3 million children

[tjhammer 10]

For those that believe Scouting should continue to ignore these families...

 

 

Tuesday, October 8, 2002

 

A new survey shows that more than 3 million children live with gay and lesbian parents in the United States.

 

The survey, for Witeck-Combs Communications, a gay marketing company, says that 2 million gay and lesbian couples have children, and that by 2004, there will be 3.4 million children in gay homes.

 

In the 1990s, gay men and lesbians spawned a "gayby" boom when they began starting families through adoption and childbirth. A recent survey found that nearly half of childless gays and lesbians express strong interest in having children.

 

This "gayby" boom has created a new audience for marketers of children's products, Witeck-Combs says. Gay and lesbian parents are projected to spend over $22 billion on items for their children in 2002.

 

"Parenting has added a new dimension to the gay and lesbian market," said Don Montuori, acquisitions editor for Packaged Facts, which cosponsored the survey.

 

[ScoutParent 10]

I don't think anyone has said a child of a gay man or lesbian woman can not be a Boy Scout.

[slontwovvy 10]

"In the 1990s, gay men and lesbians spawned a "gayby" boom when they began starting families through adoption and childbirth."

 

Brief question: Maybe I missed some recent scientific discovery, but how is that physically possible?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

While it is true the child of a gay man or lesbian woman can be a boy scout, I would not want to be the one to explain to the boy that his parent(s) are not considered fit by the BSA to be an adult leader.

 

The boy joins, gets infused with scouting spirit, wants his parents to join the fun (particularly if adult leaders are obviously needed) and the chartering organization representative has to say something to the effect, "the BSA doesn't let people like your parents be leaders, the BSA doesn't think they are proper role models for boys".

 

For extra irony, lets say the Chartering Organization is a church that allows openly gay clergy. (makes sense a gay "family" would join a chucrh that has gay clergy). Again, I would not want the task of explaining to the scout why his favorite clergy person is not a proper role model either.

 

I agree BSA has the right to formulate membership requirements, I just hope I never have to explain to a child why Mom, Dad, and Pastor/Minister/Reverend Pat are not fit to join an organization the boy loves.

 

Slontwovvy,

Some lesbian couples elect to have children by artificial insemination. Some gay "families" are formed when a husband and wife of a heterosexual marriage divorce because one determines he/she is gay, finds a gay partner and has/shares custody of the kids. I am sure there are other scenarios, these are the ones I can think of at this time(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[scomman 10]

I remember a few years ago when a poll came out that said approxiametly 10% of all americans are gay and that they will exert a significant amount of control at polls. Then a couple years later another poll came out and said that the first poll was in error instead of 10% of all americans are gay it was actually less than 5% The only reason I bring it up is I don't believe everything I read until I see the questions that were asked in the poll. That is why they publish the questions in the paper for political polls.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE: Excellent point. (I don't usually do "dittos," but I think you said it all.)

 

Scomman: I agree that polls should always be viewed with great caution. Sometimes the question determines the answer, and in some circumstances respondents tend to give the answer they think the poll-taker wants to hear, or the answer that reflects what they think they should think, or what their neighbors think, as opposed to what they actually do think. Having said that, this particular poll would seem to be less prone to that type of distortion. In this poll, at least the result that was reported, the question was a question of fact, rather than opinion. Presumably the questions were something like, "Are you a member of a gay or lesbian (or homosexual or same-gender or however they asked it) couple residing together, and if so, are any children residing with you as part of your household? Or something like that. It is not like "Do you think we should invade Iraq?" to which there is no right or wrong answer, only opinions. Either you are part of a gay couple with kids, or you aren't.

 

As for the poll about what percentage of people are gay, I do not think that was a poll as we think of it, like a political poll or the kind of poll involved in the gay-parents story. Years ago there was a study that produced the "finding" that 10 percent of people are gay. I am not sure whether that was the Kinsey report or some other report, but whichever it was, it has always been controversial and its methodology has been criticized. I don't think they just called up a random 1,000 people and asked them, I think it was more elaborate than that. There have been other studies that have shown the number is probably around 5 percent.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[ScoutParent 10]

OGE's response on an earlier thread concerning another Scouting issue:

 

"I think an excellent solution would be for all the people who think Boy Scouts should radically change its founding principles is form a group of their own."

 

 

I submit that this logic applies here.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

ScoutParent says:

 

OGE's response on an earlier thread concerning another Scouting issue:

 

"I think an excellent solution would be for all the people who think Boy Scouts should radically change its founding principles is form a group of their own."

 

 

I submit that this logic applies here.

 

Well, even if it did, you seem to be making an assumption about who would have to form the new organization, and I don't agree with that assumption. We've been through this a few hundred times on this forum already, but I'll say it again: There is nothing in Scouting's founding principles that requires the exclusion of a leader solely on the basis that he/she is openly gay.

 

One might go further and say that there is nothing in Scouting's founding principles that permits the exclusion of such a leader. However, the vast majority of those of us on this "side" of the debate have recognized the controversial and emotional nature of this subject, and would favor allowing each unit to choose for itself. Such a solution would be fair, consistent with the BSA's policy that it is non-sectarian in matters of religion, and coincidentially would allow the BSA to put this controversy behind it and regain its positive public image, not just with one segment of society but with all of society. Unfortunately, BSA national has refused to even consider such a reasonable approach.

[littlebillie 10]

'''"I think an excellent solution would be for all the people who think Boy Scouts should radically change its founding principles is form a group of their own."

