Spotlight: Thoughts on the Boy Scouts affirming ban on gay members?

[Reavri]

Obviously none of you have thought enough about this. There is one simple obvious reason for doing this. That reason is to prevent kids from being sexually harassed while on camping trips or other activities. Don't dismiss this by saying it would not happen, things like this happen all the time. Try to think critically about situations instead of blindly following what the media says, there is usually a good reason.

1A) There have been many, many, many gay individuals in the BSA -- there are quite a number of stories of them, be it summer camp counselors or Eagle Scouts, being told to get out of the organization because they happen to be gay (or perceived as such). None of these removals were done so from a prompt of sexual harassment, which you so claim to be an issue (it's not). In fact, I wasn't allowed to join a BSA troop when I moved states because of my sexual orientation, so I lost out on that entire experience from middle school onwards.

1B) Other organizations, painfully similar to the BSA, allow gay and lesbian members (yes, girls are allowed as well). Namely, the United States Civil Air Patrol and they have their own summer camps/activities and have their own wilderness trips, although they work in a setting of military etiquette and behavior (Which isn't for everyone). I joined this organization, briefly, when I couldn't be involved in the BSA and I respect this organization a hell of a lot more because they don't discriminate. It's worked fine for them, why can't it work for the BSA?

2) Thinking critically involves the synthesis and analysis of information, not blindly heeding one organization's opinion. By reading multiple sources, like multiple media outlets, and also looking at similar organizations and how they handle the situation (and case studies on the issue)... there really is no call for the BSA to disallow gay members. You can be all "Well, they *might* sexually harass people!" But I can say the same thing for heterosexual males (Honestly, they've harassed me far more than any other gay guy), plus of sexual offenders, the vast majority are heterosexual. If you can find a credible case study that says otherwise, and by credible I mean endorsed by the American Psychological Association and not a Dr. Cameron who relies on selective newspaper clippings.

Here's a quote from here, "Groth and Birnbaum (1978) studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. None of the men had an exclusively homosexual adult sexual orientation. 83 (47%) were classified as "fixated;" 70 others (40%) were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; the remaining 22 (13%) were classified as regressed adult bisexuals." To follow up, the article continues to say, "However, in no case did this attraction to men exceed their preference for women....There were no men who were primarily sexually attracted to other adult males..."

There's a source for what I stated, a far more credible source than the likes of MSNBC, or Fox News, or the Huffington Post.


And so, if that's truly a reason why the BSA chooses to bar gay members then they should also bar heterosexual members as well based on the above information taken from a study. But they don't. Instead, they let heterosexual members in and when something goes awry they cover it up, or expel the offender -- the latter clearly being the better choice -- and I don't see an inability to hold such a standard for every single member -- gay, straight, bi, adult, or kid.

Honestly, I feel it's more of their religious views. And if that's the case, and they disallow members based on something so superficial, and they shouldn't be receiving public funds.

[Ali-31]

I didn't make any "presumptions" about human behavior, there is hard evidence that people do sexually abuse other people. I'm not saying a particular type of person does it more than others, I'm just saying it happens.

so why is it a good thing that homosexuals are banned from the Scouts if "a particular type of person doesn't do it more than others"?

because tbh you're just coming across as a homophobic pig here and you keep on talking about "hard evidence" yet haven't deigned to provide us with said "hard evidence"

not that you're going to come back and grace us with your presence again

[Hardtruth]

Okay guys, first off did you even read anything else that I wrote. Second, I said to think critically because most people do have an extremely one sided opinion about this and they don't want to think any other way because people want to be correct even if in truth there is no "100% correct view". I find it extremely hypocritical that people tell me I'm not thinking critically when they only provide the mainstream viewpoint on something without thinking about the flaws. I provided a viewpoint that was different than what people on here wanted to hear, I am in no way being biased just because I wrote something you don't like. As people can see the person right above me isn't thinking at all, he didn't read what I wrote and just thought I was being discriminatory. I never said it was a good thing they're banned. When I mentioned hard evidence I was talking about people being sexually harassed (again I didn't make any presumptions about who the harassers were) unless you'd like to deny that it happens and every story about it I think there IS hard evidence. Third, this is a small point but you said heterosexuals commit sexual harassment more than homosexuals but did you ever think that it might seem that way because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals? It would be impossible to compare fairly unless everyone gave truthful answers about what their orientation was as well as document every single incident and then compared percentages. Fourth, did you ever think that the BSA might have done that to also protect open homosexuals from abuse? Fifth, no other organization allows guys and girls to sleep in the same tent and sometimes not even in the same area. This is an accepted way to do things since guys can be physically attracted to girls and girls to guys even though nothing may happen. Isn't it kind of hypocritical to attack the BSA and accept the other organization's way of doing things when the BSA is trying to prevent the same thing? Now that doesn't really warrant a ban since there are other activities but I think that they decided it would look worse if they had to tell homosexuals they weren't allowed to join one of the major activities. Even if other organizations haven't decided this is an issue to them, the BSA could have a legitimate reason for their actions regardless of underlying reasons.

