What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

[NJCubScouter 1389]

OGE, I agree. I have said previously in this thread though, that if the policy in question were changed, there might be some hypothetical situations in which it might be reasonable (and maybe advisable) for a leader to step in even without any evidence of what I would call "improper conduct", but "canoodling" will do also. Let's remember that the policy only deals with "avowed homosexuals", meaning those who are "openly" gay. In other words, they tell others about it and don't try to keep it a secret. (That is why all this is so "hypothetical", because to my knowledge, most gay teenagers tend not to be "open" about it, for reasons that have been discussed previously in this thread.) But let's say you did have two openly gay Scouts in your troop. If they wanted to share a tent, wouldn't some sort of warning light start flashing in your mind? Maybe I'm not as "liberal" as some people in this forum think I am, but I think I would see flashing lights. Yes, we trust the boys, but on the other hand, why invite trouble? It would probably depend on how much I know about the particular boys. And we would not be prying into the boys' personal lives, since in this scenario they have identified themselves as being gay.

 

And then, as I mentioned once before, there is the perception issue. We don't need other boys walking past the tent at night and saying "Ooooh, I wonder what's going on in there."

 

So I would probably have to think about it, but I do see the possibility that in at least some versions of this situation, some action might be warranted. At the same time, I don't think a national rule would be needed. It really depends on the particular situation.

[vol_scouter 365]

Hilo,

 

Before calling physicians with a quarter of a century experience names, please get your facts correct. Pedophiles have sex with prepubertal children and it is usually heterosexual. Amorous relationships between an adult and a post-pubertal child is a homosexual relationship. Please re-read the scout law and check your behavior. I have posted this information several times.

 

Pack,

 

I am sorry that you cannot be friends with alcoholics especially when they have a genetic propensity for that behavior and similarly for couples where one of the partners has a propensity for nymphomania. Clearly, I am able to be friends to a much wider group of people than you. I have stated many times that I believe long term homosexuals likely have a genetic propensity.

 

As usual, the left resorts to ad hominem attacks rather argue the salient point: Would allowing homosexuals in scouting increase in a statistically significant manner, the number of sexual l molestations? I find it hard to imagine how the incidence would decrease. If the answer is a significant increase in the incidence would you still argue for inclusion?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

As usual, the left resorts to ad hominem attacks rather argue the salient point: Would allowing homosexuals in scouting increase in a statistically significant manner, the number of sexual l molestations?

 

Oddly enough, the BSA never argued that supposedly "salient point" in court.

 

Would excluding blacks from scouting decrease in a statistically significant manner, the number of thefts?

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

Once again the left avoids the issue because they cannot argue it. First, I do not believe that blacks are more likely than any other group to commit theft. It is truly amazing that even the left could possibly equate theft to sexual molestation of a child. You are vile to equate the two. Clearly, you do not realize how such actions permanently scar people and make long term relationships difficult, they suffer from depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Such a statement is incredibly callous and wrong.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

Once again the left avoids the issue because they cannot argue it.

 

Well, that can't refer to me; I always argue the issues.

 

First, I do not believe that blacks are more likely than any other group to commit theft.

 

Got any statistics to back up your beliefs, or are they baseless?

 

It is truly amazing that even the left could possibly equate theft to sexual molestation of a child.

 

Nobody has done that; now you're just arguing dishonestly.

 

You are vile to equate the two.

 

You are vile to falsely suggest I equated the two.

 

Clearly, you do not realize how such actions permanently scar people and make long term relationships difficult, they suffer from depression, alcoholism, and suicide. Such a statement is incredibly callous and wrong.

 

Clearly, you toss out red herrings because you can't argue the issues.

 

 

Are you suggesting that being robbed is something good? I doubt that, but for some reason you dislike applying your same faulty "reasoning " to theft as you do to molestation. No, I'm certainly not equating the two beyond the fact that they are both undesirable. But you refuse to even address using your same sort of reasoning to other problems.

 

Why not reduce theft by barring people who belong to any group that disproportionately commits theft? Whether you can categorize people as "black" or "poor" or "uneducated" or whatever, I'm sure there are some statistics that show some groups of people commit theft more often than the general public. So, using your reasoning, excluding people in that group will help reduce theft.

 

Unless you're just special pleading.

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

Argue the point. You did equate theft to molestation. You make personal attacks. I have never seen a socio-economic age matched study that says that one group is more likely to steal than another. I guess you believe that blacks are more likely to steal. You are truly a pitiful individual.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

Merlyn,

 

Argue the point. You did equate theft to molestation.

 

No, I didn't. It's useless to try and argue with someone like you.

[HICO_Eagle 93]

Merlyn said:

 

"Would excluding blacks from scouting decrease in a statistically significant manner, the number of thefts?"

 

That seems pretty clear-cut in analogizing theft with the crime vol_scouter was referring to.

