Jump to content

What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

Recommended Posts

"since my word isn't good enough on its own"


And, if I told you that TODAY I carefully and completely inspected every apple tree in an orchard of 10,000 for apple rust, will you believe me?


Of course not! If you would, you aren't as intelligent as I've been giving you credit for.


You're not thinking, HiLo.


When you tell me you know what's going on with 10,000 Scouts, that's the best construction I can put on it. There's no way you can know what you claim to know.


But, you missed my main point: I can't even be sure, if you COULD check up on the sexual activity of all 10,000 Scouts, of how you'd evaluate what you found.


After all the French don't think that drugging a 13 year old girl, and then forcing her to have anal sex is abusive enough to deserve prison time. Do you agree? If so, there are LOTS of things you might think were "fine", that many Americans would see as a huge problem.


But, there's more.


Organizations like to put their best foot forward. The BSA is ALL about looking good. I don't know it, but I'm guessing the Australian Scouts aren't far behind. And, I know the BSA is going to do its best to avoid publicizing sexual problems with Scouts. But here in the US, once you know, you've got to act. So, the solution is to "not know". Again, I'm pretty sure that there are at least some Australian Scouters quite familiar with techniques that allow them to "not know" about certain things.


Bottom line: you're right, I don't trust you, with regard to your claims. And, neither would anyone else who gave it a bit of thought.



Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 299
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry for not explaining myself well enough. Obviously I can't know what every one of 10,000 Scouts is doing. But I do know that the issue of homosexuality, a big one for you and the BSA, is not an issue in Australian Scouting. We have no rules about it, and I'm aware of no incidents where it was a concern within the past 15 years.


Just like in the USA, there are very strong youth protection policies, such as no adult member ever being allowed to be alone with a single youth member. And if another adult member ever becomes aware of such an event happening, and does not report it, that adult member is equally guilty.


As I hinted above, our biggest image problems come from the occasional "I was molested by my scoutmaster 20 years ago" story.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"But I do know that the issue of homosexuality, a big one for you and the BSA, is not an issue in Australian Scouting. We have no rules about it, and I'm aware of no incidents where it was a concern within the past 15 years."


It may be "no issue" for you, but the question is, WHY is it no issue?

+ Because you have no tents where one boy is experimenting on another boy?

+ Or because you don't mind that there are tents where such experimentation is taking place?

+ Or because you don't know, and avoid knowing what's going on?


One of the things I've realized from this discussion is that the 'head-is-in-the-sand' approach to sex I've seen among so many parents, both in and out of Scouting, extends to homo-sex with pro-gay adults. Many adults are convinced that -- whatever the price -- homos must be allowed everywhere heteros are allowed. Following this policy WILL have negative consequences, but the best way to avoid feeling guilty is to avoid thinking or knowing about such things.


I see this all the time, here, with respect to bullying in elementary or middle schools. This bullying often includes a sexual humiliation element. But parents who don't have available any better options than the public schools, don't like to think about what's going on, especially if their child is a part of the problem. And teachers, already overburdened with obligations, and who have lost all the most effective behavioral deterrents, would rather not think about what's going on either. For both, 'not thinking about it' is a way to avoid feeling responsible or burdened by the problems.


This thread has made me realize that that is PRECISELY the way many pro-gay adults will deal with the problems that will result in Scouting from allowing declared gays to participate. And, it's only reasonable to presume that this is ALREADY taking place to a greater or lesser degree in countries where declared gays are allowed in Scouting.


I don't know if you are behaving this way, Hilo, or not. But if you tell me that you observed X happening, I'll be likely to believe you. However, if you tell me that you did not observe X happening and that therefore it did not happen, I'll need to know if you were in the right place at the right time AND looking, when X might have happened.


And, since I don't know those things, I don't know how meaningful your assurances really are.




Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but this has really gone too far. I have not been strongly presenting my own personal views here, but describing how another Scouting body, another country, handles under age sex issues. That you insist on repeatedly turning this into an "I hate homos" discussion, filled with innuendo that I personally somehow condone and encourage homosexual behaviour with and between kids, is just plain insulting, both at a personal and national level.


I have to finally say that I find your ignorance, unwillingness to try to understand and, I finally must say it, bigotry, extremely offensive.


Good night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile.... New Jersey Senate defeats gay marriage bill. Whodda thunk it?


"Five states currently allow same sex marriage, while thirty have rejected similar measures in referendum votes. The state senate in neighboring New York, where many New Jersey residents work, rejected a gay marriage bill 38 to 24 in December."

Link to post
Share on other sites

HiLo, maybe we should ship GaHillBilly to a penal colony! :)


Seriously, you will find that in the USA, discussion of sexual orientation is about as conducive to civil discourse as discussions on abortion. My apologies.


Roughly speaking, I think the BSA should take about the same stance on leaders as the Girl Scouts. They have much more restrictive rules in some instances (training, background checks, etc.) and much less in other areas (religious / sexual litmus tests, etc.).


I remember a fellow den leader who came to the brilliant conclusion that because he had time constraints, his bear den would meet for one four hour meeting a month instead of a weekly den meeting. Now thats an understanding of the program! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

HiLo, that's the second time you've deliberately misrepresented what I've said. The first time, you lied . . . but it might have been an accident simply because you replied without first bothering to read what I'd said.


