Jump to content

What would have to change if gays were allowed in?

Recommended Posts

Yes. Let's not cloud the discussion. Just as homosexuality does not equal pedophilia, it also doesn't equal rampant sexual activity on Scout camps.


Neither of those last two activities are welcome in Scouting

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Lisa, I didn't say what you said:


"But, I'm coming to realize that many gay advocates, outside this forum, wish no such thing: they plan for, and actually prefer, that teens be sexually active and 'experimental'. I'm not sure that all are completely conscious of this, or of the contrast between their goals and those of others here. What I've noticed, HERE, is that the idea of Scouts having sex together, at camp or on a campout, whether it's homo or hetero sex, seems to fall into the 'ho-hum' category for the gay advocates. If I'm right, they may be 'downplaying' the negatives because they don't SEE them as negative.


I'm not sure about all this . . ."


Please note the phrase "outside this forum", and the last phrase "I'm not sure about all this".




However, if you want to know WHY I think that what I wrote MAY apply to some of the pro-gay folk here, there is a reason though I haven't stated it before.


Sexual hazing and sexual activity -- if it occurs -- is most likely to occur on outings and especially in sleeping or showering situations. This is why most non-family group activities have ALWAYS segregated by sex.


The assumption behind that segregation was simple. It was presumed that if you put people who may be sexually attracted to each other together in a sleeping or showering situation, sexual activity, consensual or not, will occur with a significant frequency.


And, the solution was simple: keep people who may be sexually attracted to each other apart, in bathing or sleeping situations! In more naive times, it was assumed that this was as simple as keeping boys and girls apart, because the boys wouldn't be attracted to other boys, and so on.


Nobody here (or anywhere) has challenged the validity of either the assumption or the solution. So, presumably everyone here agrees that if you put kids together in a sleeping or bathing situation, some of whom are sexually attracted to each other, sexual activity will occur.


OK, that's what every has agreed to, either implicitly or explicitly. So, to keep things straight, let's use the term "sexual segregation" to refer, not just to keeping boys and girls apart, but to keeping ALL Scouts out of tents which contain people they are attracted to, OK?


Now, to the controversy.

=> First, it's been asserted that taking gays camping is not a problem.

=> Second, it's been accepted that "sexual segregation" is the correct way to prevent sexual misconduct.


That immediately produces a conundrum: how can you carry out "sexual segregation", when ANY two people present may be sexually attracted to the other?

+ you can't put boys and girls together for obvious reasons.

+ you can't put boys and men, or boys and women, together for all the reasons that are covered in YPT.

+ but, add in gays, and NOW, you can't put boys and gays, because the gay boys are attracted to the hetero boys, regardless of what the heteros feel.

+ and, you can't put gays and gays together for reasons that are just as obvious.


All that's left is "one Scout, one tent", and yet the gay advocates are NOT advocating that!


So what's left, for our gay advocates?

1. Sexual segregation is impractical once gays are allowed, which they know.

2. They do NOT advocate the impractical "one Scout, one tent".

2. In the absence of effective segregation, gay activity -- welcomed or not -- will occur with some frequency.

(JUST LIKE hetero activity -- welcomed or not -- would occur if you put boys in the girl's tent.)

3. Knowing these things, they STILL want gays on Scout camping trips.


Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that the idea of gay sex on Scout camping trips doesn't disturb them nearly as much as it does me or the parents I know. There could be another explanation, beside my conclusion. But they haven't offered it, and my conclusion remains a reasonable, if unproven, one.






PS. Some will be inclined to retort there are ALREADY gays present. And I will agree. I would have suspected it before, but after seeing some excerpts from RECOMMENDED teen materials on the GLSEN.org site, have to acknowledge that it obviously has occurred. However, what's described in the excerpts there is gay boys finding gay boys and mixing it up in deep secret. And that ALL.




Because under current regs -- just like in the Army -- an accusation of gay activity, even if it's 'he said, he said' is going to bring everything to a screeching halt, and almost certainly result in a fast trip home for everyone involved, and probable immediate expulsion of any ID'd gays. Fear of severe consequences can often (not always) restrain behavior that would otherwise occur.


So, just like in the Army, a few gays may find each other, but most will either remain celibate, or keep their sexual activity far, far way from either Scouts or the Army.


Just like in the Army, that restraint will vanish when the severe consequences are replaced with acceptance. The consequences were recently graphically illustrated by the punitively coercive homosexual environment that was tolerated at the US Embassy in Kabul, till the gay security staff managers were outed, by an audit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple. Underage sex with any gender combination is unacceptable in Scouting (as well as illegal). Putting a gay boy with a non-gay boy does not make it any more likely. In patrol tents, no two boys (gay or otherwise) are going to play up with all the others watching. Or, if they do, the secret won't last long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HiLo, you are posting utter nonsense! You wrote, "Putting a gay boy with a non-gay boy does not make it any more likely."


