Bsa Considering Ending Ban On Homosexuals

[rockpond]

I do not believe that the percentage of pedophiles in the gay population is any greater than the percentage of pedophiles in the non-gay population. But it seems logical that gay male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys than non-gay male pedophiles. If gay males are not allowed to be scout leaders, there will be fewer pedophile scout leaders molesting the boys in their troops.

Is this an injustice against the 99.99% of gay men who are not pedophiles? Certainly. But it is a much greater injustice for a boy to be molested by a trusted scout leader . Isn’t the lesser injustice against a gay man worth it if this policy prevents one boy from being molested by a scout leader?

Ultimately, isn’t Scouting supposed to be all about the boys, not about the egos and hurt feelings of some of the adult leaders?

True (to your last question). But, is there any data to suggest that the current policy banning gay men from the BSA has reduced the number of pedophiles therein? (Rhetorical, not actually a "CFR")

[Saints Alive]

Like this?

the opposite I suppose, but yes.

[Buckeye]

I do not believe that the percentage of pedophiles in the gay population is any greater than the percentage of pedophiles in the non-gay population. But it seems logical that gay male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys than non-gay male pedophiles. If gay males are not allowed to be scout leaders, there will be fewer pedophile scout leaders molesting the boys in their troops.

Is this an injustice against the 99.99% of gay men who are not pedophiles? Certainly. But it is a much greater injustice for a boy to be molested by a trusted scout leader . Isn’t the lesser injustice against a gay man worth it if this policy prevents one boy from being molested by a scout leader?

Ultimately, isn’t Scouting supposed to be all about the boys, not about the egos and hurt feelings of some of the adult leaders?

I'm all for protecting the youth first. But the only way to give 100% protection is to keep them from society. Walking to school, trick-or-treating, etc. all carry risk. Any interaction between youth and adult carries a risk of abuse. But by your own admission, this risk is no higher for gay adults than straight adults. So if we exclude gay adult leaders in order to better protect the youth, we should also exclude straight adult leaders .... which of course would leave us with no leaders.

[Scott Lloyd]

National BSA could conceivably tell the church that they have to allow non-celibate gay volunteers within our ranks but I'm not sure how they'd enforce that since we "call" all of our leaders. We don't necessarily request volunteers and take whoever comes along.

The way to enforce it would be to revoke or deny the charter -- which they could do easily enough.

But, I completely agree with your second sentiment: I'd love to see the church strike out on their own. Use the Faith in God and Duty to God programs and build around those. As much as I love scouting (and have loved all my scout related callings) I think the attention-dividing effect of pushing our young men through both the faith-based programs and the scout-based programs is tough on parents & leaders.

Agreed.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

I know of several Eagle Scouts who are planning on returning their award if the BSA bends on this moral stand. I'm not sure i will go that far but I am not ruling it out either.

Give yourself some time to think this through. At a minimum, wait and see if BSA actually changes the policy (right now it's just rumors). Then ask yourself, "if the church is still willing to work with BSA despite this change, should I follow that example? And if so, then doesn't this award have the same great meaning as it did before the policy change?"

Also consider the real possibility that you could be called to a scouting position (or you may already be there) and so it would be your responsibility to encourage the YM to achieve Eagle. How would you balance that encouragement with the fact that you had returned your Eagle award to BSA in protest?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Buckeye

[Sleeper Cell]

True (to your last question). But, is there any data to suggest that the current policy banning gay men from the BSA has reduced the number of pedophiles therein? (Rhetorical, not actually a "CFR")

If the BSA changes its policy, there will be, in effect, two boy scout organizations -- one that prohibits gay leaders and one that doesn’t. Eventually, we will have enough data to determine whether or not excluding gay leaders has any effect on the number of molested scouts. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. But if it turns out that this “experiment” shows that a boy in a “new policy” troop is more likely to be molested than a boy in a “traditional policy” troop, then what?

[Rob Osborn]

Right! Because every person is just one step away from being a pervert or pedophile. That's just ridiculous!

BTW, it is okay to be gay.

Its not ok to be gay. That is ridiculous. That is like saying it is ok to be an alcoholic or pornography addict.

You are out of the thread.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Being an eagle scout today in the world of business is largley worthless. You will not get an atvantage by listing it on a resume. 20 years ago it meant something. Today I bet most people don't even know what it is that were never involved in scouting. It seems to not matter a bit.

