Kicked Out Of Ward Bsa Troop For Sexual Activity?

[wenglund]

If one is talking about young adults, then pedophilia stats are meaningless and irrelevant.

It depends on how one defines "pedophilia"--particularly in terms of victim ages. The lines between "children" and "young adults" are somewhat blurred.

However, your point is well taken. Brian raised the issue of "child abuse," and I was simply responding to what he suggested, but then I went on to say, "However, with the scouting program, we aren't just talking about children. We are also talking about young impressionable adults who are coming of age, so to speak, and are just beginning to discover and ferret out their sexuality." This is where I wished to redirect the discussion, and it is where I have tried to maintain the discussion. So, I appreciate your help in getting things back on track.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 14, 2013 by wenglund

[cinepro]

However, with the scouting program, we aren't just talking about children. We are also talking about young impressionable adults who are coming of age, so to speak, and are just beginning to discover and ferret out their sexuality

I don't know what your teenage years were like, but nobody I knew had to "ferret out" their sexuality. It hit me like a steam train.

But if the young people are now having to "ferret" their sexuality, and it's so easily influenced, then I would suggest the Church encourage a healthy appreciation for heterosexual pornography among the young men. We could then eliminate the presence of homosexual young men in the Church.

Granted, we'd still have a huge problem with pornography when we told them it was time to stop, but sometimes you have to pick your battles.

[rongo]

I don't know what your teenage years were like, but nobody I knew had to "ferret out" their sexuality. It hit me like a steam train

Many youth are quite confused, nowadays. They are exposed to motions of "metrosexual," "man crushes," "man purses," saggin' skinny jeans, the glorification of gay lifestyles in TV and movies, etc.

We had a self-proclaimed lesbian who held hands with girls at school join the Church in our ward several years ago (she was a student of mine at the high school). She got pregnant right before her baptismal interview (this was confessed in the interview), a couple of weeks after her last "girlfriend."

If you think many kids today aren't confused about sexuality, you're a bit out of touch. Many kids who think they might be "gay" have no idea what they are, or whether they are or aren't. It doesn't help that there are so many one-parent households, or that many kids don't live with their parents. We learn our most basic understanding about sexuality and what it means to be a man and a woman from our parents, and many kids today start with several strikes.

But if the young people are now having to "ferret" their sexuality, and it's so easily influenced, then I would suggest the Church encourage a healthy appreciation for heterosexual pornography among the young men. We could then eliminate the presence of homosexual young men in the Church.

In all seriousness, pornography is a big part of the problem, and the confusion that not-yet-developed kids have. That would be the worst possible "solution" (and I know, or hope, that this was largely tongue-in-cheek on your part).

[Brian 2.0]

While a lot of the discussion here mainly has been on adults, which I think I also asked about. I was really curious in regards to the youth themselves. The members of the troop that are gay and want to participate. As was said earlier it mostly up to the bishop. But I'm sure that's a tough call for a bishop and how he implements this probably varies from bishop to bishop.

[rongo]

We had a boy with SSA who had never acted on it, whom we would have loved to have been involved with the young men's activities. He had zero interest, though. His interestes were music and singing (which he was very good at).

[halconero]

Wade...followingg your common sense means that naturally...I have a higher risk of finding young girls attractive because I'm heterosexual.

Pedophilia and adult homosexuality have as tenuous of a link as pedophilia and heterosexuality.

Can you imagine if we limited temple recommends and callings on temptations instead of commuted sins?

Give me a man who is open with his desires, temptations and struggles no fear of reprisal for having them rather than the closeted fiend and I'll show you someone able to be a leader in this Church and in the Boy Scouts.

[wenglund]

I don't know what your teenage years were like, but nobody I knew had to "ferret out" their sexuality. It hit me like a steam train.

But if the young people are now having to "ferret" their sexuality, and it's so easily influenced, then I would suggest the Church encourage a healthy appreciation for heterosexual pornography among the young men. We could then eliminate the presence of homosexual young men in the Church.

Granted, we'd still have a huge problem with pornography when we told them it was time to stop, but sometimes you have to pick your battles.

I was a late bloomer, and my sexuality aged like a fine wine. I got a slow start, in part because my 6th grade teacher was at retirement age, and she used to wear low-cut and loosely fit blouses to school and lean over our desks exposing her very wrinkly breasts, and that, along with the scent of her bad perfume wafting over me, made me nearly gag, and impressed upon my mind that if this is what I had to look forward to sexually, I was in no hurry to go there.

