Bsa: First Compromise Vs Second Compromise

[Calm]

you might tend to want to pay attention to this question.

Having chosen to go with the 2nd compromise though, it seems to me like that question has been settled already. Exploring what might have been still seems to me rather unimportant even if one finds such speculation interesting. Edited June 7, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Having chosen to go with the 2nd compromise though, it seems to me like that question has been settled already. Exploring what might have been still seems to me rather unimportant even if one finds such speculation interesting.

True, unless it causes one to think slightly more carefully about how to handle similar situations in the future. The Lord allows for strategic policy-making I believe.

[Senator]

What was wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement?

[USU78]

This may be getting a little off topic,

I know there is this abstract idea that we must show love and compassion for everyone but there is another side to this.

My son is an Eagle Scout, when he was in third grade an older boy molested him in the school bathroom. It has left him traumatized and hurts even 30 years later. When he heard that the Scouts were going to let openly gay young men into the program and the Church was going along with it he said “not my son!”

Now we can reason one way to another but there is no going around personal fears and experiences. How is the Church and scouting going to address or calm the fears of this father?

This is not off topic. This is the topic: protecting youth from predation by the predated is the whole point of keeping the wolves away. If we are not willing to be the sheep dogs, doing what sheep dogs do, we don't deserve to be called men.

[Buckeye]

Rather a dry and unimportant question.

Geez. Then don't comment. I appreciate Stone holm's inquiries because, like him, I care deeply about scouting and want the LDS-BSA relationship to continue. While we do not *know* why option 2 was chosen over option 1, I find value in this dicussion because option 1 may be a necessary future step to keep the relationship in place. I would not be surprised to see the possibility of option 1 arise again within a year or two.

[Buckeye]

This is not off topic. This is the topic: protecting youth from predation by the predated is the whole point of keeping the wolves away. If we are not willing to be the sheep dogs, doing what sheep dogs do, we don't deserve to be called men.

USU78, I'm curious why you think that the new policy puts any sheep in danger. Gays make up around 2-4% of the population. They are in our YW/YW programs. They are in the missionary program. That's just how it is. I cannot understand why openly acknowledging their existence, and requiring that all youth and leaders abide by the same standards, puts anyone at more risk than already exists from our mortal situation.

Let's change the topic to missionary work. Whatever concerns someone has about putting a teenage boy in a tent with another boy who may be gay, it seems those concerns should be 10x as great for sending that boy to a foreign country where he sleeps in the same room, showers, and - yes - actually "lives together" with a companion who very well may be gay.

What would do with gay missionaries? Send them home even if they abide by church standards? Force gays to only be companions with lesbians to whom they are not attracted? Unless you are willing to criticize the brethren for allowing gay missionaries to serve, you have no basis to critize the BSA policy that allows young men to sleep in tents together.

Edited June 7, 2013 by Buckeye

[Stone holm]

What was wrong with the "don't ask, don't tell" arrangement?

Vey good question because it worked for years, until we had the AIDs epidemic and gays started coming out of the closet and demanding rights. Thereafter the culture turned and more and more corporations and nonprofits started adopting anti discrimination policies as did some school districts. Congress stepped in and mandated that the school districts keep the doors open to BSA, but they couldn't do anything about the other anti discrimination policies, so BSA got caught sidewise and sustained loss of United Way funding in some areas, loss of corporate sponsors. Some more liberal churches abandoned it along with some other COs. Don't Ask Don't Tell leaves BSA branded as having an discriminatory policy, it just means it is not proactively enforced, so it still remained subject to funding bans. Does that answer the question?

[Sleeper Cell]

Let's change the topic to missionary work. Whatever concerns someone has about putting a teenage boy in a tent with another boy who may be gay, it seems those concerns should be 10x as great for sending that boy to a foreign country where he sleeps in the same room, showers, and - yes - actually "lives together" with a companion who very well may be gay.

What would do with gay missionaries? Send them home even if they abide by church standards? Force gays to only be companions with lesbians to whom they are not attracted? Unless you are willing to criticize the brethren for allowing gay missionaries to serve, you have no basis to critize the BSA policy that allows young men to sleep in tents together.

For starters, missionaries are adults. Boy scouts are boys.

.

[Buckeye]

For starters, missionaries are adults. Boy scouts are boys.

.

