Group Protests Boy Scouts Exclusionary Policies

[evmori 11]

Well, Dan, lower animals as you put it function pretty much on instinct. They don't have the decision making ability humans have. And actually, comparing animals to humans is like comparing apples to oranges.

 

Homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle. Call it my opinion if you want. There is no proof a human (not a lower animal) is born a homosexual. Yeah I know there are things to point to it! Whoopee! There are things that point to a lot of stuff that ain't so.

 

God clearly thinks homosexuality is immoral. He destroyed an entire city because of it!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[GernBlansten 10]

SR540Beaver,

So if 1 in 1000 (or whatever ratio you like) adults can't control their primal sexual drive, how should BSA protect the 14 to 21 yr old girls in venturing from heterosexual adult males? Either kick all the girls out, or all the adults.

Or are you saying that heteros can control their desires better than homosexuals?

[Hunt 11]

A few points to follow up on what others have said:

 

1. I was addressing why a parent might object to people with certain lifestyles serving as role models to their children. I agree that BSA hasn't made it clear why it sets a rule for one of these, but not others. Would BSA take action to remove a male leader who was living with a woman to whom he was not married? I really don't know. But again, I was countering the idea that it's irrational for anyone to object to gay leaders--it's not irrational at all, if your faith teaches that it's a serious sin.

2. Several people seem to assume that if a particular sexual orientation is genetically determined, that it thus can't be morally wrong to engage in actions consistent with that orientation. That does not necessarily follow, and certainly nobody would accept it as an excuse if it were proven that pedophilia is genetic, for example. Certainly, it makes it tougher to argue if you have to say that a person must be permanently celibate to avoid sin--but again, we'd say that about a genetic pedophile, wouldn't we?

3. I agree that it's of primary importance what the leaders actually do in front of the scouts. However, that's not the end of the story, especially if you live in a community where people have general knowledge of others. I may not want my child to look to a person as a role model when that person is living a lifestyle that my family considers immoral, even if the behavior doesn't appear in front of my child--it still matters if my child knows about it. I wouldn't want Bill Clinton or Newt Gingrich to be my son's unit leader, for example, because of their personal morals.

4. One more thing on "homophobia"--I don't think it's fair to label somebody as a homophobe simply because he believes that homosexual behavior is a sin. For me, what seems like homophobia is the disproportionate revulsion some people have to this particular sin, as opposed to others, and perhaps the disproportionate fear of harm from homosexual molestation as opposed to other forms of harm. I think it is FAR more likely that your child will get killed as a result of adults that don't follow safety rules than it is that your child would be molested by an openly gay scout leader. If you really want to protect your children, you'd do better looking into leaders' driving records than into their sexual leanings.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Beaver, I am glad you were able to tell your potential abuser no, I was not able and have lived with those memories ever since.

 

In your account, there is a church leader, known to be gay, who is allowed private one on one access to young men? And no one said a word to either the young men or the police or the church hierarchy? How is that similar to having a gay adult in a troop? As a BSA unit if all the Youth Protection Principles are adhered to, there should be no problems.

 

I understand your thoughts about the abused Timmy facing the counseler for the first time, but rather than making Scoutmaster Bruce, gay, why not just a pedophile? How do you explain to Timmy that even though Scoutmaster Bruce is married, has 3 kids and is known as a great guy, he is also a pedophile?. And the scenario of the abused scout molested by a married man is by far the most common one I have read about.

 

I liek the idea of the unit option, that the Chartering Organizations are responsible for selecting adult leadership. I have a question for the legal minds of the forum, could the Chartering Organization agreement be written in a way to take liability off the BSA and ont he CO if a wayward leader is accused?

[DanKroh 11]

Beaver:

 

"For those who want to allow gays, how would you counsel a scout who has been hit on or molested by that 1 in 1,000 leader.........after the fact? How would you justify your stance to him? Gee Timmy, I'm sorry that Scoutmaster Bruce molested you, but you need to keep in mind that God made him attracted to other men and it is just as normal as you being attracted to the girls at school. He shouldn't have done what he did to you, but it is normal for him. How consoled will Timmy be that adults who are supposed to look out for him actually argued to allow people in leadership who could hurt him."

