If homosexuality is a genetic disorder, how is it passed along? Since homosexual sex will not create a new life, wouldn't the "gay" gene become less and less prominant? If this were true, wouldn't homosexuality become less and less prevalent, until the point where it was almost non-existant (except for mutating genes)?

 

I said it before, and I'll say it agian. This issue is going to continue to divide people, and in the end, no one is going to win.

 

If the gay community wants a program like Scouting, they should start their own, like some organizations and religous groups have done.

[jmcquillan 10]

I get a little nervous when people start talking about the BSA stand on gays in terms of the pedophile issue. I like to think that this whole event, and the history leading up to it has more to do with example than fear.

 

To me, the BSA stand on gays has everything to do with the lifestyle homosexuals choose to lead, not the fear that they're pedophiles seeking easy targets, for I don't think that's the issue. In fact, I believe that that bearing on the issue does the gay community a disservice. I'm quite sure that most in the gay community are really no different than you and I, except for the partners they choose. To put it in simple terms, I chose to marry, sleep with, and raise children with a woman. I guess that's traditional, to me. For those men who choose to live with, sleep with, and perhaps raise shildren with another man, or for those women who choose to live with, sleep with, and perhaps raise children with another woman, that's all fine with me. What I object to, is the example. I wanted my sons to have the example of a mother/father relationship in the traditional sense. I'm sure that most of those who want their sons in Scouting are looking for that same example to be set by the adults leaders in their troops. To me, it's as simple as that. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm perfectly fine with the fact that some in our society choose a lifestyle quite different than that. I just wouldn't want that lifestyle as the example for my sons. And I'm quite sure that many in the gay community share many of the base "traditional" values that we share in Scouting, just not the ones about mother/father, and who you sleep with.

 

And, quite frankly, this whole thing only applies to those who run around waving the flag of homosexuality in an in-your-face manner. I don't run around waving a banner that states my heterosexuality. I don't need to see the other banner. I can understand that gays sometimes feel the need to wave that banner, because if they don't and their preference is "discovered", that can be a huge issue for them in nothing but negative terms. And being forced to "live in the closet" can likely be quite challenging and unnerving. Existing within the Scouting environment on false premises (not telling anyone) would be mentally exhausting, not to mention the internal struggle of bearing false witness to oneself. Add to that the impression that if one is gay, one is thought more likely to be a pedophile. That offends me, never mind the gay community.

 

So, I would think it might be in all of our collective better interests to put this issue in the light of example, not fear. For the fear is mostly unfounded. The example is right there for all to see, like it, or not.

[Rooster7 11]

The fear is not unfounded. Statistics support the argument that the homosexual is more prone to pedophilia than the heterosexual. Furthermore, while this is not a politically correct response, the behavior is perverse. The most basic class in animal reproduction supports this claim. The homosexual ignores the laws of nature in preference to his own desires. He chooses to engage in the "life style" because this is how he derives pleasure, even in the face of intense pressure from society to do otherwise. Like the pedophile, his gratification reins supreme, no matter the consequence (scorn by family, rejected by society, jail, etc.). Some portray homosexuals as passionate and honorable as they fight for acceptance. I see the homosexual as driven by his lust to the point of dishonor. This is not the kind of man that I will leave my child alone with under any circumstance.

 

Do I have my own sins? Yes, but I don't tell myself or anyone else to accept them as normal.

 

[jmcquillan 10]

I'm not sure I've ever seen statistics that would support that argument. I have, although, seen statistics that argue that of the 49,000 to 50,000 Catholic priests in this country, somewhere between 3,000 and 8,000 are pedophiles. Does that mean that I should never leave my child in the care of a priest? No.

 

Statistics can be bent to favor whatever side of the argument one tends towards. "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."

 

I would not say that it's an impossibility for a gay person to be a pedophile. But I doubt that that tendency is significantly higher than statistics might show for heterosexuals.

[eisely 13]

Pedophilia is a different but related issue. The BSA policy is not based on a threat of pedophilia, and in fact states that BSA does not equate homosexuality with pedophilia. Nevertheless the threat is real and bad things do happen. The article posted below is about a nineteen year old girl scout leader in New Hampshire. Apparently the incident occurred in February of this year. This is interesting because it is the only incident of which I am aware where female on female pedophilia is alleged. It is also interesting because the Girl Scouts nationally have a policy that does not reject membership by homosexuals, and the girl scouts are often held up in the media as a counter example to the boy scouts of enlightened policy. Neither this story, nor anything else I have seen about this incident, says whether or not this young woman was "out of the closet" or whether any cognizant Girl Scout officials had any knowledge of the young woman's sexual preferences before this incident.

 

The irony is that homosexual pedophilia is normally carried out by adults who are not out of the closet. The fear expressed by many is that, if the ban on homosexuality among scout leaders was lifted, this would become an open invitation to those inclined towards pedophilia.

