Posted on 05/13/2002 9:04:58 AM PDT by Vidalia
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:18:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I have gone to school and worked with open homosexuals, and their interests were homosexuals their own age, not kids. Which is not to say that such things as homosexual pederasts don't exist, of course. But having two homosexuals present doesn't automatically mean that they will collude in molesting kids. Even if one was interested, the other, likely the father (natural or adopted) of one of the kids, would most likely be revolted and would take the appropriate measures.
And further, having been involved in Boy Scouts for a long time, I can attest that while efforts are always made to comply with this, in practice, there are times when difficult situations cause this rule to be broken. As just one example, at a beach campout, there is one bathhouse. Kids go there to get changed and to shower. One isn't going to send two adults with them to watch them change or shower.
I have been involved in Scouting, boy and man, for 20 years. I haven't seen any violations of youth protection standards (YPT) since they came into effect. You're quite right, you don't send two adults to watch kids change or shower. You generally send a group of kids with no adults. You never send a single adult with a single kid anywhere. Adults don't watch anybody change or shower; that would be a YPT violation.
Remember, YPT doesn't require adults to be present at a Scouting function. For example, it specifically states in the Guide to Safe Scouting that Patrols can go on overnight campouts with no adults present at all. It simply requires that no one adult be alone with one Scout (unless they are parent/guardian and son).
The adults also have to change and shower, but they go one at a time, since need the others to be with the kids.
The only time the adults would have to go one at a time would be if there were only two adults. As long as there's an adult available in the area, all the rest can go into the shower house and get cleaned up.
I certainly don't want a homosexual man showering with my sons.
Any man or woman, either homo- or heterosexual, showering with youth would be a YPT violation and I'd send him or her home immediately and inform the Council (before a parent beat me to it). Adults never shower or undress in front of youth, or vice versa, in the BSA.
As for the moral danger - I don't want a homosexual man talking about homosexual sex around my kids. I don't want him talking about the men that he likes to look at at the beach (or elsewhere).
I wouldn't want any of that happening, either. Nor would I like a heterosexual leader (they come in both sexes, by the way) talking about heterosexual practices or discussing their opinions of members of the opposite sex in front of the Scouts. I'd at least warn any leader who did so, and depending on the exact circumstances and content of the discussion consider asking the unit Committee to bounce him or her.
I don't want him to answer kids (inevitable) questions about things like anal and oral sex between men - or about the promiscuous gay lifestyle.
I'm sorry, but at this point I've got to ask you just what the hell you're talking about, inevitable? I've never had a kid ask me about sex, hetero- or homosexual, in any way, shape, or form. Have you? And, if they did, my answer, and the answer that any of our other leaders would give, is "Ask your parents (or priest/minister/rabbi)", the same answer we all give if we're asked about what they've read in the papers about the BSA's legal cases, or any other sexually-related topic, or about what specifically their duties are regarding "Duty to God", etc.
And I don't want my teenage sons to be the object of any man's sexual attraction, be it realized or not.
Fair enough. Neither do I. Of course, I'm assuming that the unit Committee is screening non-parental leadership applications very closely. I'm also figuring that any parent joining us as a leader would be in some kind of relationship with someone his or her own age and would, as a parent, be as revolted by child molestation as I am.
Though in any case, I don't depend on my assumptions -- the recent case of Troop 666 of St. Bartholomew's in Manhattan, where the male molester was newly married, means that we don't depend on our assumptions, but on YPT and close attention to each other.
Not true, pedophiles find situations were they can secretly get around the two-deep requirements, not to mention plenty of legitimate situations where two-deep doesn’t work at all.
I believe these to be false assertions. You offer no examples or evidence.
Secondly, all leadership applications must be approved by the sponsoring organization and the unit committee, the latter comprised of members of the sponsoring organization's governing body, ex-leaders, and parents of the Scouts. Do you seriously think they'll approve applications from a bunch of homosexuals with no kids in the unit?
One leader dropping off kids at the end of a campout, how do you drop off the last kid?
