FOS just got needier?

[Solon]

This is the question I was getting at, and I don't know the answer for sure, but I'm inclined to believe it will be no.


Would you use this same argument for sending men out to camp with teenage girls? If so, then we simply disagree. I don't think any amount of training, safeguards, etc. will completely prevent incidents of male leaders from falling in love with the teenage girls in their charge.

I'm not talking pedophiles here, either, simply mature adults who are attracted to others who are also sexually mature. The issue becomes even more difficult when you have leaders who are often in their 20's and early 30's who are not that far removed in age from the kids they are working with. For the record, I'm no less comfortable with my son being around a gay leader than my daughter being around a heterosexual male leader, and i would expect the safeguards to be the same in both instances.

I think it's much more common to have teenagers developing crushes on the adults, not the adults digging the kids.

I went to LDS girls' camp this year. You know, me and about 4 other adults. Somehow we all managed to keep everything on the up-and-up. Crazy, I know.

[Uncle Ted]

Finally, who do you think is the biggest threat to our youth? An openly gay scout leader or the closet pedophile? There is no comparison. And why not let the troops and participants decides how they want to organize? If someone doesn't want to associate with a gay leader, let them pick another troop. Lots of people wouldn't have a problem. Smart parents should be concerned primarily with how rigorously a troop follows two-deep procedures.

Yes, it really comes down to always having two-deep leadership and following the youth protection training. Smart parents would also be involved in the BSA program at some level (e.g a member of the scout committee).

Also note that the venturing program, as described by the BSA, is co-ed. If girls are members of the crew then female adult advisors are also required to attend campouts and other activities.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is the question I was getting at, and I don't know the answer for sure, but I'm inclined to believe it will be no.


Would you use this same argument for sending men out to camp with teenage girls? If so, then we simply disagree. I don't think any amount of training, safeguards, etc. will completely prevent incidents of male leaders from falling in love with the teenage girls in their charge.

I'm not talking pedophiles here, either, simply mature adults who are attracted to others who are also sexually mature. The issue becomes even more difficult when you have leaders who are often in their 20's and early 30's who are not that far removed in age from the kids they are working with. For the record, I'm no less comfortable with my son being around a gay leader than my daughter being around a heterosexual male leader, and i would expect the safeguards to be the same in both instances.

It takes two to tango, cowboy. I wouldn't be worried at all about my late teen heterosexual son falling in love with a gay scout leader. Now if there was a cute young female leader in the troop or if my son was gay, I might be a little worried and make double sure the other leader was a nazi about two-deep leadership like I am. Or I would just follow along on all campouts like I have done anyway with my sons.

BTW, following your logic, you may need to worry about your daughters with lesbian YW leaders. Given our LDS culture, they are probably in the closet, so good luck spotting them.

[wuapinmon]

The word we're looking for here is ephebophiles.

[cowboy]

I think it's much more common to have teenagers developing crushes on the adults, not the adults digging the kids.

I went to LDS girls' camp this year. You know, me and about 4 other adults. Somehow we all managed to keep everything on the up-and-up. Crazy, I know.

And yet we have training, rules, safeguards, etc., to keep kids safe. Apparently you are making the point that we should just trust everyone to act responsibly because inappropriate relationships will never develop. My point isn't about the vast majority of adults of any orientation who carry out their leadership responsibility appropriately. It is about the small proportion for whom the safeguards and training are in place. You knew that, but taking a sarcastic potshot at a misrepresentation of my argument was just more temptation than you could bear.

It takes two to tango, cowboy. I wouldn't be worried at all about my late teen heterosexual son falling in love with a gay scout leader. Now if there was a cute young female leader in the troop or if my son was gay, I might be a little worried and make double sure the other leader was a nazi about two-deep leadership like I am. Or I would just follow along on all campouts like I have done anyway with my sons.

BTW, following your logic, you may need to worry about your daughters with lesbian YW leaders. Given our LDS culture, they are probably in the closet, so good luck spotting them.

These are precisely the situations I'm talking about. If we allow gay scouts, as we should, then we have the potential for young gay scout leaders to be with gay young men. I would expect that situation to be treated with the same controls as a young male leader going on an overnight trip with a group of young women. Nothing more, nothing less.

To clarify, I'm not worried about my heterosexual teenagers spending time with homosexual leaders any more than I am about them spending time with leaders of the opposite sex, and I think we agree more than we disagree on this issue. Where we may disagree is the degree to which sexual orientation is hardwired versus a choice, and when that final determination is made. The limited research I have seen suggests that it is quite common for teens to question their orientation, and for the final determination of their orientation to come later in life as a young adult.

[Solon]

And yet we have training, rules, safeguards, etc., to keep kids safe. Apparently you are making the point that we should just trust everyone to act responsibly because inappropriate relationships will never develop. My point isn't about the vast majority of adults of any orientation who carry out their leadership responsibility appropriately. It is about the small proportion for whom the safeguards and training are in place. You knew that, but taking a sarcastic potshot at a misrepresentation of my argument was just more temptation than you could bear.

Give me a break.

They have a word for adults who pursue romance with under-18s, regardless of either party's orientation. That word is "pedopohile" and there are laws and safeguards in place to prevent this kind of deviant behavior. Your professed concern about a gay leader romancing a gay scout on a moonlit hike in the high Uintahs is a red-herring.