 

Ok, how are you going to console Venture Scout Tanya when she is molested by (heterosexual) Scoutmaster Bruce? Or Timmy when he is molested by Scoutmaster Brenda. Or Timmy when he is molested by Scoutmaster Butch, a heterosexual man? Statistically speaking, all of these situations have a MUCH higher chance of happening than Timmy being molested by a gay scoutmaster. And molestation is not normal, no matter what one's sexual orientation.

 

Ok, one more time here.... gay does not equal pedophile. Gay does not equal molester (of adults or children). Gay does not equal rapist (of adults or children). Gay equals loving, consentual relationships between adults of the same gender.

 

Why are you more likely to control your "unnatural" urges toward a 16 year old young woman (who may be a scout under your charge if you are a Venturing leader) than a gay man is to control his "unnatural" urges (assuming he has any) toward a 16 year old young man in his charge?

 

And while a SM may go out of sight of the scouts to smoke, do you think they really can't tell what he was just off doing, when he comes back to them smelling of tobacco smoke? Do you really think it isn't running through their heads "Well, SM Cooldude does it, so it must be cool..."? Smoking is an addiction, which some people have trouble controlling (or more people would quit). Sorry, but I think the analogy is rather apt, given your parameters concerning homosexuality.

[DanKroh 11]

Hunt says: "Several people seem to assume that if a particular sexual orientation is genetically determined, that it thus can't be morally wrong to engage in actions consistent with that orientation."

 

Actually, genetic determination has nothing to do with morality in my book. I think it can't be morally wrong because I've seen the looks of love, the tender touches, the respect and uplifting between partners that occurs in homosexual relationships. I've seen such relationships heal the souls of those who have been lost all their lives. I've seen such relationships create families with children who grow into responsible, loving, wonderful adults in their own time. Forgive me if I wax poetic, but in my work and in my life, I have the seen the love, and I can't for the life of me label it immoral.

 

I agree with you (and with Beaver and his diabetes analogy) that not all genetic predispositions are automatically right and good. However, my point is that it has as much of a bearing on morality as other genetic predispositions. Is someone who has Type I diabetes "immoral" just because they deviate from the "norm" (norm here meaning "majority")? Is someone with brown hair somehow morally superior to someone with blonde hair?

 

If you are using the Bible as your justification, there are a lot of things that our society tolerates that are admonished more frequently and more vehemently than homosexuality. Things that are very obviously a choice, like divorce, lying, greed, yet we don't, as a society, try to abridge the rights of those who make too much money or who choose to get divorced. Why have we fixated on this one thing that harms no one and gets only passing mention in the Bible? Because they are a conveniently small minority (10% or so) that are easy to scapegoat.

 

Hunt, you don't think that this obsession with gays as potential child molesters who are unable to control their sexual urges fits your definition of homophobia? I have no problem with someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, but doesn't shout about it from the rooftops. It's those people who beat the wardrum to limit the rights of homosexuals to marry, to raise children, to be involved in our society as equal human beings because of the actions of someone else that causes no harm and does not affect them personally in any way. I think that fits your definition of homophobia pretty well.

 

If you want to think homosexuality is immoral, fine. If you even want to preach about it from your church pulpit or teach it in your Sunday school, go for it. But don't do it in my face (i.e. in public), or teach it to MY children, and don't try to use your idea of morality to codify discrimination into our laws. And since the BSA is NOT a Christian church, I personally think it has no place here, either.

[BrentAllen 10]

I don't honestly know whether homosexuality is a choice or not. I tend to believe it is a choice. When I hear George Michael claim he was hetero until he "tried" homosexuality, it makes me wonder if he would still be hetero if he hadn't tried the other side of the fence.

As far as worrying about girls in Venturing being molested by male Scoutmasters, they won't ever be sharing the same bathrooms or entering the tent of a young woman, without it being easily noticed by everyone. YP is supposed to prevent that even with the boys, but everyone has to admit a man entering a boy's tent would not draw near as much attention as a man entering a young woman's.

Interesting how some don't want us who are against homosexuality to be "in their face" about it, but are pretty "in your face" here about making the BSA change its existing policy.