The last kid the leader drops off is his own. Happens often. Although in our case, we usually have the parents come to the parking lot and pick the kids up (cell phones do have their advantages). And we routinely get stuck where we have two leaders, or a leader and a parent, and a couple of kids waiting in the parking lot. But the second leader or parent CAN'T LEAVE until that last parent shows up to get their kid.
Only two leaders on a campout and someone gets hurt and has to go to the hospital, there aren’t enough vehicles for all the kids to go with because parent drivers didn’t spend the night.
Then you've got a single leader and a bunch of kids. It's a two-deep leadership situation, and in fact is precisely one of the reasons that two-deep was created, but there's still a bunch of kids (i.e., witnesses) around and is not an opportunity for the one leader to start molesting kids. Again, remember that YPT allows a single leader to be along with multiple kids; it's only a YPT violation for one leader to be alone with a single non-related Scout.
Merit badge councilors routinely meet/see scouts alone.
Not in our Council. And that's a gross YPT violation. Your Council needs to get on the stick and start enforcing YPT, or you're going to end up in serious trouble.
Yes, that's true. But a large enough percentage of homosexual men ARE sexually interested in teenage boys to have created 95% of the molestation scandal in the Catholic Church. Futher, homosexual websites are full of pictures and stories about sex with teenagers, homosexual magazines are full of ads soliciting teenage sex, 90% of teenage prostitution in New York City is adult male / teenage boy prostitution, NAMBLA marches in homosexual parades all across the nation. Putting your teenage son under the exclusive authority of two homosexual men in close quarters (as occurs in scouts) would be like putting your teenage daughter under the exclusive authority, in close quarters, of two heterosexual men. Want to take a poll and find out how many parents would be comfortable with either situation?
I don't want him to answer kids (inevitable) questions about things like anal and oral sex between men - or about the promiscuous gay lifestyle.
Maybe I shouldn't have put it this way. When you have a homosexual scoutmaster, you are implicitly condoning the acts that homosexual men engage in (which are well-known to many teenage boys) - things like anal intercourse (a disgusting and filthy and dangerous act), promiscuous sex between or among men (disgusting, filthy and dangerous), often anonymous, and acts involving the ingestion of feces or urine (disgusting, filthy and dangerous). Sorry, but don't want those thing condoned (or talked about) for my sons.
Yes, some Committees and CO’s are sympathetic to homosexuals. Pedophiles are skilled at manipulation with both children and adults, once approved by the CO the two-deep requirements are not hard to circumvent.
The last kid the leader drops off is his own.
Not true if James Dale was a leader plus there are many non-homosexual Scouters who have no active children in their troop.
But the second leader or parent CAN'T LEAVE until that last parent shows up to get their kid.
You can’t compel parents to stay especially if you’re late, as we so often are, from returning. That’s a pretty unreasonable request especially if the leader or parents don’t live near the pick-up destination.
Again, remember that YPT allows a single leader to be along with multiple kids
Only when driving or flying in view of other leaders. There’s no other provision in the Guide to Safe Scouting that says anything about one leader and multiple kids being OK. This is the exact scenario where pedophiles can manipulate the situation.
Not in our Council. And that's a gross YPT violation. Your Council needs to get on the stick and start enforcing YPT, or you're going to end up in serious trouble.
Agreed, but I was referring to summer camp. Ask your son if he’s gone to merit badge class at camp and if only one councilor was present in some situations, it happens.
Mr. Clint N. Suhks is completely right. In the Catholic Church, homosexual priests established numerous clever ways to get themselves into one-on-one positions with teenage boys. The Catholic Church does not have a YPT system (though it could obviously use one), it is again crazy to put teenage boys under the authority of homosexual men, many of whom are sexually attracted to those boys. In the end, Mr. RonF, you would like to rely on an absolute set of rules to prevent sexual abuse and homosexual prosyletization in the scouts. Most parents would like to rely on common sense, and want to absolutely minimize the chances for sexual abuse. Having homosexual scoutmasters obviously (to almost all) increases (significantly) the chances for bad things to happen.