Exactly. Boys are much less of an abuse risk than adults, especially young boys. If anything, we should be more concerned that a 20-year old senior companion in Brazil will abuse his 18-year old companion in their apartment, than we are that a 13-year old boy scout will abuse a 12-year old boy scout in a tent at scout camp.

One other tidbit that may help ease concerns. In every troop I've been involved in, the boys do not sleep two to a tent. They sleep three or four. They prefer it that way. Also, boys sleep in tents with their same patrol which means roughly their same age. Deacons sleep with deacons. They don't sleep with Priests - except maybe an older brother.

[Stone holm]

Exactly. Boys are much less of an abuse risk than adults, especially young boys. If anything, we should be more concerned that a 20-year old senior companion in Brazil will abuse his 18-year old companion in their apartment, than we are that a 13-year old boy scout will abuse a 12-year old boy scout in a tent at scout camp.

One other tidbit that may help ease concerns. In every troop I've been involved in, the boys do not sleep two to a tent. They sleep three or four. They prefer it that way. Also, boys sleep in tents with their same patrol which means roughly their same age. Deacons sleep with deacons. They don't sleep with Priests - except maybe an older brother.

Yeah, as a practical matter I see all of that as a red herring issue. It is very unlikely that a boy is going to come out as "openly gay" whatever that means their relatively late teens. Scouts tend to sort themselves out by age and friends, so if such boys are still going out on campouts -- they are either going to be tentmates with their close friends, or have their own tents at that age. As a Scoutmaster I would never have put an older scout in with a young scout unless it was his brother -- that is just asking for trouble totally regardless of the gender orientation issue.

[USU78]

USU78, I'm curious why you think that the new policy puts any sheep in danger. Gays make up around 2-4% of the population. They are in our YW/YW programs. They are in the missionary program. That's just how it is. I cannot understand why openly acknowledging their existence, and requiring that all youth and leaders abide by the same standards, puts anyone at more risk than already exists from our mortal situation.

Not true. The numbers are more in the 1-2% range, though the more careful studies I've seen put them closer to 1%. You are pulling the 4% out of your hat. It is, moreover, not a question of pulling something over our eyes so as not to look at something dreadful, it is rather that once the BSA and its sponsoring institutions like the LDS Church acknowledge that they will welcome declared homosexual youth into their midst, whether they were already there or not, they are undertaking an implicit duty to protect from predation all youth from homosexual youth, since, if there's to be predation, that's where it'll come from.

It's the same issue as the difference between a known and an unknown risk for a homeowner whose invitee is injured on the premises. Where there's a known risk, there is a duty to warn, whether the risk is a loose floorboard or a jiggly lock to the back yard where the trampoline is kept.

Are you going to pay the cost of these inevitable lawsuits, since it is inevitable that homosexual youth will predate. Not every single one of them, but a statistically significant percentage.

Let's change the topic to missionary work. Whatever concerns someone has about putting a teenage boy in a tent with another boy who may be gay, it seems those concerns should be 10x as great for sending that boy to a foreign country where he sleeps in the same room, showers, and - yes - actually "lives together" with a companion who very well may be gay.

I dealt with an attempted seduction during my mission, so don't think I'm blind to the problem. Yes, it is a problem, but it's part of life, putting up with unwelcome and disgusting advances. During my days as a dancer/actor, it was a frequent problem for me, having people I thought respected me and my life choices and standards so blatantly disregard what friendship ought to mean.

What would do with gay missionaries? Send them home even if they abide by church standards? Force gays to only be companions with lesbians to whom they are not attracted? Unless you are willing to criticize the brethren for allowing gay missionaries to serve, you have no basis to critize the BSA policy that allows young men to sleep in tents together.

Now you're just being silly. 18-22 year old guys are not 11-13 year old guys. Apples and Turnips.

[EllenMaksoud]

Soon we'll all be polarized enough to join the Middle East in continuous war. These sorts of disputes make me wonder. It is mostly hysteria, rumor mongering and sanctimoniousness. I hope that the church does not get dragged into the frey. The rate of being gay has been the same for millions of years. That means there have always been gay boys in the Boy Scouts since it was formed. Why the ruction now? In case you had not noticed, gay boys generally seek out gay boys, and there is little danger a gay boy will make your straight son gay. I think it would be good if the church just kept doing what it has been doing in regards to the issue.