[evmori 11]

Dan,

If I want to get in your face publicly or privately, I can. The 1st Amendment guarantees that!

 

And, yeah, it is interesting that those who think the BSA should allow homosexuals can "get in your face" but they don't want you to "get in their face" about homosexuality! Sounds like a case of "can dish it out but can't take it".

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[DanKroh 11]

Brent and Ed,

 

Since the context of my quote was Hunt's opinion of what makes the label "homophobic" warranted, I thought it was obvious that I was speaking about what kind of behavior leads me to consider someone homophobic.

 

You are, of course, perfectly entitled to be "in my face" about your homophobia, but then I will, of course, feel free to label it as such.

[Hunt 11]

"Actually, genetic determination has nothing to do with morality in my book. I think it can't be morally wrong because I've seen the looks of love, the tender touches, the respect and uplifting between partners that occurs in homosexual relationships. I've seen such relationships heal the souls of those who have been lost all their lives. I've seen such relationships create families with children who grow into responsible, loving, wonderful adults in their own time. Forgive me if I wax poetic, but in my work and in my life, I have the seen the love, and I can't for the life of me label it immoral."

 

Well, O.K. Of course, such an argument can be made for polygamous families, families in which the heterosexual partners aren't married, etc. I would probably say that just because somebody is involved in a sinful lifestyle doesn't mean that they are depraved in every area of their lives.

 

"I agree with you (and with Beaver and his diabetes analogy) that not all genetic predispositions are automatically right and good. However, my point is that it has as much of a bearing on morality as other genetic predispositions. Is someone who has Type I diabetes "immoral" just because they deviate from the "norm" (norm here meaning "majority")? Is someone with brown hair somehow morally superior to someone with blonde hair?"

 

How about somebody who is genetically predisposed to alcoholism, who drinks, drives, and kills somebody? Has he committed an immoral act? I would say that it's that person's misfortune--and burden--that his genetic makeup has put him at a greater risk of committing particular immoral acts than other people.

 

"Hunt, you don't think that this obsession with gays as potential child molesters who are unable to control their sexual urges fits your definition of homophobia?"

 

I do--I thought I said that.

 

"I have no problem with someone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, but doesn't shout about it from the rooftops. It's those people who beat the wardrum to limit the rights of homosexuals to marry, to raise children, to be involved in our society as equal human beings because of the actions of someone else that causes no harm and does not affect them personally in any way. I think that fits your definition of homophobia pretty well."

 

What specifically are you talking about? I was talking about somebody who doesn't want a gay person to be a Scout leader because they think homosexual behavior is a sin, and that the gay person wouldn't be a good role model. That certainly affects them personally. I don't think that's homophobia at all.

 

"If you want to think homosexuality is immoral, fine. If you even want to preach about it from your church pulpit or teach it in your Sunday school, go for it. But don't do it in my face (i.e. in public), or teach it to MY children, and don't try to use your idea of morality to codify discrimination into our laws. And since the BSA is NOT a Christian church, I personally think it has no place here, either."

 

I'm a little perplexed with the idea that discussing morality in public is somehow improper. Would you say that to somebody who was campaigning against legalized gambling on moral grounds? "Homophobic" is a beautiful PR creation--other interest groups should adopt the same approach. Opponents of gambling could be called "funophobes," opponents of alcohol could be called "alcophobes." Those who favor tougher immigration laws could be labeled "xenophobes"--(maybe that's already being done). My point is that the term "homophobia" has some bite when applied to people who exhibit over-the-top revulsion, but it loses its meaning if it simply means anybody who has any moral objections to any aspect of homosexual behavior. And by the way, are you OK with not teaching MY children that homosexuality is moral?

 

[Trevorum 24]

Dan,

I don't think "homophobia" is the correct word here, "phobia" meaning the fear of something. These people don't so much as fear homosexuality as they loathe it. I think a more apt word for this type of thinking would be "bigotry".

 

[Hunt 11]

Trevorum, which "people" are you intending to label? Does saying that you believe something is a sin mean that you "loathe" it? I like to draw distinctions and try to have a civil discourse, but I suppose it is easier to simply label people who disagree with you as "bigots."