They actually weren't that clever. They just had the kids over on one flimsy pretext after another and had their way with them.
The Catholic Church does not have a YPT system (though it could obviously use one)
What the Catholic Church has is a claim to the moral authority of God, which certain clerics abused. Again and again what you read is that parents couldn't imagine that a priest could abuse kids because he was a "man of God". While parents often have a "What a great guy, he'd never do anything like that to kids" attitude towards eventual abusers, it's magnified 100-fold when the abuser has religious faith going for him.
The most lasting fallout across the country about this priestly abuse is going to be the loss of faith in the RCC as an institution; putting faith into an institution, instead of God, is an error that many Catholics will no longer make. It will take the RCC hierarchy a while to adjust to this.
It is again crazy to put teenage boys under the authority of homosexual men, many of whom are sexually attracted to those boys. In the end, Mr. RonF, you would like to rely on an absolute set of rules to prevent sexual abuse and homosexual prosyletization in the scouts. Most parents would like to rely on common sense, and want to absolutely minimize the chances for sexual abuse.
Actually, if you look at earlier posts where I talk about the proper role of the unit committee and the parents, I don't advocate reliance on an absolute set of rules to protect the children; just the opposite. After all, both the YPT rules and the BSA's ban on homosexual members failed to protect youth from being abused by the heterosexual abuser in the very example you quote. No, what I suggest we depend on is the very thing that would have saved the kids in Troop 666; leadership oversight by the unit committee to make sure the rules are actually followed, and most importantly the common sense that parents apparently failed to apply in this case. I am here to say that NO RULES CAN REPLACE PARENTAL COMMON SENSE.
I'm afraid I don't find it credible that a unit Committee for a Scout Troop, Crew, or Ship (Packs require parents to accompany Cubs on camping trips) would put a bunch of single homosexuals into a Troop's leadership corps. I don't think they'd put a bunch of young, single straight men into such positions, for various reasons that have nothing to do with abuse; they'd be afraid that they wouldn't be responsible enough, mainly. Again; unit committees are made up of parents, ex-leaders (for older units, who again are almost always ex-Scout parents), and members of the sponsoring organization. So I see "Putting your teenage son under the exclusive authority of two homosexual men in close quarters" as a red herring; the parents on the committee wouldn't sit still for such a thing, nor would the Scouts' parents tolerate it either; they'd pull their kids out, and the Troop would die.
If the unit committee and the parents can be depended upon to make the judgement that an abortionist or a pornographer is fit or unfit to be a unit leader, I should imagine that they can handle this.
Therefore, your moral objections to having a homosexual Scoutmaster for your son (an objection I am not criticizing) could readily be handled; don't put your son in a unit with a homosexual Scoutmaster, or in a unit that has a sponsor that would be likely to engage one.
Yes, some Committees and CO’s are sympathetic to homosexuals. Pedophiles are skilled at manipulation with both children and adults, once approved by the CO the two-deep requirements are not hard to circumvent.
Interesting that, in a debate whether or not homosexual leaders should be banned due to the danger of youth being abused by them, you give as an example abuse by a heterosexual leader. Doesn't help your point much. In this case, it's my guess that the leader's ability to circumvent the YPT requirement was due to the knowledge that he was heterosexual. No rules, even ones banning homosexuals, can protect children if the parents fail to show proper judgement. As I've said above, I just don't accept that any unit committee would select, or parents tolerate, a unit leadership corps made up of homosexuals with no kids in the unit.
You can’t compel parents to stay especially if you’re late, as we so often are, from returning. That’s a pretty unreasonable request especially if the leader or parents don’t live near the pick-up destination.I can't compel a parent to stay and wait with me, but the leaders, all having been though YPT training, know that this is part of the deal. Two adults sit and wait with that last kid if neither of them have their own kid there. We ask leaders to do a lot of unreasonable things. This is just one more, and they do it. I'm not backing off on this; this is the way we do it.
