Posted on 05/24/2002 9:32:55 AM PDT by Frapster
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:36:51 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
When a man admits or tells the public he's homosexual, he's avowed. When a man engages in homosexual behavior, he's avowed. The prohibition against avowed homosexuals means that any kind of homosexual behavior, such as 'hitting on' a boy, is grounds for dismissal. It also means, as in the James Dale case, that once there is solid evidence that someone is homosexual, he's out. The Council in New York may wish to circumvent that, but when a parent complains to the national Council about a man who admits he's homosexual, he'll be out. The national policy is quite clear and has been reaffirmed this year.
To the extent possible, the Boy Scouts tries to prevent homosexual molestation. They insist on scouts watching videos and going over information with their parents about molesters. They have rules requiring that two adults be with scouts. And so forth. But homosexual molesters are drawn to the scouts, and the scouts still has a large number of homosexual molestation cases every year. The molestations in the Catholic Church, with a minority of homosexual priests, virtually all involved homosexual men with teenage boys.
The prohibition against avowed homosexuals means that any kind of homosexual behavior, such as 'hitting on' a boy, is grounds for dismissal.
I would think that it's not only grounds for dismissal, it's grounds for arrest. Actually, if it happened in my unit, the offender would be conducting his initial interviews with law enforcement from a hospital bed.
When a man admits or tells the public he's homosexual, he's avowed. When a man engages in homosexual behavior, he's avowed.
Define "public". I realize this sounds like I'm being argumentative, but I'm really not trying to be. I'm trying to say that you're going to see different interpretations, and that National is going to stay out of these unless, as happened in Dale, they are dragged in by a court case. If a gay man's neighbors all know he's gay, but he keeps his mouth shut in meetings, he'll probably slide. If he's public to the extent that it hits the newspapers, then he'll probably get busted -- this is what happened in Dale.
It also means, as in the James Dale case, that once there is solid evidence that someone is homosexual, he's out.
If the solid evidence is some kind of public notice in news media (again, as in Dale), then yes, he's out. If the solid evidence is that some neighbor took a bunch of pictures of this leader kissing his boyfriend though their picture window and brought them to the local Council's Scout Executive, then it won't fly.
The Council in New York may wish to circumvent that, but when a parent complains to the national Council about a man who admits he's homosexual, he'll be out.
You might very well be surprised about that. I can't say you're wrong. But don't be so sure you're right. National strongly resists circumventing local Council decisions on leaders (or just about anything else). However, given the non-discrimination statements made by some local Councils over the last year or so, I rather suspect that the scenario you suggest will happen sometime in the next year or so, and then we'll see what National does. It hasn't, yet. Every suit brought regarding homosexual leaders has involved a local Council defending its actions after they have de-registered a leader that had the support of their unit. No one's ever brought suit because a unit disqualified someone because of their sexual orientation, nor has anyone gone over both a sponsor's head and the local Council directly to National.
There is one precedent on how National looks at how someone was found to be "avowed". A young man (about 18 or so, I believe) working on staff at Camp Yagoog in Rhode Island a couple of years ago was suspected of being gay. However, he gave no overt evidence of being gay. A senior staff member finally came up to him and asked him if he was gay, and the young man said, "Yes." The young man was subsequently fired, on that basis. The young man protested, and National eventually instructed that the young man be reinstated and given back pay, as the BSA's guideline of "don't ask, don't tell" had been violated. I admit that this is not exactly analogous to what we're talking about here, but it does show that the BSA will allow someone who is known to be gay to work for them, and that how they got the knowledge is an issue on defining "avowed". Of course, in this case a specific BSA policy had been violated by the local BSA personnel. Your examples are not of that nature.
The national policy is quite clear and has been reaffirmed this year.
I'm afraid that, while many of the scenarios you suggest above are pretty clear on whether they fit within the guideline of "avowed", there's wiggle room in some instances. Things are a bit quiet on this now, but we may well see National Council come out and either offer clarification on what "avowed" means, or tolerate Council to Council differences in it's interpretation.
I'm not making these statements to argue that there should be different interpretations. Nor am I arguing (here) that there should be a particular interpretation. I'm just telling you that there are and will be different interpretations, at least unless National Council gets much more heavily involved at a local level in these decisions than it is now.