 

Another thing about this article that is worth noting is that the incident took place in a locked closet. This is not unlike a camping environment. In my mind a camping environment is more susceptible to these kinds of things because of the intimacy of the camping environment contrasted for example, to youth team sports.

 

Bottom line is that pedophilia is a problem for all youth groups, not just scouts, but is not the foundation of BSA policy.

 

Girl Scout leader pleads

innocent in child sex case

By PAT GROSSMITH

Union Leader Staff

 

A Manchester Girl Scout leader is charged with soliciting sex from a 12-year-old girl during a group sleepover last February at St. John the Baptist Church parish hall, 107 Alsace St.

Mindy Lorenz, 19, of 40 Debbie St., entered innocent pleas yesterday in Manchester District Court to two misdemeanor counts of endangering the welfare of a minor.

Bail of $3,000 personal recognizance was continued, and trial was scheduled for July 23.

A condition of bail for Lorenz is that she have no unsupervised contact with any female juvenile. Lorenz, according to court records, is unemployed, but she told Judge Norman Champagne that she had previously been employed in day care.

Neither the Girl Scout group nor the parish hall is specifically identified in court records.

And Lorenz is not identified as a Girl Scout leader in either court documents or a press release issued by the police department.

Sgt. Lloyd Doughty, community information officer, said it was not necessary to identify the place or the group in the court documents.

The moment the Girl Scouts were made aware of this they took the appropriate action, Doughty said. Lorenz is no longer a scout leader, he said.

Were deeply concerned over the report and are cooperating fully with the authorities. An official investigation is underway to determine the facts. Because this is a legal issue, the Girl Scouts cannot comment further other than to say our first and foremost concern is always the health and safety of our girls, said Missy Long, director of programs with the Girl Scouts Swift Water Council.

Lorenz has resigned as a Girl Scout leader, Long said.

All adults involved with Girl Scouting with Swiftwater Council are carefully screened. We make every effort to ensure all volunteers fully understand and accept our policies prior to accepting a position, which include safety standards such as more than one adult being present when Girl Scout activities are conducted, Long said.

Police allege the incident took place on Feb. 18 between 10 and 10:30 p.m. in a dark, locked room, according to the sworn affidavit in support of an arrest warrant by detective Scott Fuller.

The girl told police that Lorenz engaged her in a conversation with sexual overtones. Lorenz asked her to fool around for $100, Fuller wrote.

Lorenz then allegedly kissed her on the mouth.

Lorenz, when interviewed by Fuller, denied offering money for sex but admitted to telling the girl about her own sexual experiences with another woman, according to court documents.

Lorenz told Fuller that she offered to help the girl if she wanted to experience a sexual encounter with another female.

The offer, Fuller wrote, was to the effect if she ever wanted to try it, she should do it with someone she knows instead of a stranger and that she (Mindy) would be willing to help her.

Fuller wrote in his sworn affidavit that Lorenz also admitted to kissing the child.

The kiss, Fuller wrote, lasted between 15 and 20 seconds before they were interrupted by another person knocking on the locked door to the room.

The Rev. Leonard Foisy, a retired priest who lives in the churchs rectory, said that Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops use the parish hall for various functions.

The Manchester Boys and Girls Club, he said, also uses the hall Monday through Friday for a satellite program.

 

 

 

 

[jbroganjr 10]

There are lies, damn lies and statistics - Mark Twain

 

It is incredibly scary to read this post, almost to the point of getting out torches and going on a gay witch hunt.

It does sound to me that most of the respondents in this column have never known or worked with homosexuals, except the one reply about the only difference is choice of partner. I also come away with the impression that these arguments are religious based, which is fine, but show me in the new testament where it is written that we should cast out the homosexuals. When I read it it, it says to love one another, accept those who are not like you [Jesus commands his disciples to accept the gentiles remember] and redeems the prostitute Mary Magdalen. It also commands that only those without fault shall cast the first stone. Yes I know there are all sorts of Old Testament stories like Sodom and Gommorah concerning homosexuals, but if you are going to use them for your argument, I will direct you to the stories of Ruth and her "prostitution" for the servant Mordaccai and his revenge on his enemies. I don't believe those stories have a place as the law in this land or time.

Descrimination in any form is ugly, whether that is pc or not. The same arguments for descrimination against gays today where used against blacks and immigrants. People hated JFK because he was Catholic. At the turn of the century, employment ads had the letters NINA - No Irish Need Apply.

It is sad that you need hate and descrimination to foster your own beliefs and give you the false sense of moral strength.

To thine own self be true - William Shakespeare.

[eisely 13]

jbroganjr,

 

If you think this thread is scary, you ought to go back to some of the prior threads. The more recent dialogues in this forum have been quite civilized.

 

Another point about pedophilia and homosexuals. I agree with jmcquillan in that I know of no data that support the idea that homosexuals are more aggressive pedophiles than heterosexuals. The people in the gay community make just the opposite claim. Where do these data come from?