 

vol_scouter, you really don't need to generalize your point to "the left". There are some specific hard core left-wingers here who argue obtusely but I don't think it applies universally to "The Left". Your question about a statistically significant increase is inconvenient so you flat-out won't get an answer to it from any of the ideologues.

[vol_scouter 365]

HICO_Eagle,

 

I try not offend but I am often attacked by folks on this list and other places who make ad hominem attacks. In fact, most of the criticism that I receive is such attacks. From my standpoint, they are all on the left. From my perspective reading other posts, it is lopsided that way. I should not use such a broad brush and obviously my perspective is skewed - just as those on the other side. My apologies if you have been improperly categorized.

 

As to your point, if those who wish to open scouting up to homosexuals cannot in some way argue in a reasonable and logical way that the incidence of sexual molestation will not increase in a statistically significant manner, the current policy should stand. To say otherwise is to sacrifice children for a social goal. In the case of sexual molestation of children, that is immoral.

 

Merlyn,

 

I agree that you should quit trying to argue weak points where you always lose, get angry, and attack others.

[HiLo 10]

vol_scouter tells me "Pedophiles have sex with prepubertal children and it is usually heterosexual. Amorous relationships between an adult and a post-pubertal child is a homosexual relationship."

 

I'm sorry. There may be a cultural difference in definitions here, but I also note that you seem to have an obsession about homosexuals doing the wrong thing, not just by being homosexual, which doesn't bother me in the slightest, but by having sex with under age children. You didn't even think of under age hetero sex when you wrote the above, did you? Just those evil gays. Under age sex is not just against Scouting philosophies, but it's illegal, for males and females, in most countries. I'm not aware that homosexuals are more of a problem than heterosexuals in this area.

 

And I can't see how being a physician for 25 years makes you more of an expert than anyone else here on why homosexuals can't be trusted. We all have diverse experiences that educate us in these areas. I see no point in trying to outscore you with my experiences. Stop being so arrogant.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

HICO_Eagle writes:

"Would excluding blacks from scouting decrease in a statistically significant manner, the number of thefts?"

 

That seems pretty clear-cut in analogizing theft with the crime vol_scouter was referring to.

 

And notice that it doesn't suggest anywhere that the crimes are of the same severity. Well, no, apparently you don't notice that.

 

vol_scouter writes:

I agree that you should quit trying to argue weak points where you always lose, get angry, and attack others.

 

fortunately, I don't do that. Have fun beating up straw men, though.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[vol_scouter 365]

HiLo,

 

I have never said that homosexuals were evil. Any sexual molestation of children is too much. I do consider heterosexual relationships with minors to be as damaging as homosexual relationships. You called me names when you did not use the correct definition of pedophile as defined psychiatry. You called me ignorant when in fact I am more knowledgeable than you. When this is pointed out, you are more insulting by calling me arrogant. How many HIV/AIDS patients have you cared for? How many times have you risked exposure to blood and body fluids of such patients in order to help them when waiting for appropriate protection would jeopardize their outcome? Read the scout law again, you actions are not what is expected of scouters.

[HiLo 10]

I'll just say again....

 

We all have diverse experiences that educate us in these areas. I see no point in trying to outscore you (or anybody else) with my experiences.

 

I still don't see why under-age sex is more of a problem with gays. It would still be both illegal and against Scouting rules. Do you really think gays are more likely than heterosexual people to breach those laws and rules?

[Oak Tree 15]

Kay424 writes - I was able to find a quotation from the litigation department of the BSA guidelines that does say I, as a human being, living of my own free will and with the constitutional right for the pursuit of my own happiness, am legally not allowed by the BSA as an organization to lead their youth.

 

Kay - I'm sorry that the organization does not welcome you. I'm sure you are making a positive contribution and will be missed, if you do decide to resign. You do have the option of continuing to work with the kids if your unit wants you to. You also have the option of continuing in a don't-ask-don't-tell fashion, which appears to be what many gays do. I don't believe that would be actually illegal, in the sense that it is against any actual government law (just a BSA policy). It's not even really against BSA policy, which only prohibits "known or avowed" gays - so if no one in the organization knows you're gay, it doesn't appear to be a problem.

 

P.S. I realize that you mean that pursuing your own happiness doesn't hurt anyone else, but it's not the strongest argument. First, that's not actually in the constitution, and secondly, there are lots of people who pursue their own happiness in ways that would make them not good choices for Cub Scout leaders.

[Oak Tree 15]

vol_scouter - how about this? We do a study and figure out which age range of adults is the most common to commit sexual offenses. (18-25, 25-30, 30-35, 35-40, ...) I'm sure BSA already has the data. Then we will ban that age range from being Boy Scout leaders. If we have a chance to reduce any sexual molestation of children, why wouldn't we do it?