Again, remember that YPT allows a single leader to be alone with multiple kids.
Only when driving or flying in view of other leaders. There’s no other provision in the Guide to Safe Scouting that says anything about one leader and multiple kids being OK. This is the exact scenario where pedophiles can manipulate the situation.
Actually, the BSA expects you to not be driving in view of other leaders. To quote from the G2SS: "Do not travel in convoy (see "Leadership Requirements for Trips and Outings," No. 2)." If you're not travelling in convoy, how can other leaders see you when you're driving? And, YPT and two-deep require two or more adults on a trip. It doesn't mean that if 4 Scouts go to gather wood, and 2 Scouts go to get water, that each group has to have either none or two adults with them. It's perfectly acceptable for each of those groups to have a single adult tagging along. One-on-one, though, would be a YPT violation.
Agreed, but I was referring to summer camp. Ask your son if he’s gone to merit badge class at camp and if only one councilor was present in some situations, it happens.Hm. Depends on your definition of "alone". Our summer camps' program areas are fairly compact, so while there might be only one counselor in a given program area, they're within 25 to 50 feet or so of each other (except for shooting sports, National regs have them at least a mile from any building, but there's always a bunch of adults out there). Additionally, summer camp MB counselors are usually youth, except on the waterfront where there's always one adult present (National regs again); but then again, there's always a ton of kids and at least 3 or 4 youth staff members.
Read the G2SS again, carefully. While each trip/outing must have 2 or more adults on it, I've never heard the regulations interpreted such that a group of Scouts on an outing must always have two adults with them no matter where they go; you just have to have two or more leaders on the outing. Now, if you're talking high-adventure, or a hike deep in the woods, etc., then no, you need two adults. But if everyone's within shouting distance, or a quick run, then it's O.K.
What boggles my mind is that you contemplate circumstances in which an abortionist or pornographer might be fit to be a unit leader.
Using your flabby reasoning, we could safely put convicted pedophiles on work-release as janitors or counselors in child care centers. If you don't like it, find another child care center.
Heaven forbid that we allow considerations of *shudder* morality to enter into it.
Any man who abuses teenage boys is homosexual or bisexual and obviously has HOMOSEXUAL inclinations. To call that abuser heterosexual is ridiculous.
You must be a libertarian. The proof that you are is that you have no tolerence for traditional morality being raised as an argument against dangerous and destructive behavior. You are your ilk are greasing the skids on our plunge into the sewer of suffocating nanny statism.
Very true. Practicing and proud bisexual and homosexual men are sexual perverts, period. They should not be in positions of mentorship over impressionable and vulnerable young men.
If course, that's the very reason most of them want to have mentorship over young men.
Pederasty is their game.
The most lasting fallout is going to be the ever widening of the already widespread realization that teenage boys are in danger of sexual molestation when in the company of homosexual men.
Hehehe…you think someone who has same-sex attraction is heterosexual? That’s ridiculous.
I am here to say that NO RULES CAN REPLACE PARENTAL COMMON SENSE.
I fully agree with this. Since homosexuals are many times more likely to be pedophiles than those who do not practice perversion, common sense will tell you not to put them in charge of our children.
I see "Putting your teenage son under the exclusive authority of two homosexual men in close quarters" as a red herring; the parents on the committee wouldn't sit still for such a thing
Oh really? What if their charters were from Unitarian Universalists or Metropolitan Community cults? The scenario is valid and very well would happen if there was no ban on homosexuals in the BSA, committees and chartering organizations are no guarantee.
Interesting that, in a debate whether or not homosexual leaders should be banned due to the danger of youth being abused by them, you give as an example abuse by a heterosexual leader. Doesn't help your point much.
No I didn’t, I didn’t state their “orientation” either way, funny you think male heterosexuals can be pedophiles of boys.
No rules, even ones banning homosexuals, can protect children if the parents fail to show proper judgement.
That was my point entirely, two-deep isn’t a guarantee but banning individuals whose behavior makes them many times more likely to be pedophiles is the right thing to do.