I have talked with numerous friends and family members, both male and female, and I have gotten the sense that there is a broad range of sexual development: some fast, some slow, some fixed, and some malleable, etc.. It isn't a one-size fits all.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Can you imagine if we limited temple recommends and callings on temptations instead of commuted sins?

Give me a man who is open with his desires, temptations and struggles no fear of reprisal for having them rather than the closeted fiend and I'll show you someone able to be a leader in this Church and in the Boy Scouts.

That makes for a "feel good" bumper sticker, and it may be fine for you personally.

However, responsible adults who are given charge over youth, they don't have the luxury of making "feel good" decisions. The precious lives and sacred responsibility they are entrusted with reasonably obligates them to make divinely inspired decisions that are based on what is in the youth's best interest and what will best keep them safe and enable them to progress. If that means erring on the side of caution even though it might not sit well with people concerned more with the whims of pop culture, then so be it. To me, it is the mature and right thing to do.

You, of course, are free to believe otherwise. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[RobertAC]

To me, being relegated to the fringe of an over-sexed and increasingly perverted society isn't necessarily a bad thing even given the risk of attracting undesirable--which seems ironic since the movement to the fringe is somewhat a function of not embracing what the culture now deems desirable but before deemed undesirable.

However, as I see it, decisions ought to be based on what is in the best interest of the children rather than on where the decision might move one in relation to the general culture. But, I recognize that thinking this way has become increasingly less popular and may have moved me to the fringe. And, I am okay with that. Feel free to call me an undesirable radical.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Actually Wade, as passionate as you are, you are not the fringe. You will have to work harder to get there.

There are segments of our society, however, that are against many people based upon sex, religion, ethnicity, race, etc. that are also usually against GLBTs. The BSA anti-gay policy would be attractive to those people. Now I do not foresee the KKK starting its own BSA troop any time soon, but group policies do set the tone for membership.

I agree that the best interests of the scouts themselves should serve as to making policy. However, as we have seen time and again, reasonable people can differ as to what the best interests of the scouts are as it relates to gay scouts and gay scout masters.

[halconero]

That makes for a "feel good" bumper sticker, and it may be fine for you personally.

However, responsible adults who are given charge over youth, they don't have the luxury of making "feel good" decisions. The precious lives and sacred responsibility they are entrusted with reasonably obligates them to make divinely inspired decisions that are based on what is in the youth's best interest and what will best keep them safe and enable them to progress. If that means erring on the side of caution even though it might not sit well with people concerned more with the whims of pop culture, then so be it. To me, it is the mature and right thing to do.

You, of course, are free to believe otherwise. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, there are callings in church that entail just as much interaction and time spent with heterosexuals and adolescent members of the opposite sex.

Bishops and seminary teachers are two that come to mind. I've heard a my own share of people in those callings using their position to abuse children and adolescents but there is no call for limiting interaction between heterosexual leaders and people under them of the opposite sex.

And Wade, I may be young, but I am an adult (just shy of 23) and I am and have been in callings of leadership over our precious youth. Cut the condescension. My opinions on this aren't driven by the whims of popular culture.

I'm an idealist, not naive.

Edited March 15, 2013 by halconero

[Brian 2.0]

If that means erring on the side of caution even though it might not sit well with people concerned more with the whims of pop culture, then so be it. To me, it is the mature and right thing to do.

[emphasis mine]

Have to agree halconero here, Wade. You had me right up until the part in bold. Those of us taking a side opposite you on some of these matters aren't concerned with "whims of pop culture." That does sound condescending. We are concerned with the feelings and emotional well being of the gay and SSA minority and don't want to see them discounted simply for the benefit of the "overall group."

Edited March 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Tacenda]

Wade, there are callings in church that entail just as much interaction and time spent with heterosexuals and adolescent members of the opposite sex.

Bishops and seminary teachers are two that come to mind. I've heard a my own share of people in those callings using their position to abuse children and adolescents but there is no call for limiting interaction between heterosexual leaders and people under them of the opposite sex.

And Wade, I may be young, but I am an adult (just shy of 23) and I am and have been in callings of leadership over our precious youth. Cut the condescension. My opinions on this aren't driven by the whims of popular culture.

I'm an idealist, not naive.