 

I submit that this logic applies here.'''

 

 

Well, I really have to question teaching our kids that diversity means separation. When the Scouts made their position statement back in the 1970s, the gay families were mostly in the closet, and I don't think anyone gave any real thought to the impact on the kids if gay families became numerous.

 

Well, we're here! Cubs especially, I think, are prone to be hurt by this. Older kids can begin to understand and use selective thought processes, but the youngsters are really going to be confused. (BTW, how come no one seems to want to extend a hand to these families who, despite the stance of the BSA, see enough value in the program to overlook what should never be made an issue to the kids anyway, and participate in the greatest youth program in the world!?)

 

While "local standards" would have seemed to be the fix we've all been looking for, it's not to be at this point, tho' it may come later. As NJCubScouter mentions, the Execs say no, we will maintain nat'l standards on this (although there are all kinds of local standards on other things - money handling, neckerchief placement, jeans versus "official"pants, and even the way req'ts get met. oh well.)

 

Other folks say, 'make your own group'. As long as tax dollars suppport the Scouts, as long as a Congressional Charter exists, this IS "their own group." I thought we had gotten past all this separate-but-equal crud years ago!

 

The best program would be some kind of ParaScouts - the BSA would establish a separate program for anyone, authorize the limited use of all the Cub and BSA literature and programs, and the awards or a version thereof. This would be the Humanist Branch of the BSA, for those who want the program, but prefer an ethical rather than a moral slant (here, I'm using ethics as behavior that seeks good without the intervention of a divine arbiter, such intervention creating moral guidelines).

 

By creating a separate Open Scouting program, the BSA really only continues what it's already done with Venturing and Learning for Life, and (I will add cynically) gets to keep any new monies such a parallel program would generate.

 

This is still obnoxiously separate but equal, but it does give the BSA a middle ground to say that they are kid-friendly regardless of the parents.

 

Of course, simply offering to authorize the use of the basic program to some other, entirely separate and new organization is possible too, such that being able to say you're a Gay Eagle or a Pagan Eagle would indicate the same level of accomplishment and skill development as the current Eagle program - obviously, certain changes would be necessary, but I think that's all workable too. Even this, while still separatist, would at least show that the BSA Execs, while clinging to certain beliefs, recognize that the program could benefit a larger population than it can currently reach...

 

 

just some thoughts...

 

 

[eisely 13]

I for one agree with the national BSA policy on "avowed homosexuals" as members of BSA. I don't know if the three million figure is at all accurate, but that is largely beside the point. If such a family wanted their son to join a troop I was involved in, I would have no problem with that. Adult membership would be another matter.

 

Regarding the percentage of the adult population that is homosexual, it is my understanding the ten percent figure came from a single question in the original Kinsey surveys done in the 1940's. The question was apparently something to the effect, "Have you ever had a homosexual experience?" Apparently 10% of the adult males responded yes to this one question and this became the basis for inferring that 10% of the adult male population is homosexual. Since I was molested as a boy scout by a boy scout leader once, I suppose that would make me gay too by this reasoning.

 

The best current figures that I have seen, based on more comprehensive surveys put the male homosexual population at about 2% to 2.5% of the total male population of the US.

[Bob White 20]

Does the total number or percentage really matter? The BSA is not for all children. it never has been. It is for any child that meets the joining requirements and not every child does. There are millions of children whose parents are heterosexual who do not meet the joining requirements.

 

The BSA is not designed to be all things to all people. our membership requirements have changed several times in the past and they might change again in the future. But it will not be due to the demographics of who is not eligible, but on what best serves the aims and the mission of scouting.

 

Bob White

(This message has been edited by Bob White)

[tjhammer 10]

Does the total number or percentage really matter?On this one sentence I find complete agreement with BobWhite... we shouldn't be any more outraged over the message we're sending 3 million kids than if it was just one family. Of course, I find the rest of his message to be hogwash.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Just what the heck are the "joining requirements"? My son just joined Cubs as a Webelo a few weeks ago after we attended a recruitment night at his school. I was handed tons of material and don't recall any joining requirements. This past weekend at a council overnighter, there was a Boy Scout at the Archery range who had some sort of Palsey and confined to a wheel chair. It was so advanced that he had to be pushed everywhere by someone else. If a kid with those kind of physical diasabilites can join when he obviously can't fulfill the majority of the requirements for merit badges or advancement, then just who can be excluded from joining? I'm not saying that I don't think he should be allowed in scouts, I'm just fuzzy on what the requirements to join would be.

[eisely 13]

The joining requirements for Boy Scouts (not Cubs) are stated on page four of the eleventh edition of The Boy Scout Handbook. This has nothing to do with rank advancement or how physically demanding requirements might be handled for physically challenged scouts. I have never had to deal with that kind of situation, but the rules are clear that for such scouts the requirements can be modified. By whom or how is not clear to me. Somehow I doubt that the unit has the unilateral authority to do this.

[Rooster7 11]

First, I don't believe the "3 million" figure for one second. This is the same garbage that homosexuals and their supporters have been spewing for years.

 

Second, I'm 100% with eisely. The policy is NOT directed against the children of homosexuals, it's against homosexuals. (eisely - By the way, I was sorry to hear about your childhood experience. I pray God heals you of that horrible memory).

 

Lastly, for all the "fighting" and arguing I do with Bob White, I am in complete agreement with his last post in this thread. TJ has provided an ample supply of hogwash for all of us.