I can't compel a parent to stay and wait with me, but the leaders…
Only one registered leader and a parent is required for an outing.
Actually, the BSA expects you to not be driving in view of other leaders. If you're not travelling in convoy, how can other leaders see you when you're driving?
That’s simply not true, and one doesn’t preclude the other. Convoys are a protective escort where no other vehicles are allowed in between the escort vehicles, as long as safe vehicle spacing is practiced other vehicles can pass safely on two lane roads and that’s specifically why the regulation is there. Not because you can’t follow immediately behind each other or that you’re not allowed to be in sight of each other, it’s so other vehicles can pass you. Your point is totally invalid.
It's perfectly acceptable for each of those groups to have a single adult tagging along.
It’s simply not, call your District Executive and ask. If one on two or more were allowed then leaders would be allowed to tent with more than just his son.
Read the G2SS again, carefully.
I have and invite you to cite where you think it allows (one on many) leadership.
Exactly, if you do little boys, you be “gay.” The pathology is same sex-attraction, to equate it with non-pathological behavior is ludicrous. If someone is a rapist but doesn’t rape everyone, he’s not called a semi-rapist.
What boggles my mind is that you think that I do contemplate such circumstances. I don't. Re-read my post, and pay attention to what I say, not what you'd like me to have said so that you can argue with it.
What I say that the responsibility to determine whether or not they would be is, under the present structure of the BSA, the call of the unit committee (to approve them) and the parents (to keep an eye on them and decide whether or not to keep their kids in the unit). If the BSA can trust the parents to make that decision, and they do, then I'm sure the parents and unit committee can be trusted to keep a group of homosexuals from taking over the Troop.
Heaven forbid that we allow considerations of *shudder* morality to enter into it.
Child care centers involve paid employees who have no personal interest in their charges, and who by definition take care of kids while their parents aren't around. BSA units involve volunteers who generally have a great deal of personal interest in their charges, and who always have at least one parent of the kids they're working with around (I've never seen an outing where at least one of the leaders wasn't the father or mother of one of the kids, and most outings have at least one parent around). It's a completely different situation.
Any group of parents that entrust their children to any youth group, be it church, park district, sports teams, BSA, GSUSA, etc., are foolish to treat it as a babysitting service.
And I strongly encourage parents to take into account the moral character of the leaders they choose for any of their children's activities. If you don't think that homosexuals, abortionists, pornographers, or anyone of a religion that's not your own, etc., is unfit to be a moral leader for your kid, then don't put your kid in that group. BSA doesn't stand for Baby Sitters of America. If you don't know anything about a leader, and don't know enough about the unit committee, or aren't willing to find out, or serve as a leader or committee member yourself, then keep your kid out of Scouts, even under the present rules.
Anyone who abuses teenage boys, or teenage girls, etc., is a pervert. I won't argue that he had abnormal and dangerous sexual tendencies. He should be nowhere near kids. But a man who was engaged to a woman his own age and subsequently married her obviously has heterosexual inclinations, too, ones that were apparently quite strongly expressed. Banning homosexuals didn't seem to keep him out of the BSA, did it? Some other solution needs to be found to keep people like him out of scouting.
ISeems to me it doesn't really matter whether a leader is gay or straight, what matters is not making any assumptions that "gays are pederasts" or "straights are O.K.", and just not leaving kids in sitations that could be dangerous.
No, you miss the point. A significant percentage of homosexuals are sexually attracted to teenage boys and DO act on those inclinations. Looking at the Catholic Church scandal, in which a sexual minority among the priesthood (homosexuals) committed 95% of the molestations (against teenage boys), it becomes clear that homosexuals are more likely to molest teenage boys than heterosexuals teenage girls. (And no sane parent would send out his teenage daughters camping with heterosexual men anyway.) Further, while true that one can't prevent all those with potentially dangerous homosexual tendencies from being in contact with our kids, the solution to that problem could harldly be to knowingly put more men with homosexual tendencies into close contact with our sons.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.