[Buckeye]

If the BSA changes its policy, there will be, in effect, two boy scout organizations -- one that prohibits gay leaders and one that doesn’t. Eventually, we will have enough data to determine whether or not excluding gay leaders has any effect on the number of molested scouts. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. But if it turns out that this “experiment” shows that a boy in a “new policy” troop is more likely to be molested than a boy in a “traditional policy” troop, then what?

Wait? I thought you previously said "I do not believe that the percentage of pedophiles in the gay population is any greater than the percentage of pedophiles in the non-gay population." So why would you be concerned that a boy with some gay leaders would be more at risk than a boy with zero gay leaders?

[Buckeye]

Its not ok to be gay. That is ridiculous. That is like saying it is ok to be an alcoholic or pornography addict.

I'm an alcoholic. I have never had a drink in my life, but I carry the gene from prior generations that makes me prone to alcoholism. Am I ok?

More to the point, the church's new website - mormonsandgays.org - makes it clear that "being gay" is not a choice. It is part of who you are. The church still maintains that acting on homosexual feelings is sin, but it is not longer wrong to "be gay". Numerous students at BYU identify as gay.

[Saints Alive]

Give yourself some time to think this through. At a minimum, wait and see if BSA actually changes the policy (right now it's just rumors). Then ask yourself, "if the church is still willing to work with BSA despite this change, should I follow that example? And if so, then doesn't this award have the same great meaning as it did before the policy change?"

Also consider the real possibility that you could be called to a scouting position (or you may already be there) and so it would be your responsibility to encourage the YM to achieve Eagle. How would you balance that encouragement with the fact that you had returned your Eagle award to BSA in protest?

with out the moral foundation I'm not sure it does have the same meaning. I am far from making a decision and a lot would depend on the church's reaction.

[Scott Lloyd]

Also consider the real possibility that you could be called to a scouting position (or you may already be there) and so it would be your responsibility to encourage the YM to achieve Eagle. How would you balance that encouragement with the fact that you had returned your Eagle award to BSA in protest?

If Saints Alive (or a like-minded individual) were in that circumstance, it would be incumbent upon him to explain his position to the priesthood leader issuing the call, who presumably would then determine, under inspiration, whether to go ahead and make the call.

Also, whether it would be his "responsibility to encourage the young men to achieve Eagle" could be a matter of interpretation. I can see a Scout leader interpreting his responsibility as helping the young man achieve whatever worthy goal he sets for himself, which may or may not entail earning the Eagle rank.

Having an Eagle Scout award is not, nor has it ever been, a determiner of worthiness to advance in the priesthood, hold callings, enter the temple, serve a mission, etc.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Saints Alive]

More to the point, the church's new website - mormonsandgays.org - makes it clear that "being gay" is not a choice. It is part of who you are. The church still maintains that acting on homosexual feelings is sin, but it is not longer wrong to "be gay". Numerous students at BYU identify as gay.

Wait a minute... I thought the church's official position was that we don't know if you are born gay or not. I find it strange the church would take a position that even the academic community is unsure of.

[Damien the Leper]

Its not ok to be gay. That is ridiculous. That is like saying it is ok to be an alcoholic or pornography addict.

Come on, Rob! I don't have a disease or emotional/mental/genetic disorder that needs to be treated or cured. That is just silly and juvenile.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Valentinus

[Saints Alive]

If Saints Alive (or a like-minded individual) were in that circumstance, it would be incumbent upon him to explain his position to the priesthood leader issuing the call, who presumably would then determine, under inspiration, whether to go ahead and make the call.

Also, whether it would be his "responsibility to encourage the young men to achieve Eagle" could be a matter of interpretation. I can see a Scout leader interpreting his responsibility as helping the young man achieve whatever worthy goal he sets for himself, which may or may not entail earning the Eagle rank.

I always thought scouting in the church was a tool to make priesthood holders and missionaries, making Eagle was second or unimportant.

[go_utes01]

Come on, Rob! I don't have a disease or emotional/mental disorder that needs to be treated or cured. That is just silly and juvenile.

To be charitable to Rob, he might have been making a distinction between SSA (attracted but not acting on those feelings) and gay (connotation of acting on attractions). This highlights the problem with the term gay, in my opinion. It is just not sufficiently descriptive and leads to misunderstandings.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm an alcoholic. I have never had a drink in my life, but I carry the gene from prior generations that makes me prone to alcoholism. Am I ok?

