Bsa Prez Calls For End To Ban On Gay Leaders

[Storm Rider]

I think people conflate gay leaders with pedophiles and so if they want to get rid of the ban then it makes me no nevermind

 

I don't think it is a conflation, but a degree of confusion.  What do you call a male who has gay sex and also likes to prey on boys?  Do you call him a homosexual or is a pedophile a completely different sexual orientation?  To me they are homosexuals and also like boys.  The key point is they like having sex with their own gender.  

 

It seems disingenuous to separate pedophilia from homosexuality completely; it is a subset of homosexuality.  I wonder how it would look if men were active leaders and going on camping trips with girl scouts?  Why should there be any concern?  Yes, that same feeling of it not being right is the same reason it is not right for a gay man to be out with the boys on a camping trip.  This is just common sense and has nothing to do with discrimination unless men taking young girls out on a camping trip is discrimination.  

[Analytics]

Just to make sure I understand the Church's position, let me paint a picture of two men.

 

Steve: Steve is straight.  He is a good guy, active in the ward, but doesn't pay a full tithing, and people suspect he has a minor problem with the word of wisdom.

 

Gary: Gary has strong and persistent feelings of same-sex attraction; in other words, Gary is gay.  Nevertheless, he is a returned missionary, Eagle Scout, fully committed and devout to the Church, pays a full tithing, and is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses.

 

In Mormonism, Steve is qualified to be a scout master, but not to have a temple recommend. Gary qualifies to have a temple recommend, but not to be a scout master.

 

Do I have that correct?

[Senator]

It seems disingenuous to separate pedophilia from homosexuality completely; it is a subset of homosexuality.

If that is the case then pedophilia is equally a subset of heterosexuality as well.

I wonder how it would look if men were active leaders and going on camping trips with girl scouts?  Why should there be any concern?  Yes, that same feeling of it not being right is the same reason it is not right for a gay man to be out with the boys on a camping trip.  This is just common sense and has nothing to do with discrimination.

This I agree with

[Senator]

Just to make sure I understand the Church's position, let me paint a picture of two men.

 

Steve: Steve is straight.  He is a good guy, active in the ward, but doesn't pay a full tithing, and people suspect he has a minor problem with the word of wisdom.

 

Gary: Gary has strong and persistent feelings of same-sex attraction; in other words, Gary is gay.  Nevertheless, he is a returned missionary, Eagle Scout, fully committed and devout to the Church, pays a full tithing, and is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses.

 

In Mormonism, Steve is qualified to be a scout master, but not to have a temple recommend. Gary qualifies to have a temple recommend, but not to be a scout master.

 

Do I have that correct?

Steve:   I doubt he would be considered to be a scout master.

 

Gary:   Gary would get along just fine in the LDS world as long as he never comes out.

 

[Daniel2]

I don't think it is a conflation, but a degree of confusion. What do you call a male who has gay sex and also likes to prey on boys?

A person of either gender who has sex with minors of either gender is called a pedophile.

Pedophilia is a different and unrelated issue from heterosexuality or homosexuality.

Do you call him a homosexual or is a pedophile a completely different sexual orientation?

You call him a pedophile.

Again, pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation from either heterosexuality or homosexuality.

To me they are homosexuals and also like boys.

Your opinion is yours to have, but it is out of step with every professional major psychological, psychiatric, medical, and even pediatric professional organization's findings about pedophilia.

The key point is they like having sex with their own gender.

The key point is that they prey on underage minors.

It seems disingenuous to separate pedophilia from homosexuality completely; it is a subset of homosexuality.

It seems disingenuous to link pedophilia with homosexuality, given that pedophiles, by definition, prey on minors, regardless of the minors' gender, and pedophiles force non-consensual sexual behaviors on both young boys and young girls.

