Jump to content

"Straight." Does the institution need to change?

Recommended Posts

Hopefully nothing will change. If SCOUTUS stays the same and Judge Alito is confirmed, the BSA will be safe for the time being. However, the future may be different.

One thing that will happen if "membership is opened" and openly gay people are admitted to the BSA, is that the BSA will be fractured.


One possibility is that the Non-Gay COs will disassociate with the Pro-Gay COs, all the while staying in the BSA. That is the best case.

But thats not going to happen. The main churches that charter the most units and boys have said so.


What is more likely is that the Non-Gay COs will pull out of the BSA.

This will leave the BSA a shadow if it's former self and would probably be it's doom. If you take just the conservative religious organizations into consideration you have over half of the membership.

They would probably set up their own seperate organizations (unless they could come to some kind of agreement from a neutral party, but then the problem would come up again)

As for the remains of the once proud BSA? Now the Gay-BSA. I give it less than five years until bankruptcy.

Maybe they could have a membership drive/fundraiser with NAMBLA?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 129
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In a sense, BSA already has a "fracture" in it. The LDS units are allowed to run a program that is "kinda/sorta" like "regular" BSA units. This was covered in quite some detail in other threads and it's clear that the LDS units are different.


The reference to NAMBLA was, of course, ridiculous, and I'm assuming was just a joke. I hope.


Now, there's another point of view of what would happen if BSA were to allow gays in their membership. Of the people I know in Scouting, and it's not like I know everybody, but I know a good number, the vast majority have kind of a "so what?" mentality about gays in Scouting. Not for, not against, just "so what?". There are a few, a minority, who are very against gays in Scouting, and say so. My gut says that if gays were allowed, there might be some grumbling, but if gays joined and it was a non-event, as I suspect it would be, the grumbling would stop, and life in Scouting would go on. I agree that some number of units would be dissolved in the process and possibly join another organization. Maybe those people would join the LDS units and form "Christian Scouts of America". I think after a drop in membership as these folks leave BSA, there would be resurgence as more middle of the road thinkers bring their kids into Scouting; those that stay away now. In the long run, it could be that BSA prospers more than ever before, as it becomes a more moderate institution that doesn't just reflect the views of particular religions, while still instilling the same strong character traits it always has, only better. Meantime, the "CSA" formed from the people who left BSA could pursue their own belief system. I suspect that they would be the ones that would be marginalized, and become the lesser for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites


Spoken like a true blue-stater. Here in this red state, your sentiments would be 180 degrees out of phase. The super-majority here are absolutely against allowing gays in. A very small minority would be in favor, and a small number would say "so what?" What different worlds we live in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have noted before that unless one's understanding of genetics goes beyond mid-digital hair, discussion of developmental processes is a waste of time. Until one's knowledge of genetics is more substantial, one might as well quietly stick with whatever prejudice is there and try not to invite further embarrassment.

Also, I happen to know that BSA already HAS gay leaders and other gay members. You just don't know who they are and I'm not going to 'out' them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Packsaddle, I assume your knowledge of genetics goes "beyond mid-digital hair". So perhaps you can explain why twin studies do not have a 100% correspondence when one identical twin of the pair is gay, but the other is not.


I am not aware of any studies of identical twins in which the correspondence is 100%. If homosexuality is genetically based, how can the correspondence for identical twins be anything less than 100%?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what you are saying is those gay leaders and Scouts don't live by the Scout Law - A Scout is Trustworthy. Honesty is part of his Code of Conduct. They know homosexuals are not allowed in as members, but join anyway, deceitfully. Doesn't sound too honest to me, and they don't sound like Scouts and Scouters to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites



What you fail to mention in your citation of the twin studies of Bailey and Pillard is that if there is NO genetic component to homosexuality, there should be no different in the concordance of homosexuality between monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins.


However, while there is only a 22% concordance among dizygotic twins, there is a 52% concordance among monozygotic twins. How do you explain that difference?


Yes, monozygotic twins share the same genes, but once the zygote splits, there are many in-utero factors that affect the expression of those genes, factors which are not entirely understood by molecular biologists and geneticits even today.


In 2004, the Americal Psychological Association published an article about twin studies, and said that while they are still relevant and an important tool in the study of genetics, they are also still considered controversial by many scientists.



And yes, with degrees in biology and psychology, I do have a knowledge of genetics that goes "beyond mid-digital hair" and an outdated Mendalian interpretation of gene expression, especially when it comes to genetic influence on human behavior.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The other thing that fgoodwin's analysis of "twin studies" fails to mention is that homosexuals can be "born that way" without it being purely genetic, or even genetic at all.


