cjmiam 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 What part of "insisting that all leaders have high moral integrity" is unclear? They'd be kicked out if caught. Or if they were professing adult males that like youth females, they wouldn't be allowed in. Why is this so hard to understand? Hypothetical? I think not... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/893184/posts : Homosexual Rape and Murder of Children http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet4.html : Violence and Homosexuality And let's not forget the recent homosexual priest scandal. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 cjmiam writes: What part of "insisting that all leaders have high moral integrity" is unclear? The part where you assume NO homosexual male adult leader can be trusted with male youth, but you have no problem with heterosexual male adult leaders being trusted with female youth. All of your assumptions are that every single homosexual adult male cannot be trusted, yet you don't make this assumtion for heterosexual males and female youth. They'd be kicked out if caught. Or if they were professing adult males that like youth females, they wouldn't be allowed in. Why is this so hard to understand? Because, in the case of female youth, a male adult who is attracted to females is OK with you; you add the requirement that he not profess being attracted to "youth females". Yet you don't use the same standard for males, instead assuming that ALL homosexual males WILL be attracted to male youth. And I called it "hypothetical" in the specific case of known homosexual adult leaders in traditional BSA units. For that matter, Explorer units have allowed gay adult leadership since moving to Learning for Life in mid-1998, so why don't you call the BSA's Career Explorer program a "shopping mall for pedophiles"? Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 I never said that!!! Ugggh! I never said that that no homosexual could be trusted with youth. In fact Ive stated quite to the contrary in the past with regard to my kid staying at my gay cousin's house. You mix my words all up and then try to base your case on it. I also never said adult males being attracted to youth females is okay with me. But here's what I did say... Introducing a homosexual into a group with the same sex certainly poses a greater risk than introducing a heterosexual into the same group. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Merlyn's last post took the words out of my mouth. Most of them, anyway. An assumption is being made that "homosexuals" present an unacceptable risk of sexual activity with youth members but that heterosexuals do not. There is no support for this distinction. The BSA agrees with me. Either now or in the past, the YP guidelines or some of the explanatory material disavowed any connection between homosexuality and sexual abuse. (Admittedly I have not been able to find that sentence on the Internet and I am beginning to wonder whether it has been deleted, but that would not change the facts.) In any event, the YP guidelines do not depend on what a person's orientation is. The guidelines are intended to make it difficult if not impossible for any person to have the opportunity to commit abuse, and also to protect a leader against false accusations. Also, as I have mentioned beforem, if the BSA felt that gay persons posed a special risk of abuse, they would not have a "don't ask don't tell" policy regarding gays. There are gay leaders now, but the BSA doesn't bother them because they are "closeted" so nobody knows who they are. The BSA does not ask when you apply, and they don't investigate rumors unless they involve actual child abuse (as far as I know.) The BSA believes that gay leaders only pose a "problem" when they make their orientation known, thus making them inappropriate as role models. (Obviously I don't agree with that, but I would disagree more with a "witch hunt.") Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 So lets go to the extreme. Should we actively recruit gay leaders that find the sex of those they would serve attractive? It would be much like the GSUSA actively recruiting heterosexual guys to take Juniors, Seniors and Cadets camping. The risk of potential sexual misconduct surely increases. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Apparently in response to something I said about youth protection guidelines, cjmiam writes: Introducing a homosexual into that group with the same sex certainly poses a greater risk than introducing a heterosexual into the same group. You ironically point out that Scouting policy would prohibit such acts, but I have to wonder why that should matter for you when it comes from the same group that you criticize with regard to more restrictive policies on homosexuality? Cj, there is no "irony," just your own misconceptions about what I think. You are not the first person who has suggested that because I oppose one BSA policy, I must oppose the rest. Or in your words, that the other policies of the BSA might not "matter" to me. But, like those before you, you are incorrect. The opposite is true: The only BSA policy of which I am aware, that I oppose, is the one about gay leaders. Of course there are some other things that I think could be better, mostly "little things," and