I wonder how it would look if men were active leaders and going on camping trips with girl scouts? Why should there be any concern? Yes, that same feeling of it not being right is the same reason it is not right for a gay man to be out with the boys on a camping trip. This is just common sense and has nothing to do with discrimination unless men taking young girls out on a camping trip is discrimination.

Is concern warrented when groups of families go camping at a public campground surrounded by other families?

In the Unitarian Church, I (as an openly gay, ex-Mormon Sunday School teacher) was often asked to chaperone youth (teenage) retreats at remote locations where youth were supervised by chaperones of both genders and by chaperones both straight and gay, and the girls slept in tents of just girls, and the boys slept in tents of just boys. Likewise, our congregation often went on family campouts where entire families attended together. I am unaware of any higher incidents of pedophilia or sexual abuse in such scenarios.

Does anyone have any actual facts or figures showing there IS increased danger or risk in such scenarios, rather than just fearful assumptions and projections....?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Daniel2

[smac97]

Just to make sure I understand the Church's position, let me paint a picture of two men.

 

Steve: Steve is straight.  He is a good guy, active in the ward, but doesn't pay a full tithing, and people suspect he has a minor problem with the word of wisdom.

 

Gary: Gary has strong and persistent feelings of same-sex attraction; in other words, Gary is gay.  Nevertheless, he is a returned missionary, Eagle Scout, fully committed and devout to the Church, pays a full tithing, and is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses.

It sounds, then, like Gary is not an "open or avowed homosexual" who would be precluded from scouting leadership positions per the current BSA policy.

 

In Mormonism, Steve is qualified to be a scout master, but not to have a temple recommend.

Probably.

 

Gary qualifies to have a temple recommend, but not to be a scout master.

If Gary is an "open or avowed homosexual," and if "open or avowed" involves homosexual conduct, then Gary would not qualify for either a temple recommend or scout leadership positions. But if Gary is, as you put it, "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses," then he would qualify for both a temple recommend and scout leadership positions.

I admire the attempt to create tension/conflict between LDS perceptions of "worthiness" for temple attendance and participation in scouting. It didn't really work, but it was a valiant effort.

 

Do I have that correct?

No, I don't think you do.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2015 by smac97

[Daniel2]

If Gary is an "open or avowed homosexual," and if "open or avowed" involves homosexual conduct, then Gary would not qualify for either a temple recommend or scout leadership positions. But if Gary is, as you put it, "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses," then he would qualify for both a temple recommend and scout leadership positions.

 

If Gary is LDS and "an open homosexual" (or "open about having SSA" or "openly gay") but "is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses," your assertion in the second sentence above contradicts the BSA'S current policy prohibiting openly gay adult scout leaders.  Please cite a reference for the claim that he "would qualify for... scout leadership positions" in an LDS-sponsored troop.

 

I admire the attempt to create tension/conflict between LDS perceptions of "worthiness" for temple attendance and participation in scouting. It didn't really work, but it was a valiant effort.

 

It seems to me it was quite an effective demonstration of exactly that, but your answer to the CFR will demonstrate which of us is correct.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Daniel2

[Senator]

If Gary is an "open or avowed homosexual," and if "open or avowed" involves homosexual conduct, then Gary would not qualify for either a temple recommend or scout leadership positions. But if Gary is, as you put it, "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses," then he would qualify for both a temple recommend and scout leadership positions.

 

 

 

If Gary had revealed to his Bishop that he has homosexual feelings but has "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses,", do you feel he would still qualify for a scout leadership position?

[Storm Rider]

Just to make sure I understand the Church's position, let me paint a picture of two men.

 

Steve: Steve is straight.  He is a good guy, active in the ward, but doesn't pay a full tithing, and people suspect he has a minor problem with the word of wisdom.

 

Gary: Gary has strong and persistent feelings of same-sex attraction; in other words, Gary is gay.  Nevertheless, he is a returned missionary, Eagle Scout, fully committed and devout to the Church, pays a full tithing, and is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses.