But for doing it twice, there's no excuse.


I have never said that "I hate homos", or anything that is equivalent to that. I defy you to produce a quote to that effect.


I never offered an opinion as to what your view were, beyond the fact that you want to allow gays in the BSA, for which you yourself have stated support. What I said was, that I DO NOT KNOW what your views are about youth sex. And I do not, for you have not stated them.


To respond as you have once might be an accident; twice is simply dishonest. I had not said before that I distrust you or considered you dishonest. But I say it now.


You are dishonest in your accusations and argument. The evidence is here for all to see, if they are willing to look.





For CA_Scouter: So, lying and misrepresenting another's statements meets with your approval? That's certainly revealing.


For acco40: When HiLo lies about what I've said, that's civil? And when I call him on it, that's uncivil? I suppose that's true, in PC world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

GaHillBilly - I don't know if you have sex with your mother or not ...


The above is not a lie, yet it is not civil discourse either.


Now, to the original question - What would have to change is gays were allowed in? Let me rephrase the question, What do you think should to change if gays were allowed in? Nothing that I can think of.


Gay or not, there is a decorum that exists in restrooms, showers, tents, out in the open that doesn't change. If my wife attends a campout with me, we keep our relationship platonic during the outing. I'd expect the same from all folks - youth and adult.(This message has been edited by acco40)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A very large amount of innuendo can be packed into a few totally honest statements.


GaHillBilly - your opinion of gay people is blatantly obvious. I humbly submit THAT'S what's on display here for all to see. It would probably be better for you and everybody else if you did openly say what it was, in a simple sentence or two.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CA_Scouter, my comment is an inference from your actions. HiLo first blatantly lied about what I'd said (stupid, since what I'd said was posted) and then followed up by deliberately distorting it. You said nothing about his actions.


But, when I bluntly call him on is, you rebuke me.


It's reasonable to infer that you find his action (lying and distorting) more civil than mine (bluntly challenging him on it), since you responded to one, not the other.



acco40, you are entirely correct that you don't know that. But I, unlike HiLo, *do* have data on the topic that can establish my statement that I do no such thing. She's been dead 2 years, and had idiopathic lung disease for 2 years prior to that, so she wasn't having sex with anyone, much less me.


Of course, I didn't in any way bring up the topic, or make it relevant.


By contrast, HiLo claimed to have information that it is improbable that he, or anyone else, possesses, and indeed, it would be hard for anyone to have that data.


So, while I would know the truth about your ridiculous statement, HiLo does not, and probably could not, know whether his was true. Perhaps, this too is a reflection of his cavalier regard for trustworthiness.



HiLo, you're either too lazy or too dishonest to have a right to post about what I've written. I have detailed the contacts I've had over the years with homosexuals INCLUDING the fact that I have worked for, and with, several different homosexual individuals without incident and with friendly and successful conclusion of the work AND that my wife currently works with a male gay elementary school teacher who she and I both respect highly AS A TEACHER, and with whom we both have friendly relations.


I don't know if you read those bits, and decided to AGAIN deliberately misrepresent what I've said, or if you just decided that reading my admittedly long posts was too much trouble, and so you'd just make stuff up.


Either one is dishonest.




However, I'm gonna quit. I thought I was talking with Scouts and Scouters here. But, my son read through this thread, and got curious about some of the posters. Google and a little investigative cleverness goes a long way, and he's found out some really surprising things. I'm not sure whether we'll post them or not.


But, since he's made no great secret of it, I'll mention Merlyn Leroy's case. He -- Brian Westley -- is the Maryland director of "Scouting for All", and according to his OWN bio information, that is his only association with Scouting. He has reported that he was once a Cub Scout. He also reports (not here!) that he has been actively involved in legal actions against Scouting. So, instead of discussing this with Scouters, I've, at least in part, been wasting my time with anti-Scouting political activists.





Link to post
Share on other sites

GaHillBilly writes:

But, since he's made no great secret of it, I'll mention Merlyn Leroy's case. He -- Brian Westley -- is the Maryland director of "Scouting for All"


No, Minnesota, though I have been checking into a Crew chartered by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, which, of course, can't charter a Crew.


and according to his OWN bio information, that is his only association with Scouting. He has reported that he was once a Cub Scout. He also reports (not here!) that he has been actively involved in legal actions against Scouting.


I've certainly reported that here before:


(bottom of first page)


By the way, the BSA STILL isn't being honest. They still have about 350 "traditional" units chartered to law enforcement agencies and correctional institutions, and I can only estimate what fraction of ambiguously categorized units like "playgrounds & recreation centers" and "fire departments" are unlawful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"No, Minnesota"


I stand corrected. I had it right in the notes, but my memory failed me as I wrote the post.


Regardless of that, your relationship to Scouting is 100% negative. As far as I can tell, you do not support anything that Scouting does, or is.


The only thing apparently that you actually SUPPORT is mandating a maximal presence of atheists and homosexuals among youth. If you win your campaign against Scouting, I suppose you'd simply turn to something else, like trying to force religious colleges hire gays or atheists.


You are here, not as a Scouter, but as a pro-gay, pro-atheist activist. Scouting is simply the particular realm on which you've focused your activism.


And, it appears you are not alone. However, the connections we've been able to make between some other forum names, and real life people, is not yet strong enough to post.



Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...