This is logically identical to having said, "Putting a girl with a boy does not make it any more likely." . . . which is simply idiocy. If that were actually true, YPT would only apply to adults.



Gern, I can make up stupid insults too, but there's no point. We're not on the playground anymore.



Lisa, since I posted another explanation did occur to me: psychological denial. HiLo seems to be an example. I should have thought of it -- I've done more PC rescue work for 'friends' than I ever wanted to do, and I have never found a PC used by a teenage boy that didn't have porn on it. At the same time, every single parent I dealt with denied that that could be happening -- usually, it was "because of their cousin" or friend. (You have to tell them: free 'pron' = malware, Trojans, & viruses!)


So, I'll acknowledge that (denial) as another plausible explanation.







BTW, about now, some of you are thinking, "Oh now, did that Best Buy tech find the porn on my machine when he recovered the hard drive or removed the viruses?" Answer: "Yeah, about 5 minutes after he turned it on." Unless you wipe the drive, it's virtually impossible to remove it, if it's ever been there.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am glad to know that what I thought I read was not what you thought you were saying. It might have been the "HERE" part that led me to believe you were talking about those of us on this forum, you know, here.


At any rate, your argument hinges on the idea that sexual predation is a major issue among gay youth when they are with their non-gay, same-gender friends. Seems kind of unlikely to me. I truly do not agree with this idea that gay people are more likely than straight people to force unwanted sexual attention on others.


By the way - out of curiosity and only tangentially related - people keep talking about how 1-man tents will never be acceptable. Huh. Looking through the backpacking catalogs, I see a whole lotta one man tents out there. They must be popular with other outdoor types. (Come to think of it, nearly all the adults in my son's troop seem to have one man tents. So do I. What's good for us isn't good for the boys, hmm?)



Link to post
Share on other sites

One-man tents are certainly acceptable in our troop. But they aren't mandated. I think the objection would be to mandating them.


One-person tents, one-person restrooms, one-person showers - that would pretty much solve any of the youth protection concerns that have been presented. And I do see that we are generally heading in that direction in a lot of places.


I am still curious, though - for those who support the acceptance of gays into troops, and who don't think any changes are necessary in the youth protection rules - why would you say it would be ok for two gay kids to sleep together in a tent, but not for a boy and a girl to sleep together in a tent?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"At any rate, your argument hinges on the idea that sexual predation is a major issue among gay youth when they are with their non-gay, same-gender friends."


Not at all, as I think you already know.


My "argument hinges on the idea that" there is no functional difference between letting a male hetero in a girls shower room . . . and letting a gay guy in a guys shower room.


Y'all are acting like idiots. I don't think ostriches ever actually do put their heads in the sand. But y'all -- it wouldn't be safe to take y'all to a beach. So many suffocated SMs would be hard to explain.


I guess y'all have never wet yourself, trying to get your junk back in your pants because a hulking gay gay had occupied the urinal next to you, and was leaning over to get a good look! Good for you! I certainly didn't find it an enjoyable experience. American guys traveling alone in Europe in the 70's were the potentially weak victim that Euro-gays pursued and tried to coerce. It was not a fun element of that year, for me or for other guys who experienced the same.


But when you try to imply that gay guys in the shower aren't going to behave like hetero guys in the girl's shower, you are just convincing me that you prefer PC dogma to facts.


I would not have guessed how determined many here are to deny the obvious.


What is particular amusing, in a depressing sort of way, is that several here who are all "Evolution's the answer!" in a sneering sort of "I'm smarter than you way" are, in the realm of gay behavior, determined to overlook the sociobiological implications of putting stronger youths with younger youths they are attracted to.


Stronger males -- in many mammalian species, including -- tend to take (force, rape, coerce) sexual activity from weaker victims to which they have easy and safe access. There is ZERO reason to suppose that this sort of behavior which occurs between senior football 'studs' and freshman cheergirls, or between male Army sergeants and female privates, or between stronger male prisoners and weaker ones . . . will not occur among Scouts.


But, our fearless evolutionary males here stand firm for evolutionary truth, till it becomes inconvenient, and then they hop in step with the latest PC double-think.


You only have to look at the recommended texts on the GLSEN site to discover that active gays think gay guys coerce others into sex: they describe their own experiences being coerced. Again, you only have to look to discover that they hope gay / gay sex goes on at Scout camps: they describe their fantasies in detail.


But, I'm afraid some of you are perfectly happy to submit some (1%? 3%? 5%?) of your young Scouts to the tender embraces of older gay Scouts who are "just exploring their sexual diversity with their peers". At least, doing that makes you happier than slogging through the incredibly explicit descriptions of what gay advocates think young gays should think and explore and do.


I don't know what the actual percentages are. I've seen figures in the Army to the effect that 10% of all Army females are raped at some point during their enlistment cycle.


But, it will happen.


Some of you are reasonably well read.