I've appreciated your comments Halconero, especially the one where your friend "came out" to you and then said he would understand if you didn't want him rooming with you and you told him that you still wanted him as a roommate. I think what you did was great, because you know that this guy isn't a deviant but a child of God who was born with SSA but not to just anyone. Especially his good friend that he knows doesn't have SSA (I'm assuming). Sorry if I'm rambling, it's late, but just wanted you to know. Edited March 16, 2013 by Tacenda

[Wanderer7]

Many youth are quite confused, nowadays. They are exposed to motions of "metrosexual," "man crushes," "man purses," saggin' skinny jeans, the glorification of gay lifestyles in TV and movies, etc.

We had a self-proclaimed lesbian who held hands with girls at school join the Church in our ward several years ago (she was a student of mine at the high school). She got pregnant right before her baptismal interview (this was confessed in the interview), a couple of weeks after her last "girlfriend."

If you think many kids today aren't confused about sexuality, you're a bit out of touch. Many kids who think they might be "gay" have no idea what they are, or whether they are or aren't. It doesn't help that there are so many one-parent households, or that many kids don't live with their parents. We learn our most basic understanding about sexuality and what it means to be a man and a woman from our parents, and many kids today start with several strikes.

I tend to agree with this. If the young men participate in a "moral" organization that accepts homosexuality as normal and is led by a man they know is homosexual, I don't blame them for being confused. I don't think the issue at hand is whether men or boys who struggle with same-sex attraction should be allowed to participate. I think the issue is whether openly gay men and boys should be in scouting. I may not have a great handle on the same-sex issue, but I for one don't understand why a gay person has to tell everyone about his orientation. I feel like it's the men who do feel that way that cause the problems, not the ones who quietly, albeit difficultly, conform to church standards. And by saying openly gay, I don't mean the man who discusses the issue with his bishop, counsellor, and closest friends. I mean the guy who has to "come out" in a public setting as some sort of rite of passage. If they are trying to stay celebate, they have no need to "come out" to the world at large. In other words, I don't care if my boy has a gay leader as long as that leader doesn't encourage him directly or indirectly to explore "alternate lifestyles."

[Buckeye]

What's the analogy many general authorities have given? As the world grows more wicked, the gulf between our standards and the world will grow to a gaping chasm.

The Church will increasingly be and be labeled "the fringe" ---- in the eyes of the world. As the "default setting" of the world continues to evolve on this trajectory, those who don't want to be seen by the world as being "the fringe" are in for a world of heartache and frustration.

What a shame that we let go of polygamy and the racial priesthood/temple ban. If we had kept those doctrines (now practices) we certainly would be much more "fringe". Too bad we let go of the gap between the kingdom and the world on those points.

[wenglund]

Actually Wade, as passionate as you are, you are not the fringe. You will have to work harder to get there.

Your inclusive attitude about me is touching, but my friends and ward members would stridently beg to differ. I am way out in left field. LOL

And, besides, I would think mainstreaming would have more to do with emoting much rather than working harder. In fact, more and more these days the mainstream seems contra-work.

There are segments of our society, however, that are against many people based upon sex, religion, ethnicity, race, etc. that are also usually against GLBTs. The BSA anti-gay policy would be attractive to those people. Now I do not foresee the KKK starting its own BSA troop any time soon, but group policies do set the tone for membership.

I agree that the best interests of the scouts themselves should serve as to making policy. However, as we have seen time and again, reasonable people can differ as to what the best interests of the scouts are as it relates to gay scouts and gay scout masters.

I am all for reasonable people disagreeing. Unfortunately, though, and for whatever reason, and for the most part, when homosexuality is a part of the issue under discussion, reasonableness tends do go out the window, and the issues become sticks to beat decent people and organizations over the head with--not that I am suggesting that is what you have done. I don't.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Wade, there are callings in church that entail just as much interaction and time spent with heterosexuals and adolescent members of the opposite sex.

Bishops and seminary teachers are two that come to mind. I've heard a my own share of people in those callings using their position to abuse children and adolescents but there is no call for limiting interaction between heterosexual leaders and people under them of the opposite sex.

Yes, there are certain leadership and teaching positions where, unavoidably, heterosexual males have charge over young women (or even fully grown women) as well as young men. And, in such cases, there are procedures in place to minimize sexual problems, even though problems may still occur.

There are also activities and classroom situations where young men and young women, who are sexually attracted to each other, are intentionally combined, though likewise under condition intent on minimizing sexual problems.