 

In Mormonism, Steve is qualified to be a scout master, but not to have a temple recommend. Gary qualifies to have a temple recommend, but not to be a scout master.

 

Do I have that correct?

 

I think you are creating a proposition that is not realistic.  The issue is NOT if one is gay; there is only an issue when is a practicing homosexual.  Being gay in the church is the same as being a sinner; big whoop; join the rest of the human race.  

[Storm Rider]

If that is the case then pedophilia is equally a subset of heterosexuality as well.

This I agree with

 

Absolutely, IF the pedophilia is targeting the opposite gender.  However, the context was boy scouts and men; I was not limiting pedophilia solely to homosexuals.  What if find odd is that there seems to be a strong resistance to saying anything negative about being gay.  it is the same thing when a gay pride parade is presented as wholesome family entertainment; or when AIDS is presented as nothing to do with a homosexual lifestyle.  To sanitize the discussion of the topic is dishonest, but it is the national pastime when it comes to this single topic of SSA.   

[rockpond]

Here:

Wow. I wonder what the behind-the-scenes story of this is.

I wonder if a bifurcated system can work, one where scout groups chartered by religious groups can choose continue the BSA's current policy, whereas other chartering organizations can end the policy.

I also wonder how long that "choice" would remain intact for religious groups. Not long, I think.

We'll see.

Thoughts?

-Smac

 

Glad to hear it.  I agree with the BSA president.

 

And to answer your question... yes, a bifurcated system can work -- we've already been using it.

[smac97]

I think people conflate gay leaders with pedophiles and so if they want to get rid of the ban then it makes me no nevermind

I reject an across-the-board allegation that all homosexuals are pedophiles. That's simply not the case. Such a calumny has no more merit than when feminists accuse all men of being rapists.

So the question, really, is whether there is a significant overlap between homosexuals and pedophiles. From the Reisman article cited earlier:

 

Reisman & Johnson content analyzed 10,292 solicitations, Personals/In Search Of (ISO) advertisements (1988-92) in twenty randomly selected issues from two liberal periodicals read largely by affluent, educated, largely white consumers; The Washingtonian (2885 ISO ads in this premier, mainstream, high gloss heterosexual periodical) and The Advocate (7407 ISO ads in this premier, mainstream, high gloss homosexual periodical). The Advocate is the oldest and most credible "gay" magazine. (In Triumphs, Trials, and Errors, Chris Bull interviewed President William Clinton for The Advocate: "With his term coming to a close, President Clinton talks candidly in an exclusive interview about his battles, successes, and future hopes for gay and lesbian rights.")

 

Reisman and Johnson purged female ISO’s from The Washingtonian database.  The remaining "bachelors" (heterosexual Washingtonians versus homosexual Advocates), were character analyzed by categorizing and tabulating the advertisers’ partner solicitations. These primary findings were supported by several cross-validation analyses of biographies, travel, self-reports as well as other scholarly studies as cited below.

• 0.45% Washingtonian heterosexual bachelors (n=2885) were "in search of/offer" man-girl sex.
• 15% Advocate homosexual bachelors (n=7407) were "in search of/offer" man-boy sex.

Additional Corroborative Studies:

• 49% of "gay" male biographies (n=166) report sex with boys.
• 41% of "gay" travel in foreign countries (n=139) report laws on adult sex with boys.
• 21% of Advocate readers (n=2500) report adult molestation before age 15.
• 73% of "gay" men report sex with boys 16-19 or younger.
• 100 boys a year, plus, report molestation by a Boy Scout Leader.
• 150 boy homosexual victims versus 20 girl heterosexual victims per molester.
• 153 homosexual offenders assaulted 22,981 boys.
• 224 heterosexual offenders assaulted 4435 girls.

Psychologist Eugene Abel reported homosexuals "sexually molest young boys with an incidence that is occurring from 120 five times greater than the molestation of girls. . . . [N]onincarcerated child molesters admitted from 23.4 to 281.7 acts per offender . . . whose targets 40 19.8 were males."