[DanKroh 11]

"I'm a little perplexed with the idea that discussing morality in public is somehow improper."

 

Nope, nothing wrong with *discussing* morality in public. But there is a big difference between *discussing* morality and *preaching* about it. Most of the people I have seen speak against homosexuality in public are not so much interested in the discussion part as they are in the preaching about how it's immoral and evil part.

 

"My point is that the term "homophobia" has some bite when applied to people who exhibit over-the-top revulsion, but it loses its meaning if it simply means anybody who has any moral objections to any aspect of homosexual behavior."

 

And I don't feel the need to apply it to just anyone who has moral objections (as I said). It's when they use those moral objections to fuel a political agenda and to set policy that I find the term most applicable. And that includes setting a policy to deny a child access to a group like scouting. Remember that it's not just gay adults who are denied membership, but gay youth as well. Gay youth who are 2 to 3 more times likely to commit suicide (vs. non-gay youth) because of the alienation they feel in our society today. Do you think the BSA is currently contributing to that sense of alienation or ameliorating it?

 

As far as the good role model thing, I know lots of heterosexual adults that wouldn't make good role models, for lots of different reasons. But unless I'm expecting a leader to role model heterosexual behavior (NOT!), I see an essential disconnect between a person's sexual orientation and their ability to model behaviors that would be appropriate in the scouting setting. See, this is where the discussion breaks down. I ask for an example (other than their sexual orientation) of what behavior a homosexual leader can not role model in the scouting setting. And I am never given an answer that fulfills the caveat because the opposing side can't get past the sexual orientation thing. "They can't role model morality", you say. But why? Name one aspect of "moral behavior" other than who they love that they cannot adequately role model for a scout? Do they not treat others with respect? Do they not serve their community? Do they not engage in charity? Do they not go to church and show reverence? Are they not honest and trustworthy? What exactly is it that they can't do?

 

"And by the way, are you OK with not teaching MY children that homosexuality is moral?"

 

I sure am. Because I am living proof that someone can be inundated with anti-gay bigotry as a child and still grow up to make up their own mind about what they feel is moral.

 

See, Trev, I used the "b" word. But I generally try to reserve it for behavior I have personally experienced rather than the hypothetical behavior of others.

 

Edited to add: And actually, a phobia can also indicate a strong dislike (i.e. loating) or aversion, not just a fear.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

[Trevorum 24]

Hunt,

My comment was not meant to offend and I apologize if offense was taken. My point was semantics. Few people are actually "afraid" of homosexuality in the same sense that other people fear heights or spiders. T hese people are told by society (their parents, church, BSA) that homosexuality is morally wrong, deviant, dangerous, to be shunned, and just plain icky. When acted upon to cause harm to others, this belief becomes bigotry, and in precisely the same sense as racial bigotry. Yes, I do think that many people use the label "sin" and wrap themselves in religiousity to justify their bigotry. I know that many of these people are fine folks otherwise - we just disagree on some social issues.

 

-T

[SaintCad 10]

"And, yeah, it is interesting that those who think the BSA should allow homosexuals can "get in your face" but they don't want you to "get in their face" about homosexuality! Sounds like a case of "can dish it out but can't take it"."

 

Wow! Another hasty generalization from Ed. Not everyone is hypocritical about opening up discussion about homosexuality. What is hypocritical is that you don't want BSA promoting homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle to YOUR son but it's OK for BSA to demonize homosexuality to MY son. I know what you'll say: 1st Amendment/private organization, etc. but I just don't buy it. No one on the anti-homosexuality side has shown why homosexuality exclusively does not represent family values whereas divorced parents, single parents, people without children (by choice or not) do. And the (Judeo-Christian) morality angle doesn't work since (yet again) the Bible does not set BSA policy and if it did, A LOT of people could not be scouters like people with tattoos and menstruating women. Basically, your argument MUST show why ONLY homosexuals should be barred from Scouting and your argument that you don't like it is the weakest you've come up with yet.

 

I'm just curious what you would say if the BSA changes and ALLOWS homosexuals as scouters.