Thanks for the distraction. I had been feeling dangerously low, now I have something else to think about.

[Stone holm]

Not true. The numbers are more in the 1-2% range, though the more careful studies I've seen put them closer to 1%. You are pulling the 4% out of your hat. It is, moreover, not a question of pulling something over our eyes so as not to look at something dreadful, it is rather that once the BSA and its sponsoring institutions like the LDS Church acknowledge that they will welcome declared homosexual youth into their midst, whether they were already there or not, they are undertaking an implicit duty to protect from predation all youth from homosexual youth, since, if there's to be predation, that's where it'll come from.

It's the same issue as the difference between a known and an unknown risk for a homeowner whose invitee is injured on the premises. Where there's a known risk, there is a duty to warn, whether the risk is a loose floorboard or a jiggly lock to the back yard where the trampoline is kept.

Are you going to pay the cost of these inevitable lawsuits, since it is inevitable that homosexual youth will predate. Not every single one of them, but a statistically significant percentage.

I dealt with an attempted seduction during my mission, so don't think I'm blind to the problem. Yes, it is a problem, but it's part of life, putting up with unwelcome and disgusting advances. During my days as a dancer/actor, it was a frequent problem for me, having people I thought respected me and my life choices and standards so blatantly disregard what friendship ought to mean.

Now you're just being silly. 18-22 year old guys are not 11-13 year old guys. Apples and Turnips.

I see you reference Socrates in your signature line interesting given his reputation. I suspect we may need to worry also about the straight boys beating the tar out of any boy who announces he is gay, so what is your point?

[Bernard Gui]

No it doesn't. Mitch Mayne is an openly avowed homosexual who was called by his bishop to serve as the ward executive secretary in his bay-area ward. (http://www.mitchmayne.com/) Under BSA policy, brother Mayne could not be called as a scoutmaster. Now, if the bishop called him and everyone was happy, would BSA actually step in and have him removed? Probably not. But current BSA policy precludes a person who identifies as homosexual from serving in any scout leadership role, even though LDS policy would allow a person to serve so long as they kept church standards.

BTW, I fully agree that gays have been and currently serve within all levels of BSA leadership. The point is they do so in secret. As soon as they are found out, they are gone. At least per BSA's policy.

A man serving as an executive secretary would probably not to be the Laurel Advisor.

[Bernard Gui]

I quite agree. Within 3-5 years there will be several lawsuits against both the Church and the BSA in which young boys who've been diddled by older, outed boys while on BSA activities will be brought.

The reason for this is that the homophile advocacy groups don't want membership for adult homosexual leaders and homosexual youth: they want the extinction of BSA because of its symbolic value as a bastion of traditional masculine values.

I agree 100% with your assessment. BSA is targeted for destruction for that very reason.

[Bernard Gui]

Was involved with Scouts for decades, never saw it as a bastion for masculine value, whatever the heck that means, it was a considered iconic as promoting self reliance , honesty, and clean living. Those values could have been sustained even in a coeducational program like the popular Catholic explorer posts. Gender stereotyping was never an important part of the program.

My experience with Scouts is totally contrary to yours. The genius of the program is matching boys and young men with male role models who best match

their social, physical, mental, and emotional maturity. From parents to Pack Leader to Scoutmaster to Coach to self-direction. Pure genius when properly run.

[Bernard Gui]

This may be getting a little off topic,

I know there is this abstract idea that we must show love and compassion for everyone but there is another side to this.

My son is an Eagle Scout, when he was in third grade an older boy molested him in the school bathroom. It has left him traumatized and hurts even 30 years later. When he heard that the Scouts were going to let openly gay young men into the program and the Church was going along with it he said “not my son!”

Now we can reason one way to another but there is no going around personal fears and experiences. How is the Church and scouting going to address or calm the fears of this father?

I had a similar experience in junior high school. I am as concerned if my Scout son was tent-mate with a girl as I would be if he were with a homosexual boy.

[Bernard Gui]

For starters, missionaries are adults. Boy scouts are boys.

.

Most missionaries have not yet climbed Fool's Hill; therefore, they are not men.

[Stone holm]

My experience with Scouts is totally contrary to yours. The genius of the program is matching boys and young men with male role models who best match

their social, physical, mental, and emotional maturity. From parents to Pack Leader to Scoutmaster to Coach to self-direction. Pure genius when properly run.