 

The rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering. Abel’s data of 150.2 boys abused per male homosexual offender finds no equal (yet) in heterosexual violations of 19.8 girls.

 

These data are fully supported by the pre-Kirk and Madsen homosexual political writings, especially blatant in Karla Jay and Allen Young’s two pro-gay books, Out of the Closets and The Gay Report. The former reprints "Gay Manifestos" which boldly proclaim "kids can take care of themselves, and are sexual beings way earlier than we’d like to admit . . . nice bodies and young bodies are attributes, they’re groovy," calling for elimination of the age of consent.

 

Jay and Young’s finding of fifty to seventy-three percent of homosexual males self-reporting sex with boys (even Advocate readers admitted to a twenty-one percent molestation rate by age fifteen), is of a "fit" with the one in six or seven boys child-protection data estimates as boy abuse by bi/homosexual males.

 

I have some reservations about some of Reisman's claims and conclusions. For example, where she provides a statistic that "49% of "gay" male biographies (n=166) report sex with boys," is this pedophilic activity? Or is it activity between boys? That would seem to be a significant distinction, but one that Reisman's article blurs (though hopefully the referenced citation would provide clarification on this). However, Reisman also points to data showing "73% of 'gay' men report sex with boys 16-19 or younger" and "153 homosexual offenders assaulted 22,981 boys" (an average of 150 victims per offender) compared to "224 heterosexual offenders assaulted 4435 girls" (an average of 20 victims per offender). These ratios become all the more alarming when we consider that homosexuals represent only a tiny fraction of the population, and yet the pedophilic subculture of this tiny fraction commits huge amounts of sexual assaults.  Reisman's overall conclusion seems hard to refute:

 

The homosexual population has been internationally identified in France, England, and the USA as between one and three percent (in a range of 1.5% to 2%). Hard data confirm international research and law enforcement reports that the two percent homosexual population harbors a vast pederast boy abuse subculture. Again, these data do not suggest that all or most homosexuals abuse children. What they do show, however, is that a statistically significant higher percentage of bi/homosexuals abuse children than do heterosexual males. Since 100% of homosexual males do not sexually assault boys, a vast "gay" subset commits multiple, repeated child sex offenses.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 22, 2015 by smac97

[rockpond]

Just to make sure I understand the Church's position, let me paint a picture of two men.

 

Steve: Steve is straight.  He is a good guy, active in the ward, but doesn't pay a full tithing, and people suspect he has a minor problem with the word of wisdom.

 

Gary: Gary has strong and persistent feelings of same-sex attraction; in other words, Gary is gay.  Nevertheless, he is a returned missionary, Eagle Scout, fully committed and devout to the Church, pays a full tithing, and is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses.

 

In Mormonism, Steve is qualified to be a scout master, but not to have a temple recommend. Gary qualifies to have a temple recommend, but not to be a scout master.

 

Do I have that correct?

 

Making these assumptions:  The Bishop also suspects Steve has a minor problem with the WoW and the Bishop is not aware that Gary is gay...

 

Steve would not be given the opportunity to be Scoutmaster while Gary would.

[smac97]

If Gary is LDS and "an open homosexual" (or "open about having SSA" or "openly gay") but "is committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses," your assertion in the second sentence above contradicts the BSA'S current policy prohibiting openly gay adult scout leaders.  Please cite a reference for the claim that he "would qualify for... scout leadership positions" in an LDS-sponsored troop.

I admit I am not immediately familiar with the precise definition of "open or avowed homosexual" as that phrase is used in the BSA policy. I also question whether a man who has SSA but is "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses" could be reasonably described as an "open or avowed homosexual."

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

If Gary had revealed to his Bishop that he has homosexual feelings but has "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses,", do you feel he would still qualify for a scout leadership position?

