“This remarkable quote ‘Church expects adult leaders [to remain chaste]....’....There are no virgin queers.”
O.K., but, it’s as if you are assuming that all the unmarried “heterosexuals” also “remain chaste”.
I doubt that either set of conditions is ascertainable by the church leaders - in today’s culture and society, or that they know or that they try to find out.
Regardless, that still leaves the question of the moral probity of leaving young people in scouting - especially when outings are such a large part of scouting - in the supervision of persons who are sexually attracted to the gender of their scouts.
People think such a question is “homophobic”, it’s not.
What would parents say if their “girl scount” was on a troop outing under the supervision of a 19 year old young man. Are they going to assume - it’s O.K., he’s “chaste”. I doubt it.
It should not happen, not only for the young girl’s sake, for the young man as well. Either one could become the victim of unwarrented attentions - in either direction. While, one risks violation, physcially, the other risks their reputation being violated when an an unwarranted advance was rejected.
The concerns of parents when it comes to “gay” troop leaders is no different. Instead of being “safe” with the troop leader, the gender-attraction roles are reversed, and parents reverse their consent accordingly. It really does not matter if everyone is assumed “chaste” or not.
I agree with your premise but you have missed mine. Homosexuality is not a condition. It is an activity. One cannot be a homosexual unless one has engaged in homosexual acts.