Current theory on the genesis of homosexuality has to do with hormone-exposure in-utero. That means that if we follow the position that homosexuality is in no way genetic, homosexuals still come out of the womb "programmed" to be homosexual. It is still "determined at birth".


Fgoodwin, you said "And until "gayness" is found to be determined at birth and therefore not changeable, I think drawing comparisons between the way BSA (or even society at large) deals with sexual orientation vs. race is premature."


I think those comparisions are no longer premature. They seem to have come to full term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We all come out of the womb "programmed" with desires that we suppress in order to live in a civilized community. We all might want a new Ferrari, but unless we can afford it, most of us will settle for what we can obtain legally. Those who can't usually end up in jail. We might be attracted to young 20-year-old women hanging out on the beach in bikinis, but we suppress those desires because we love our wives. Those who don't end up divorced.

IIRC, I heard George Michael say he was heterosexual until he got wasted on night and "tried" homosexuality. If he had not "tried" it, would he consider himself gay now? I hear about men who are supposedly gay, but are married with children. The homosexual community lament that these men can't be true to themselves. I say congratulations for suppressing those desires. So, to me, "programmed" or not, it is still a choice.

Serious question: Are rapists or child molestors "programmed" by their genetics? Are they mentally ill, or just criminals?

Link to post
Share on other sites

For a serious question, I will happily give you a serious answer.


Current thinking is that child-molesters may indeed be programmed that way at birth, either by genetics or in-utero influences. However, so are a lot of other mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, depression, OCD that are "inborn" as well. So are a lot of learning disabilities like ADHD, dyslexia. So are a lot of somatic disorders like diabetes.


Homosexuality was removed from the DSM-MD in 1975. The APA does not consider homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem. They consider therapy to "convert" homosexuals or attempts to repress their homosexual orientation to be potentially very harmful to a person's well being.


Yes, we all have desires that we suppress because suppressing them benefits society, or benefits us in some tangible way. We police rapists and child-molesters because they cause harm to others; preventing that harm is a benefit to society. In what way does suppressing homosexuality benefit society or the individual, other than to satisfy a moral code of a certain segment of the religious community?


edited for clarity(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Link to post
Share on other sites

fgoodwin, I think you may have an incomplete understanding of what genetically based means. As DanKroh said, its not only what genes are there, but what factors influence them. (DanKroh, I dont think its just in-utero factors, either.) Not all genes become expressed.


In other words, even if the hypothesis all homosexuality is genetically caused is true, it does not follow that every homosexuality gene causes homosexuality. Therefore, a less-than-100% correspondence in twin studies does not negate the hypothesis.


I tend to think of it this way: A gene is like a ball on a mountaintop. It might sit there forever or it might get nudged and roll down the hill. If it rolls down the hill (i.e., becomes expressed), the mountain (i.e., phenotype) will look different. Things that can trigger the gene are hormones (in-utero and ex-utero) and, I maintain, viruses.


For example, I think a gene codes for juvenile diabetes. However, merely having the gene is not enough to actually get diabetes. Something has to come along to trigger it. I wager its a virus that does the triggering. (Id like to know whether twins have been studied in this context and, if so, what resulted.)


I wager the same is true for homosexuality. We already know there is a continuum of gender psysiologymost men possess male genetalia and reproductive anatomy and most women possess female, but some possess both or a blend. (You can look it up.) It is not so hard, then, to infer that sexuality follows a similar continuum.


I agree with Trevorumin ten years well know a lot more than we do now about this issue. If I turn out to be right about viruses triggering the diabetes gene youll all owe me a dollar.



Cubmaster and retired clinical chemist


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, welcome to the Forums.


Thanx for your explanation. I don't mean to be argumentative, but can you give other examples of genetically determined traits in identical twins where the correspondence is 50% or less?


Does it happen with eye, hair or skin color, for example?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam, welcome! (wow, what a great first post!)


I am very interested in your statements about type 1 diabetes being triggered by a virus. This confirms what I was told just last month when my son was diagnosed. What research supports this hypothesis? Are there any parallels in oncology?

Link to post
Share on other sites



Parkinson's disease: concordance in twin studies is 15.5% for MZ, 11.1% for DZ. The gene for Familial Parkinson's disease is located on Chromosome 4, according to the Human Genome Project.


Adam, I do think you are right that there are many, many factors ex-utero that affect gene expression. Thanks for adding your explanation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...