I think most of us have our own list of those. Just as one example that comes quickly to mind because I have written about it before, I would not be surprised if within five years, the BSA were to permit a wider range of water activities for Webelos than are currently permitted. I think that would be a good idea, but I am willing to wait, and if it never happens it never happens. To pick out another one in this category, I wish that the BSA had not removed the power of the troop committee to waive the swimming requirements for Second and First Class. The difference (or at least part of the difference) between that kind of policy and the one policy that I strongly advocate changing, is that I do not question the motives of the BSA in shaping the restrictions on water activities or in requiring Scouts to pass swimming requirements, whereas I do question the motivation behind the anti-gay policy; and the policies on water activities or swimming do not violate any other principles of the BSA, whereas I think the anti-gay policy does (the Declaration of Religious Principles.) And by the way, I have never advocated that anyone disobey or ignore the anti-gay policy, and if in real life I found myself in a situation in which it was clearly being violated and nobody else was doing anything about it, I would have to do something about it. So I think I retain my ability to talk about other BSA policies (like in this case, youth protetion) without any "irony" being involved. Link to post Share on other sites
Merlyn_LeRoy 72 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 cjmiam writes: So lets go to the extreme. Should we actively recruit gay leaders that find the sex of those they would serve attractive? No. Should Explorers continue to allow gay adult leaders to youth on the same basis as straight adult leaders? Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Merlyn_LeRoy writes: Should Explorers continue to allow gay adult leaders to youth on the same basis as straight adult leaders? No. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Merlyn asks cjmiam, Should Explorers continue to allow gay adult leaders to youth on the same basis as straight adult leaders? and cjmiam answers: No. I see. So when cjmiam opposes a BSA policy, that's ok, but when I do it, suddenly I am opposed to BSA policies as a whole. I have had this same argument with Rooster -- it's ok for you to pick and choose which policies you like, but not for me. There's a real inconsistency and a double standard at work here. Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 Say what? If we know they are gay, then they are avowed, thus not allowed in Scouting. How is that against BSA policy? Personally, I think avowed or not, they shouldn't be in, but that's beside the point. Link to post Share on other sites
CubsRgr8 10 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 This will link you to the City of Philadelphia's Fair Practices ordinance: http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/philadelphia/ If you can figure out how the COL deal violates it, well, you've got a better legal mind than I. Link to post Share on other sites
NJCubScouter 1389 Posted October 1, 2003 Share Posted October 1, 2003 cjmiam replies to me: If we know they are gay, then they are avowed, thus not allowed in Scouting. I am talking about the ones that "we" don't know are gay. The ones in the "closet." Now, you might ask, if we don't know who is gay, how do we know there are any gay leaders. Obviously I can't prove it scientifically (with one exception which I'll get to.) But they are there. They have always been there, and in just about every other activity known to humankind. It's like the tree falling in the forest -- it does make a sound regardless of whether anyone hears it, but by definition you can't prove it. It's just true. The one exception -- in other words, the one actual example I could point to of an apparently closeted gay Scouter -- exists due to the magic of the Internet and the protection of confidentiality for real names in this forum. You might also ask, can I prove he is what he says he is, and of course the answer is no, just like I can't prove that anyone on this forum is what they claim to be. I think we just accept that people are what they say they are, except in those very rare instances in which someone has behaved in a way that suggests otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Not experimental evidence but: Let's suppose that you have a large container of marbles of different colors. You don't know how many of each color. One of the colors is prohibited if it's found in the container. However, you can't look into the container. A steady stream of marbles of unknown colors continually replenishes the container. There is an opening in the container. Marbles also regularly leave. Every once in a while one with the prohibited color emerges. It is not allowed back in. Do you think there are other prohibited marbles still in the container? Link to post Share on other sites
cjmiam 10 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Why can't you look into the container? Link to post Share on other sites
packsaddle 753 Posted October 2, 2003 Share Posted October 2, 2003 Insufficient illumination. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now