If Gary has "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses," and if he is not "open and avowed" about his impulses, then I think he could qualify for a scout leadership position.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

Glad to hear it.  I agree with the BSA president.

 

And to answer your question... yes, a bifurcated system can work -- we've already been using it.

What is your prediction about my second question: "I also wonder how long that 'choice' would remain intact for religious groups.."?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

If Gary has "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses," and if he is not "open and avowed" about his impulses, then I think he could qualify for a scout leadership position.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree with you that "open and avowed" is in need of clarification. However, I am doubtful that such and individual as you describe, would be considered for the position.

[rockpond]

What is your prediction about my second question: "I also wonder how long that 'choice' would remain intact for religious groups.."?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Tough to say... the BSA has the SCOTUS decision (BSA v Dale) behind them so they could fight for individual CO's right to keep the anti-gay policy intact.  But, they appear to be losing the will to do so.  When it comes down to it, I think the decision will be driven by funding... if they begin to feel that allowing CO's to prohibit gay leaders is causing donations to diminish they'll enforce a global policy.

 

For the record, I argued in favor of an "individual CO policy" back before they made the last policy change.  And I think that each CO should be able to make their own policies regarding this matter.  But I also respect the BSA's right to adopt whatever policies they decide are right for their organization and I fully agree with SCOTUS decision which reaffirmed the BSA's constitutional right to freedom of association.

[smac97]

I don't trust the gay rights movement to be content with a national policy that allows sponsoring organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ to set their own policies regarding having gay leaders. Once the BSA caves in on this, the gay rights advocates will push to have the policy forced across the board. The Church won't give in to that. It will withdraw its affiliation, and without the support of the Church and other like-minded organizations, BSA will fold.

 

I just saw this reaction to yesterday's announcement:

 

Gates asked that in the name of religious freedom, local troops funded by religious organizations should be able "to determine the standards for their Scout leaders."

He continued, "Such an approach would allow all churches, which sponsor some 70 percent of our Scout units, to establish leadership standards consistent with their faith ... We must, at all costs, preserve the religious freedom of our church partners to do this."

You know what? As long as local groups are allowed to set their own standards and qualifications for their leaders, this might be the perfect solution. Gay men who want to participate in the organization will certainly be allowed to -- and churches that sponsor troops will be able to continue adhering to their own values within their units. Can everybody please be happy for a solution like this?

Well, I really would like to "be happy for a solution like this," but I just can't do it. I can't do it because, like Scott, "I don't trust the gay rights movement to be content with a national policy that allows sponsoring organizations such as the Church of Jesus Christ to set their own policies regarding having gay leaders." Scott's surmise that the GRM will, sooner or later, "push to have the policy forced across the board" is, I think, prescient.

And I think many of those who are supporting this change tacitly (or perhaps otherwise) agree with Scott's surmise. This is an incremental step toward a larger goal of either coercing religious groups into capitulating on their beliefs, or else injuring them by forcing them out of the BSA.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

I agree with you that "open and avowed" is in need of clarification. However, I am doubtful that such and individual as you describe, would be considered for the position.

Well, such a decision would be based on individual circumstances. Generalized speculation about what might happen isn't really helpful.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Daniel2]

I admit I am not immediately familiar with the precise definition of "open or avowed homosexual" as that phrase is used in the BSA policy.

According to the BSA's "Current Policy" website under the heading of THE BSA's membership policy, it states:

 

While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA. (emphasis added)

The distinction is between individuals who are "open or avowed homosexuals" OR those "who engage in behavior," indicating the BSA delineates between individuals who openly profess their orientation vs. those that engaging in behavior.

 

I also question whether a man who has SSA but is "committed to never acting on his homosexual impulses" could be reasonably described as an "open or avowed homosexual."

I'm not sure what you see as being problematic about describing individuals who are "open" about their homosexuality, but still "committed to never acting on homosexual impulses," as being "openly homosexual." What is the nature of your questioning that point?