Not sure I follow this comment clearly enough to understand the disagreement. The most important leader for a Cub Scout is the Den Leader who normally with the exception of Webelos is a woman. A wise Bishop, Eagle Scout, and Scoutmaster once remarked to me that Scouts makes men out of boys, and boys out of men. Not sure what this whole "masculinity" thing is all about, I doubt that an effeminate man would make a good Scoutmaster, but beyond that don't see gender stereotyping as particularly important we. Aren't out there to teach boys to be macho.

[Calm]

Are you going to pay the cost of these inevitable lawsuits, since it is inevitable that homosexual youth will predate. Not every single one of them, but a statistically significant percentage.

I know two individuals who were years ago (in the late 60s early 70s) were raped by older youth at BSA events (it didn't sound like it was in the tents though, but in the showers IIRC). Assuming that most gays in the past didn't announce their presence but were still there, do you think there will be significantly more gay youths in BSA now they can be open about it? And is there any reason to assume that gays who are more open about their status are more likely to be rapists? So if the rate doesn't actually go up, what difference to BSA will it make in a legal responsibility sense? Could not a suit have been brought in the past just as much as it can now?

[Stone holm]

I know two individuals who were years ago (in the late 60s early 70s) were raped by older youth at BSA events (it didn't sound like it was in the tents though, but in the showers IIRC). Assuming that most gays in the past didn't announce their presence but were still there, do you think there will be significantly more gay youths in BSA now they can be open about it? And is there any reason to assume that gays who are more open about their status are more likely to be rapists? So if the rate doesn't actually go up, what difference to BSA will it make in a legal responsibility sense? Could not a suit have been brought in the past just as much as it can now?

Suits in the past have primarily focused on abusive behaviour of adults. That is why BSA no longer permits adults to shower with the boys, and has the two adult rule and requires Scoutmasters to interview scouts with the door open so they can be seen by others when conducting interviews. It seems to me very unlikely that a kid who has come out is likely to be involved in a rape.

[Calm]

It seems to me very unlikely that a kid who has come out is likely to be involved in a rape.

Why not? If there are heterosexual youth that are known as heterosexuals who rape young women, why not an openly gay youth? Gay youth did when they were not open from the experiences of these individuals, what would change simply because they were more public about it. Edited June 8, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Why not? If there are heterosexual youth that are known as heterosexuals who rape young women, why not an openly gay youth? Gay youth did when they were not open from the experiences of these individuals, what would change simply because they were more public about it.

Because the eyes of everyone in the troop are going to be focused on the behaviour of that youth who has come out, the ones you would need to be wary of is the one still lurking in the shadows.

[ERayR]

I know two individuals who were years ago (in the late 60s early 70s) were raped by older youth at BSA events (it didn't sound like it was in the tents though, but in the showers IIRC). Assuming that most gays in the past didn't announce their presence but were still there, do you think there will be significantly more gay youths in BSA now they can be open about it? And is there any reason to assume that gays who are more open about their status are more likely to be rapists? So if the rate doesn't actually go up, what difference to BSA will it make in a legal responsibility sense? Could not a suit have been brought in the past just as much as it can now?

Yes but I also don't expect that all will be open about it just because they can either.

[Sleeper Cell]

Exactly. Boys are much less of an abuse risk than adults, especially young boys. If anything, we should be more concerned that a 20-year old senior companion in Brazil will abuse his 18-year old companion in their apartment, than we are that a 13-year old boy scout will abuse a 12-year old boy scout in a tent at scout camp.

Not a formal CFR, but if you have any statistics comparing: the percentage of boy scouts molested by other boy scouts to the percentage of LDS missionaries molested by their companions, I would appreciate it. .

For one thing, prospective missionaries -- regardless of “orientation” -- are generally vetted much more thoroughly than prospective boy scouts. Furthermore, in my experience:

1. Young boys are generally less able to protect themselves from abuse than adult males

2. There is generally a much greater difference in physical and emotional maturity between a 12 year old and a 14 year old (or even among young boys of the same age) than between an 18 year old and a 20 year old.

.

Even if we assume, for the sake of discussion, that an LDS missionary is more likely to be abused than a boy scout, I would still be far more concerned about the risk to the boy scout. Why? Because abuse of an adult is horrible. Abuse of a child is worse. And I believe that we should generally hold ourselves to a greater standard of care for children than for adults