[Mr_Quick]

Okay guys, first off did you even read anything else that I wrote. Second, I said to think critically because most people do have an extremely one sided opinion about this and they don't want to think any other way because people want to be correct even if in truth there is no "100% correct view". I find it extremely hypocritical that people tell me I'm not thinking critically when they only provide the mainstream viewpoint on something without thinking about the flaws. I provided a viewpoint that was different than what people on here wanted to hear, I am in no way being biased just because I wrote something you don't like. As people can see the person right above me isn't thinking at all, he didn't read what I wrote and just thought I was being discriminatory. I never said it was a good thing they're banned. When I mentioned hard evidence I was talking about people being sexually harassed (again I didn't make any presumptions about who the harassers were) unless you'd like to deny that it happens and every story about it I think there IS hard evidence. Third, this is a small point but you said heterosexuals commit sexual harassment more than homosexuals but did you ever think that it might seem that way because there are more heterosexuals than homosexuals? It would be impossible to compare fairly unless everyone gave truthful answers about what their orientation was as well as document every single incident and then compared percentages. Fourth, did you ever think that the BSA might have done that to also protect open homosexuals from abuse? Fifth, no other organization allows guys and girls to sleep in the same tent and sometimes not even in the same area. This is an accepted way to do things since guys can be physically attracted to girls and girls to guys even though nothing may happen. Isn't it kind of hypocritical to attack the BSA and accept the other organization's way of doing things when the BSA is trying to prevent the same thing? Now that doesn't really warrant a ban since there are other activities but I think that they decided it would look worse if they had to tell homosexuals they weren't allowed to join one of the major activities. Even if other organizations haven't decided this is an issue to them, the BSA could have a legitimate reason for their actions regardless of underlying reasons.

The BSA have explicitly stated their position on the issue and the reasoning for it. According to them, the issue is that many of their members remain opposed to homosexuality and don't want their children raised to believe that it's acceptable. I don't understand why you feel such a strong need to put your own words in their mouths when they're quite capable of speaking for themselves.

[Hardtruth]

While that's an unfortunate reason if it's true, it goes along perfectly with my fourth point of protecting homosexuals from abuse. As for speaking for them I wanted to prove a point about society, that if someone brings up a different point of view than is accepted in an area they'll get attacked because people don't want to hear anything that is contradictory to what they believe. This is why newspapers and channels only show one viewpoint, they'll lose viewers/readers. If society really wants to improve, people need to start actually discussing issues instead of mob attacking the other side. Who knows, people may actually reach an agreement.

[goldenboyz]

The Boy Scouts' activities have nothing to do with anal sex or oral sex...so what's the problem? Those boys would be taught to ignore all of gays in the world?

[Encantado]

Obviously none of you have thought enough about this. There is one simple obvious reason for doing this. That reason is to prevent kids from being sexually harassed while on camping trips or other activities. Don't dismiss this by saying it would not happen, things like this happen all the time. Try to think critically about situations instead of blindly following what the media says, there is usually a good reason.

This is so outrageous and absolutely insulting. To make a claim that someone is more likely to be sexually harass someone based on their sexual orientation is completely false. If sexual harassment is an issue you help fix the issues by teaching children (and adults) how wrong it is to do such a thing; not ban a member because your narrow minded judgment leads you to believe that because someone is gay they are more likely to sexually harass someone who is straight. How does that make any sense to you?

It is exactly that ignorance that fuels the BSA to make such a rule. Complete ignorance.

[Encantado]

While that's an unfortunate reason if it's true, it goes along perfectly with my fourth point of protecting homosexuals from abuse. As for speaking for them I wanted to prove a point about society, that if someone brings up a different point of view than is accepted in an area they'll get attacked because people don't want to hear anything that is contradictory to what they believe. This is why newspapers and channels only show one viewpoint, they'll lose viewers/readers. If society really wants to improve, people need to start actually discussing issues instead of mob attacking the other side. Who knows, people may actually reach an agreement.

What you consider attacking, others consider debating. You can't challenge someone to see things from another perspective when you're failing to do so yourself. You're seeing it as others attacking you, I see it as taking part in a debate.

[Hardtruth]

I think what I meant went right over your head, and yes I have thought about the other side. You on the other hand, have not.

[Mr_Quick]

While that's an unfortunate reason if it's true, it goes along perfectly with my fourth point of protecting homosexuals from abuse. As for speaking for them I wanted to prove a point about society, that if someone brings up a different point of view than is accepted in an area they'll get attacked because people don't want to hear anything that is contradictory to what they believe.

You mean the way you've attacked everyone else in this thread for expressing a belief (namely, that the BSA's actions are wrong) that apparently differs from yours? You came in here arguing that, since our beliefs on the subject are not what you'd consider acceptable, we clearly haven't devoted any real thought to the issue and are just helpless tools of the media. If that doesn't qualify as insulting people for having different viewpoints, it's difficult to imagine what would.

If society really wants to improve, people need to start actually discussing issues instead of mob attacking the other side. Who knows, people may actually reach an agreement.

That's a fantastic ideal. However, you are not the only one who holds it. The problem, for the most part, is not that people don't agree with the above statement; the problem is that consistently acting in accordance with such a principle is much more difficult than simply paying lip service to it. Most people will agree on an abstract level that encouraging an honest dialogue between conflicting parties is preferable to encouraging violence; the issue is that people are plagued by various mental blocks (anxieties, insecurities, resentments, and the like) which interfere with their ability to live up to their high ideals in practice. Given the mismatch between the ideal you're presenting and the actions you're taking to promote that ideal, it would seem that this problem extends to you as well.