Philadelphia Council Flouts Scouts' Antigay Stance

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | May 29,2003 | By Linda K. Harris and Miriam Hill

[savagesusie]

I find it interesting that I've heard of more child abuse in the church than in the boy scouts.

There has definately been assaults on the boy scouts by gay leaders. In fact, there was a case that went to court last year. The media (who have a pro-gay agenda) hide all the homosexual abuse...and legal cases...they just feature the Sam Shephard cases where homosexuals are VICTIMS, never the perpetrators.

[RonF]

Oh, don't get me wrong. The BSA Federal Charter says that "The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916." And there's little question in my mind that on June 15th, 1916, "morally straight" was generally presumed to exclude homosexuality.

What I'm saying is that when most people read the BSA Oath and see the phrase "morally straight", they don't consider it in the context of when it was written. They think of it in the context of contemporary culture. And to many people in America today, "morally straight" doesn't automatically exclude homosexuals. Hence the controversy.

So a lot of people would like the BSA should change to accomodate this. After all, the BSA used to have segregated Troops, and that changed. It used to exclude women from leadership positions. That changed. And it's arguable in both cases that the BSA wouldn't have survived unless those changes had taken place.

Accepting homosexuals as being eligible for leadership positions (I'll leave accepting homosexual youth for a different discussion) would be different, though. Despite assertions to the contrary, homosexuality is different than race or gender; the latter two are clearly and wholly biological in origin, and there is no demonstration that the differences among the races or genders makes any difference in their abilities or fitness. Whereas homosexuality is generally perceived to be at least partly behavioral choice, and there are many who believe that choice to be a moral question.

Accepting integrated leadership has little controversy, at least now. The various sponsors accepted it; those who didn't weren't missed. Accepting women as leaders is still somewhat controversial, but most sponsors have accepted it. Some haven't; notably the Mormon Church, who enroll 1/8 of all BSA members. But while they disapprove of enrolling female leaders, as it violates the tenets of their religion, they accept the presence of female leaders in other units. Apparently they can handle the messages that these other units send to their Scouts.

But the line has been drawn at accepting homosexuals. There are sponsors that would accept this. But at least one of the sponsors that can't, namely the LDS, says that they can't handle the message that this sends; that even though they themselves wouldn't accept homosexuals as leaders, they can't allow their youth to see that any Scouts can accept homosexuals as leaders. They say that if this happens, they'll quit the BSA. And while no one else has said this for the public record, I suspect that they're not alone. This kills off the possibililty of adopting "local option", which would be where some units would be free to accept people of a certain makeup or behavior (like women, or abortion providers) that other units exclude. Unless the BSA was willing to see those groups leave the BSA, as they were willing to see groups that wouldn't accept including blacks and women leave the BSA.

[RonF]

Nobody wants their kid being tucked in at night by a pederast.

I haven't seen anyone propose this. And even the BSA doesn't equate homosexuality with pederasty (see my earlier reference to the BSA web site). So what's your point?

[KCmark]

Read again.

I find it interesting that I've heard of more child abuse in the church than in the boy scouts.

I could qualify that with 'a lot' more. I was responding to the poster who said the moral majority and such is our salvation against pedos. I don't think they are.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Sodomites want access to BSA. Sodomites are abnormally disparate victims of molestation. Sexual abuse victims repeat their abuse. Homosexuals seek victims.

The pathology is there if you wish to see it. Common sense does. Only in a court of law would the relationship of sodomy and child abuse be questioned.

As I said before: "Nobody wants their kid being tucked in at night by a pederast."

[RonF]

Only in a court of law would the relationship of sodomy and child abuse be questioned.

Actually, the relationship is questioned in one other place I know of for sure. From the BSA's web site

FICTION

The Boy Scouts of America has chosen to exclude avowed homosexuals from the ranks of its members and leaders because of a fear of pedophilia.

FACT

The BSA does not equate homosexuality and pedophilia, but neither avowed homosexuals nor pedophiles are appropriate role models for Scouting youth.

So it seems the BSA belongs on your list of fools. The BSA excludes homosexuals from membership on the basis of the moral example they present, not any danger of child abuse.

The BSA prevents child abuse not by excluding homosexuals but by instituting and using its Youth Protection policies. These work equally well against abuse by either homosexual or heterosexual child abusers. If you do a Google search on Scouting and child abuse, you'll see that almost all cases involve men that are married and have children and whose registration status was unaffected by the BSA's prohibition against avowed homosexuals.

[wolficatZ]

"Actually, if you do a News search in Google you'll find that sexual assaults by Scouters on youth get prominent play in the media."

Local stories in local media perhaps but little or no national "big media" coverage.
There is a HUGE difference.

[RonF]

Unless a celebrity is involved, sexual assault of any kind is rarely a national story. So for the national media not to publicize a particular kind of sexual assault wouldn't be media bias.