Have you never read anything of what traditionally went on in just such an older boy / younger boy situation in the traditional British public schools? Where do you think the word "faggot", which used to mean a bundle of wood, got it's meaning?


And it's most likely that today's Scoutmasters will do just about as well as those headmasters did. I have NO confidence that many SMs will forcefully confront out of bounds behavior. What I've seen suggests just the opposite; that they will put their head in the sand in order to avoid acknowledging that the Eagle or Star or Life Scout THEY trained is so warped.


I thought I'd grasped the worst in Scouting, when I finally wrapped my mind around the skill-less-ness of most of the leaders and the dishonesty of the advancement process in the majority of troops today. But, I'm realizing that I'm wrong. There's even worse stuff I hadn't understood.


Still, I'm finding this discussion very educational and stimulating. So, that's good.





Link to post
Share on other sites

Oak Tree,

You want to know what would change, right?


The make up of the Supreme Court would have to change. If it gets packed with enough liberal activist justices, then another suit could come along and then we'd get some liberal garbage thrown at us like girls, atheists and gays. It's the make up of the SCOTUS that make presidential elections SO important, nominations (and subsequent confirmation) last a generation.


Merlyn, you mentioned on 12/12/09 "There's no "right" not to be bothered or annoyed per se." - - - - Kinda relates to atheists and Nativity scenes, crosses and so on, just look away, look away, look away. (but I digress)


Link to post
Share on other sites

GaHillBilly - I really don't appreciate the "utter nonsense" accusation.


Let's test you. You're on a camp with Scouting adults you haven't met before. You're sharing a tent with a guy who turns out to be gay (despite the fact that he shouldn't be in Scouts).


He propositions you.


Do you instantly say yes? Of course not.


Yet you seem to think that putting a gay boy with a non gay boy somehow means instant sex.


I don't understand your position. (It's late in the year and it's the big holidays coming up in these parts. I know I'm a bit tired and in need of a break, so excuse me if I'm totally misunderstanding you.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gern, your post immediately followed mine, so was it intended to be in response?


So having and using a one man tent is the same as promoting the homosexual agenda. God I love this place!


I'm certainly not saying that and would disagree with it whole-heartedly. I think we're moving to one-man tents and showers because of an increasing sense of privacy. Over time I've seen various showers converted from room-wide showers to versions with increased privacy. I think adults like to sleep in their own tents, and some boys sure do, too. I have a one-man tent and I'm only trying to promote my own comfort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gonzo1 writes:

Merlyn, you mentioned on 12/12/09 "There's no "right" not to be bothered or annoyed per se." - - - - Kinda relates to atheists and Nativity scenes, crosses and so on, just look away, look away, look away.


Which is exactly how I and every other atheist handles it -- for nativity scenes and crosses on people's lawns, in front of churches, and the like.


When the government erects religious symbols, or only permits some people to put their displays on government property, it's not merely annoying, it's unlawful government promotion of religion, and even some religious people like the Reverend Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State are opposed, even though they may agree with the religious views currently being promoted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oak, to respond to your question, there is also the matter that gay people make up a much smaller percentage of the population than hetero people. So the probability of two gay boys tenting together is far smaller, than the probability of a hetero girl and a hetero boy tenting together. It is not zero, of course, but it isn't high on the list of things I worry about, either.


Add to that the fact that many gay people do not "come out" until they are adults. This will further reduce the likelihood that two openly gay boys are likely to be tenting together at a scout function.


Add to that the fact that there remains a taboo on same-sex orientation in many circles involving middle school and early high school aged boys. This will further reduce the likelihood that, even if they are tenting together, two openly gay boys in the midst of an entire troop - where tent walls are thin, privacy isn't really enormous, and the risks of being caught are very high - will engage in sexual behavior anyway.


Add to that the fact that unwanted sexual advances are extremely risky - and not likely to work out well for the boy making the advances on his brother scout. Kids are kids, but they aren't dumb. This will further reduce the likelihood that gay boys are going to start hitting on their patrol mates at scout events.


Add to that the fact that sexual behavior of ANY KIND is unacceptable on scout outings - something that all scouts in any troop should fully understand from the outset (if not, the troop has some other challenges). This will further reduce the probability of the small percentage of openly gay boys using a scouting event as an opportunity to engage in sexual behavior.


Put all of this together and I think GA HillBilly is imagining some sort of gay boy scout version of the "summer of love" based on fear or revulsion or something, rather than based on reality.


Of course he thinks I'm delusional too, no doubt, so I suppose we are even.


Finally, GAHillBilly, you bring in the issue of rape in the military. Of course this is deplorable that it occurs. The solution, though, might be to establish a culture within the military where this is unthinkable (rather than tacit approval for sexually harassing women - remember tailhook, for example). The solution is not necessarily to lock up your women. I venture to say the same is true of scouting. The solution is to ensure that everyone knows that no sexual behavior is acceptable on a scout outing. Period.





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