However, this is beside the point I was making, and doesn't justify running the unnecessary risk of having Scout Masters who are not only sexually attracted to their charge, but also likely to participate in over-night or week-long outings where they may be in the same tents and possibly alone outdoors with their sexually attractive charge.

Again, it would be like calling men to be young women's leaders and for them to take the young women camping. It doesn't make sense. And, were you not overly sensitized to pop culture, perhaps you would see it that way for gay Scout Masters as well.

And Wade, I may be young, but I am an adult (just shy of 23) and I am and have been in callings of leadership over our precious youth. Cut the condescension. My opinions on this aren't driven by the whims of popular culture.

I'm an idealist, not naive.

I don't know a single 22-year-old who thinks they are naive--that is, until they get to be over 40. This is about the time many people begin to realize just how naive they have been and that they really weren't smarter than their parents or church/organization leaders or even God. Broad and lengthy experience, particularly in parental and leadership roles, may have a way of humbling the soul, even to the point of figuring out that it isn't coincidental that many of their former belief aligned so well with pop culture.

I will make you a deal, though...I will cut the unintended condescension if you cut the pride. In fact, were you to exercise a bit more humility, you may just discover that I wasn't being condescending at all, but simply and meekly looking out for everyone's interest.

Either way, I want you to know that while I may not agree with everything you say, I value your perspective, and I encourage you to continue speaking out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 18, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

[emphasis mine]

Have to agree halconero here, Wade. You had me right up until the part in bold. Those of us taking a side opposite you on some of these matters aren't concerned with "whims of pop culture." That does sound condescending. We are concerned with the feelings and emotional well being of the gay and SSA minority and don't want to see them discounted simply for the benefit of the "overall group."

Whether you realize it or not, your emotive concerns are very much a whim of pop cultural. I can't think of a single thing that is more essential to pop culture than people's "feelings"--particularly when it gets to the extreme point, as it evidently has with you and others on this thread, where the "feelings" of a few take preference over what is most beneficial to the whole. Sorry.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

Whether you realize it or not, your emotive concerns are very much a whim of pop cultural. I can't think of a single thing that is more essential to pop culture than people's "feelings"--particularly when it gets to the extreme point, as it evidently has with you and others on this thread, where the "feelings" of a few take preference over what is most beneficial to the whole. Sorry.

If so, then it is as likely your concerns are just as much of a whim of whatever culture you immerse yourself in, right?

[wenglund]

What a shame that we let go of polygamy and the racial priesthood/temple ban. If we had kept those doctrines (now practices) we certainly would be much more "fringe". Too bad we let go of the gap between the kingdom and the world on those points.

What you said may make sense were the objective behind Church policy to have been to move more to the outer extreme of the "fringe," rather than the "fringe" being an unintended result of making policies for the wise purposes as spelled out in the 4-fold mission of the church,

In other words, for your comments to make sense, one would have to be rather clueless about the actual intents behind Church policy. So, it seems apropos that you would suggest it.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

If so, then it is as likely your concerns are just as much of a whim of whatever culture you immerse yourself in, right?

If by "immerse" you mean "being of the culture" as differentiated from "living in the culture," then, yes. That is why it is wise to choose well the cultures you will "be of," even if you can't always choose which cultures to "live in." For me and my house...

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[halconero]

Yes, there are certain leadership and teaching positions where, unavoidably, heterosexual males have charge over young women (or even fully grown women) as well as young men. And, in such cases, there are procedures in place to minimize sexual problems, even though problems may still occur.

There are also activities and classroom situations where young men and young women, who are sexually attracted to each other, are intentionally combined, though likewise under condition intent on minimizing sexual problems.

However, this is beside the point I was making, and doesn't justify running the unnecessary risk of having Scout Masters who are not only sexually attracted to their charge, but also likely to participate in over-night or week-long outings where they may be in the same tents and possibly alone outdoors with their sexually attractive charge.

Again, it would be like calling men to be young women's leaders and for them to take the young women camping. It doesn't make sense. And, were you not overly sensitized to pop culture, perhaps you would see it that way for gay Scout Masters as well.

I don't know a single 22-year-old who thinks they are naive--that is, until they get to be over 40. This is about the time many people begin to realize just how naive they have been and that they really weren't smarter than their parents or church/organization leaders or even God. Broad and lengthy experience, particularly in parental and leadership roles, may have a way of humbling the soul, even to the point of figuring out that it isn't coincidental that many of their former belief aligned so well with pop culture.