Is not the same thing. SSA is a debilitating affliction that precludes many people from attaining in this life the full happiness that comes with wholesome marriage.

[Scott Lloyd]

I always thought scouting in the church was a tool to make priesthood holders and missionaries, making Eagle was second or unimportant.

That's been my impression as well.

[Damien the Leper]

To be charitable to Rob, he might have been making a distinction between SSA (attracted but not acting on those feelings) and gay (connotation of acting on attractions). This highlights the problem with the term gay, in my opinion. It is just not sufficiently descriptive and leads to misunderstandings.

Same point, though. Who I'm attracted to is not something that needs to be cured either in this life or the hereafter. If this is an issue in the next life then I'll gladly stay outside St. Peter's gates or default to purgatory or if necessary...hell.

[Damien the Leper]

Is not the same thing. SSA is a debilitating affliction that precludes many people from attaining in this life the full happiness that comes with wholesome marriage.

It's not a disease or condition that needs to be treated or cured. When we can stop with such silliness, a real and honest discussion may begin.

[go_utes01]

Same point, though. Who I'm attracted to is not something that needs to be cured either in this life or the hereafter. If this is an issue in the next life then I'll gladly stay outside St. Peter's gates or default to purgatory or if necessary...hell.

You think having SSA and acting on those feelings is the same thing? Somebody said it was ok to be gay. If a person interpreted the term "gay" to mean acting on same-sex attractions, I think that person is justified in believing (based on the moral teachings of the Church) that being gay would not be morally ok. I agree with you however, that a person's attractions are not a factor in where they end up in the next life. It is a person's actions, not attractions, that will be determinative.

Edited January 28, 2013 by go_utes01

[Buckeye]

If Saints Alive (or a like-minded individual) were in that circumstance, it would be incumbent upon him to explain his position to the priesthood leader issuing the call, who presumably would then determine, under inspiration, whether to go ahead and make the call.

Also, whether it would be his "responsibility to encourage the young men to achieve Eagle" could be a matter of interpretation. I can see a Scout leader interpreting his responsibility as helping the young man achieve whatever worthy goal he sets for himself, which may or may not entail earning the Eagle rank.

Having an Eagle Scout award is not, nor has it ever been, a determiner of worthiness to advance in the priesthood, hold callings, enter the temple, serve a mission, etc.

Absolutely talk it through with your bishopric. But if you're called to work in scouts, one of your primary responsibilities is to help the boys progress through the scouting program. I can't imagine a church troop that would not encourage boys to attain Eagle. (And by the same logic, it seems that if someone is not comfortable helping a scout obtain Eagle, they would also not be comfortable helping them obtain Life, 2nd Class, 50-miler, or any other scouting award). It is one thing to work with boys who really have no interest in scouting and say to them "ok, lets find something in this program that works for you". It is quite another to be called as a scout leader and say you don't believe in the scouting program.

One possible solution would be to conclude that scouting is no longer a basis for teaching sexual morality. It's still great for other mores - trustworthy, helpful, loyal, etc. and so is worthwhile for those purposes. Kind of like a parent can place their child in little league to help him grow character, but doesn't expect baseball to teach the child anything about sexual purity.

[Damien the Leper]

You think having SSA and acting on those feelings is the same thing? Somebody said it was ok to be gay. If a person interpreted the term "gay" to mean acting on same-sex attractions, I think that person is justified in believing (based on the moral teachings of the Church) that being gay would not be morally ok. I agree with you however, that a person's attractions are not a factor in where they end up in the next life. It is a person's actions, not attractions, that will be determinative.

Of course not. What I said in my post was that my attractions, not the action on those attractions, do not need to be changed. Even if I were to never act on my attraction to men, I would rather spend eternity in hell than to be "fixed" or "rewired" to be heterosexual in heaven.

[Saints Alive]

It just occurred to me, how is this self-determination policy going to work when it comes to things like summer camp, jamborees, and camporees? I know the church Venture groups aren't allowed to participate in co-Ed activities. How will we know which summer camps we can go to?

Edited January 28, 2013 by Saints Alive

[Saints Alive]

Good. I hope they do it.

With luv,

BD

Nevermind. Edited January 28, 2013 by Saints Alive