A brief review of Northstar's website, as well as the group BYU USGA demonstrate it's both organizations include many devout, homosexual Latter-day Saints who are "open" (as defined as "exposed to the air or to view; not covered") or "avowed" (as defined as "that has been asserted, admitted, or stated publicly"), and many who are not open, but still acknowledge their innate and unchangeable homosexual orientations, yet who "are committed to never acting on their homosexual impulses." Joshua Weed, Ty Mansfield, and Mitch Mainas well as the individuals in TLC's "My Husband's Not Gay" program are also open homosexuals that likewise are committed not to act on their homosexual impulses.

I have a hard time believing that, under the current LDS policies, such individuals would ever be called into Boy Scout Leadership positions in LDS troops, even if they retain temple recommends (or, for those still at BYU and potentially attending family wards, even maintain ecclesiastical endorsements). I haven't seen any evidence that such individuals have been or are being called to serve in such scouting positions, but would be interested in such evidence, if there is any.

Edited May 22, 2015 by Daniel2

[rongo]

  When it comes down to it, I think the decision will be driven by funding... if they begin to feel that allowing CO's to prohibit gay leaders is causing donations to diminish they'll enforce a global policy.

 

 

I don't think this is accurate. From a *funding* perspective, alienating the Mormons and Catholics is suicidal to the organization. Mormons especially provide a massively disproportionate amount of funding and *leadership*, even if only constituting 30-40% of the scouts themselves. Think, Friends of Scouting drives, automatic rechartering fees paid by the stakes (for all boys in the stake, active or not, and many non-members as well).

 

I think the onus for this is not the "beancounters with green eye shades," but rather getting swept up by the tsunami of terror at public backlash because of the momentum of the pro-gay movement. While some would argue that the terror stems from fear of donations drying up, I think it's clear that forcing LDS/RC out will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. *That's* where the money dries up. It's the utter panic at being labeled "anti-gay" or "intolerant" that is driving this.

[Daniel2]

It's the utter panic at being labeled "anti-gay" or "intolerant" that is driving this.

 

Really...? 

 

You don't think the religious freedom of the gay-affirming churches' desires to allow their gay parishioners to fully participate in their sponsored scout troops that plays a part....? 

 

Or the desires for kids and families with gay parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, grandchildren, etc. to have their Moms and Dad's or other family members participate, just as straight kids' parents and family members get to?

 

It's just "the utter panic of being labeled as 'anti-gay' or 'intolerant'"?

 

Are you familiar with Scouts for Equality?  https://www.scoutsforequality.org/

 

Or Zach Wahls?  http://zachwahls.com/

 

Do those websites display the "utter panic" you're referring to?  What evidence do you have of this "utter panic"?

Edited May 22, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

I don't think this is accurate. From a *funding* perspective, alienating the Mormons and Catholics is suicidal to the organization. Mormons especially provide a massively disproportionate amount of funding and *leadership*, even if only constituting 30-40% of the scouts themselves. Think, Friends of Scouting drives, automatic rechartering fees paid by the stakes (for all boys in the stake, active or not, and many non-members as well).

 

I think the onus for this is not the "beancounters with green eye shades," but rather getting swept up by the tsunami of terror at public backlash because of the momentum of the pro-gay movement. While some would argue that the terror stems from fear of donations drying up, I think it's clear that forcing LDS/RC out will kill the goose that lays the golden egg. *That's* where the money dries up. It's the utter panic at being labeled "anti-gay" or "intolerant" that is driving this.

 

I think that the top level of BSA leaders will be carefully weighing the consideration you've accurately outlined here.

 

But I think we ought to use caution in assumptions made about LDS/RC pulling out of the BSA.  I know many who thought that the BSA allowing open/avowed gay scouts would cause the Church to disassociate from the BSA but Church leaders didn't seem to even flinch.

[thesometimesaint]

Churches and their directly related private activities(IE; Boy Scouts) are not subject to public accommodations laws.