I will make you a deal, though...I will cut the unintended condescension if you cut the pride. In fact, were you to exercise a bit more humility, you may just discover that I wasn't being condescending at all, but simply and meekly looking out for everyone's interest.

Either way, I want you to know that while I may not agree with everything you say, I value your perspective, and I encourage you to continue speaking out.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I apologize for the pride.

I think we need to be careful with equating age with wisdom. I would definitely equate it with experience, with the possibility of wisdom, but not by a direct link. The quality of experiences, and what is taken and applied from them is far more important than the amount of experiences someone has.7

Can I provide some evidence as to why I believe what I do? Why it isn't just pop culture?

After participating in several seminars, reading through several anthropological/psychological/sociological journals (including some studies performed at BYU) I've come to the conclusion that there is far more evidence indicating that homosexuals have just as much control over their behaviour as do heterosexuals. Instances of homo and heterosexual pedophilia run along roughly the same lines.

I do not believe that the "common sense" argument always holds either. If I've learned anything from the social sciences it's that what people often say they do, or should do, is not what they actually do. Common sense statements do not always result in what they say they'll result in. I personally believe that even though the "common sense" argument seeks to mitigate the risk of harm to the youth of the Church it can actually do damage in denying callings to faithful, disciplined members with a homosexual orientation. I also don't believe it will decrease the risk of abuse, as those sexual deviants who do prey on children will find other ways to try and fulfill their evil desires.

My other feelings are motivated by the fact that I have a friend, an active, temple attending latter-day saint who is attracted to those of his own sex. He also serves as the 1st counselor in the young men's presidency. He told me that it is the best thing that has happened to him. It's helped him remain in the Church. He's also shared strong testimony of self control, of faith in the midst of adversity and obedience to the law of chastity in a way not a lot of people can. It's also not a secret that he has same sex attraction.

Wade, I recognize and respect your opinions, and even agree with some of them. Thank you for being on the board.

[USU78]

I've come to the conclusion that there is far more evidence indicating that homosexuals have just as much control over their behaviour as do heterosexuals. Instances of homo and heterosexual pedophilia run along roughly the same lines.

I would tend to agree that, innately, there is precisely the same potential for control regardless of orientation [whether it is acquired or inborn so we don't go there].

Once again, perhaps it's experience, possibly wisdom . . . but experience has demonstrated, as far as I can see, that the psychology of someone who "breaks free" of societal, religious and, perhaps, biological bounds would tend to make this someone less likely to see the value in exercising control to the extent his "nature" makes possible or likely.

Should we blithely assume equal desire to exhibit control in the heterosexual scoutleader and the homosexual scoutleader?

Why?

[halconero]

I would tend to agree that, innately, there is precisely the same potential for control regardless of orientation [whether it is acquired or inborn so we don't go there].

Once again, perhaps it's experience, possibly wisdom . . . but experience has demonstrated, as far as I can see, that the psychology of someone who "breaks free" of societal, religious and, perhaps, biological bounds would tend to make this someone less likely to see the value in exercising control to the extent his "nature" makes possible or likely.

Should we blithely assume equal desire to exhibit control in the heterosexual scoutleader and the homosexual scoutleader?

Why?

I would also ask the question, does recognizing, acknowledging and letting others know that one has attraction to one's own sex mean that they are breaking out of their religious or societal bounds? With my friend in the Young Men's presidency, I don't see it.

I guess the other question would be the reverse of yours. Should we blithely assume unequal desire to exhibit control in the heterosexual or homosexual scout leader?

I don't have the answer to either. You asked a very good question and it's made me think.

[wenglund]

I apologize for the pride.

I think we need to be careful with equating age with wisdom. I would definitely equate it with experience, with the possibility of wisdom, but not by a direct link. The quality of experiences, and what is taken and applied from them is far more important than the amount of experiences someone has.7

Can I provide some evidence as to why I believe what I do? Why it isn't just pop culture?

After participating in several seminars, reading through several anthropological/psychological/sociological journals (including some studies performed at BYU) I've come to the conclusion that there is far more evidence indicating that homosexuals have just as much control over their behaviour as do heterosexuals. Instances of homo and heterosexual pedophilia run along roughly the same lines.