Source? I thought we were doing pretty good about this with YPT and two deep leadership requirements.
"The National Executive Board of the Boy Scouts of America has reaffirmed its traditional leadership standards, as recommended by its appropriate committees. The board received three resolutions suggesting changes in leadership standards in order to permit avowed homosexuals to serve as Boy Scout leaders. The board referred the resolutions to the appropriate committee, which formed a diverse task force composed of chartered organization representatives to consider the resolutions. The BSA reaffirmed its view that an avowed homosexual cannot serve as a role model for the traditional moral values espoused in the Scout Oath and Law and that these values cannot be subject to local option choices."
True, new land does cost a fortune. But I bet if the Boy Scouts had a national fund-raising drive, they'd take in millions and millions. Most Americans, and most scout parents are totally fed up with the outrageous homosexual assault on the scouts.
"Local option" is a term that's been used during the debate on the BSA policy to symbolize the idea that the decision of whether or not to allow the enrollment of an "avowed homosexual" as a leader or member should be left to local Councils and/or unit sponsors, much as the choice of whether to enroll abortion providers is now.
Thus, a UU sponsored unit might allow someone well known to the unit's youth and leadership to be gay to be a leader, and to reference his sexual orientation, and to teach kids to tolerate homosexuality as moral, while the Catholic Church sponsored unit could ban such a person
This is different than a debate over what constitutes "avowed".
yendu, I'm really not trying to debate here the propriety of whether or not a homosexual would make a fit leader for youth, especially in the Scouting program. I'm trying to tell you that the definition of what "avowed" means is not set in stone. In contrast, the acceptabliity of someone who has been determined to be "avowed" is set in stone.
Well, then, this is difficult for me to accept. Not that this is a high incidence, given that there are about 3+ million youth members of traditional BSA units, and any incidence is too high, especially if it was my kid. In any case, people really do need to pay more attention to YPT.
There was a tremendous article in Sports Illustrated about 3 years, entitled "Who's coaching your kids?" All about abuses that coaches had committed against youth in their charge. There was about a 1/4 page sidebar to the story that listed things that parents could do to protect their kids that SI should reprint and hand out millions of copies as a public service. Things like, "show up at a practice unannounced once in a while", "be suspicious, not grateful, if the coach decides to keep your kid around for extra tutoring", "be suspicious if the coach gives your kid gifts and takes him out to movies or non-sports related outings", etc. Common f@#king sense, actually, but people who treat sports programs and Scouting programs and other such as babysitting services instead of an adjunct to raising their kids that they themselves still have a part in apparently need to be told such things. I agree, YPT, etc., cannot completely protect your kids.
Odd as it may seem to you, there are people who would tolerate or even encourage homosexual leaders in their units.
That amount is going down. It will eventually be irrelevant.
They're welcome to start their own homosexual scouts any time they want.
That of course is their right, Mr. RonF. We lost about 3 out of 150 kids in our pack and troop on this issue. And if you find that you think the scout policy is wrong, you too may quit. But what you have trouble dealing with is the idea that the scouting organization has taken a firm stand that people who engage in male homosexual conduct are inappropriate role models for teenage boys. As a class, homosexual men are highly promiscuous (the majority have had hundreds of sexual partners, often anonymous), they engage in dirty and disgusting practices like anal intercourse (according to the Center for Disease Control, more than 75% commonly engage in this practice), a large percentage (over 35%, according to the CDC) engage in practices involving the ingestion of urine and feces, they rarely have stable relationships (less than 2% of male homosexual relationships last for more than five years), their relationships are rarely monogomous, they are the primary cause of the spread of AIDs in this country, and many of them ARE SEXUALLY ATTRACTED TO TEENAGE BOYS (as in the Catholic Church scandal). You can see where the scout policy comes from. It is quite sensible. You don't have to agree with it. But that is what the scouts believe (as well as the vast, vast majority of scout parents). I don't hate homosexual men, or wish them anything but happiness in their lives. I feel sorry that they are compelled to do the depraved things they do. But very few parents want them in close contact with their sons, and to have authority over them at the most formative point in their lives. That ain't going to change.
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.