I do not believe that the "common sense" argument always holds either. If I've learned anything from the social sciences it's that what people often say they do, or should do, is not what they actually do. Common sense statements do not always result in what they say they'll result in. I personally believe that even though the "common sense" argument seeks to mitigate the risk of harm to the youth of the Church it can actually do damage in denying callings to faithful, disciplined members with a homosexual orientation. I also don't believe it will decrease the risk of abuse, as those sexual deviants who do prey on children will find other ways to try and fulfill their evil desires.

My other feelings are motivated by the fact that I have a friend, an active, temple attending latter-day saint who is attracted to those of his own sex. He also serves as the 1st counselor in the young men's presidency. He told me that it is the best thing that has happened to him. It's helped him remain in the Church. He's also shared strong testimony of self control, of faith in the midst of adversity and obedience to the law of chastity in a way not a lot of people can. It's also not a secret that he has same sex attraction.

Wade, I recognize and respect your opinions, and even agree with some of them. Thank you for being on the board.

I am very glad you shared your thoughts with me. There is much to be commended in what you said. I wish I had been so wise at your age.

As for the studies, may I advise some measure of caution? As a graduate and post graduate and practitioner of the social sciences, and having studied psychology for years, I can tell you that pop culture has had no small influence on the prevailing thinking and educating in those fields. It is not uncommon for studies to be funded by entities, including the government, that have political and social agendas. And, though I wish it were otherwise, it is also not uncommon for the studies to be biased so as to reflect the thinking of those providing the funding.

What often goes selectively unmentioned in the social sciences, and psychology in particular, are the less flattering and non-politically-correct statistics, like the alarmingly higher rate of promiscuity and infidelity among gay men.

Now, whether these unflattering statistics are indicative of gay men having less impulse control or not, I will let each judge for themselves.

However, to my mind, it really doesn't matter because the issue of scout leadership isn't so much one of disparate or equal self control in sexual matters, but rather propriety--i.e. reducing unnecessary risks. Again, it is prudent to have youth leaders who are not sexually attracted to their charge, particularly when those leaders will likely be sleeping in the same tent and at times isolated in the outdoors with their charge. If it doesn't make sense for men to take young women on camp-outs, it doesn't make sense for gay men or women to take young men on camp-outs.

As for your friend, I am glad he has you there to support him. It is very important that your friend feels welcome and valued in the Church regardless of his SSA, and I am grateful to the Church leaders for encouraging such inclusive and Christ-like behavior. It is just that there are prudent limits to how far that should go--one of which is Scout leadership and membership for openly gay men.

The good news is, your friend's personal progression in Christ, and his social and temporal progression, is not the least bit contingent upon being a scout or a Scout Master. More than half of the Church will never be scouts, and relatively few will be Scout Masters (a job I wouldn't wish on my enemies). So, he can feel good about being in the overwhelming majority.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[gkearney]

When discussing this issue it may be important to recognize that youth leaders can do certain practical things to decrease the risk of heterosexual improprieties that they can't do with homosexuals.

For example, it is common for youth leaders to organize separate courses and activities for young women and men, and to carefully chaperon mixed activities, and not have late-night or overnight activities, particularly not where young women and men are sleeping and dressing/undressing in the same rooms or tents.

Those same measure are not practical for homosexuals in scouts.

To me, the risks and costs to youth are too high, and their safety and well being so important, that it ought to be paramount, even over the potential for hurt feelings on the part of some or inane attempts at equality by others.

I believe this ought to apply to kids who are openly gay, but say they are celibate, since it isn't much different that were young women and men to argue for mixed sleep-overs, and in the same tents, by saying they are celibate or virgins.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am a scout leader in a nation with coed scouting (Australia) I have also worked quite a bit in the area of international scouting where coed scouting is the rule and not the exception. I have never heard of a situation in scouting here or in other settings in which boys and girls were ever quartered in the same tent or changing clothing together in a scout setting. We take great pains to ensure that privacy and propriety are respected while fully integrating the girls into the program.

It is worth noting in all of this that Scouts Canada ended their sexual orientation policy over 20 years ago yet the church continues it's association with Scouts Canada to this day.

Most international scouters which I deal with, even those from conservative islamic nations view what is happening now with the BSA on this issue with a mix of curiosity and horror. Many can not understand how the scouts ever found themselves int this position in the first place. Most NSO's such as Scouts Australia never had any such policy and so now do not have the issue of having to change it.