But the possibility of campfire romance isn't the real issue. You're dancing around the subject like all the other apologists. What you really don't want is legitimization. You don't mind gay scouts, because they might see a ruggedly hetero role-model and change their ways. What really unsettles you is the idea of a gay man in a position of authority. Heaven forbid we have a gay leader as a role-model for all these teenagers who are exploring their sexuality, since these teens might catch the gay.

This is about acceptance and legitimacy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

These are precisely the situations I'm talking about. If we allow gay scouts, as we should, then we have the potential for young gay scout leaders to be with gay young men. I would expect that situation to be treated with the same controls as a young male leader going on an overnight trip with a group of young women. Nothing more, nothing less.

I.e., two-deep leadership, no adults ever in a tent with the youth, etc. Otherwise known as the current BSA guidelines.

To clarify, I'm not worried about my heterosexual teenagers spending time with homosexual leaders any more than I am about them spending time with leaders of the opposite sex, and I think we agree more than we disagree on this issue. Where we may disagree is the degree to which sexual orientation is hardwired versus a choice, and when that final determination is made. The limited research I have seen suggests that it is quite common for teens to question their orientation, and for the final determination of their orientation to come later in life as a young adult.

So your main concern is that a gay scout leader might "turn" or recruit an impressionable youth? I think we are getting to the heart of your issues now.

Yes, "limited" would be a pretty accurate way to characterize that research.

[Northwestcoug]

Does anyone know how Scouts Canada works? They are co-ed, and they do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Does the church in Canada sponsor them?

[myboynoah]

Does anyone know how Scouts Canada works? They are co-ed, and they do not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Does the church in Canada sponsor them?

No.

[Northwestcoug]

No.

No, as in the church doesn't sponsor them? If not, what's the official boys' organization outside of the church?

[cowboy]

Give me a break.

They have a word for adults who pursue romance with under-18s, regardless of either party's orientation. That word is "pedopohile" and there are laws and safeguards in place to prevent this kind of deviant behavior. Your professed concern about a gay leader romancing a gay scout on a moonlit hike in the high Uintahs is a red-herring.

But the possibility of campfire romance isn't the real issue. You're dancing around the subject like all the other apologists. What you really don't want is legitimization. You don't mind gay scouts, because they might see a ruggedly hetero role-model and change their ways. What really unsettles you is the idea of a gay man in a position of authority. Heaven forbid we have a gay leader as a role-model for all these teenagers who are exploring their sexuality, since these teens might catch the gay.

This is about acceptance and legitimacy.

I know it's hard for you to imagine, but you're not as smart as you think you are, and even though you have your mind made up on an issue, there may be legitimate arguments on both sides. This is one of them. People like you who are convinced you are smarter and more enlightened than everyone else (not uncommon here) think everyone who doesn't agree with you is either less intelligent, a bigoted redneck, or both. While I may be less intelligent, I'm not a bigoted redneck, which is what you are insisting I must be if I am raising questions about an issue you feel so strongly is cut and dried.

Look, I'll break this down and make it simple for you, and since you've chosen to be a prick about it, I'll return the favor. It's like you swallowed that last bit of pie too hard, the force turned you inside out, and you became a walking asshole.

As much as you wish it did, my question has nothing to do with catching the gay. It's simply this: If we don't send teens on camp outs with leaders of the opposite sex then why is sending teens who may be gay on camp outs with gay leaders any less of a concern? Also, while this may be hard for even your enlightened Mensa-qualified intellect to grasp, this isn't about thinking gay people are all pedophiles. A 22-year-old developing a relationship with a mature 16 or 17 year old may be unwise, but he is neither deviant nor a pedophile.

I.e., two-deep leadership, no adults ever in a tent with the youth, etc. Otherwise known as the current BSA guidelines.

So your main concern is that a gay scout leader might "turn" or recruit an impressionable youth? I think we are getting to the heart of your issues now.

Yes, "limited" would be a pretty accurate way to characterize that research.

First, let me thank you for having a civil discussion and not automatically assuming (at least outwardly) that I'm an ignorant bigot. I've raised what I consider to be a legitimate question, and I appreciate your civil responses.

To break your response down, the BSA guidelines are in place to protect young people against pedophiles, but are they sufficient to prevent two people who may be mutually attracted to each other from developing a relationship? I don't know, because I don't know the guidelines, but it is a question I would have.

Second, the part in bold is not my main concern, or even really a concern at all. The leader that "turns" a young person would, in my opinion, be a predator, and not the type of person we are discussing. My point in mentioning it was that I think that is where we have divergent views on sexuality. A quick google search shows most experts agree with you about orientation and choice, but that most agree that many teens question their orientation and some don't come to a final conclusion until adulthood. So there- we're both right.

[Viking]

Can someone explain the difference between sending a gay man on a camp out with boy scouts and a woman going?

[Harry Tic]

As much as you wish it did, my question has nothing to do with catching the gay. It's simply this: If we don't send teens on camp outs with leaders of the opposite sex then why is sending teens who may be gay on camp outs with gay leaders any less of a concern? Also, while this may be hard for even your enlightened Mensa-qualified intellect to grasp, this isn't about thinking gay people are all pedophiles. A 22-year-old developing a relationship with a mature 16 or 17 year old may be unwise, but he is neither deviant nor a pedophile.

I've got to side with Cowboy on this one, intemperate rhetoric notwithstanding. Look, I'm probably about as liberal on issues of homosexual rights as you can be and still get a temple recommend. But the concern that he's raising, as I understand him, is not about pedophilia per se. This isn't about leaders that set out to take advantage of young people, carefully grooming them, etc. I think it's pretty clear that most pedophiles are heterosexual. This is about simple judgment. Scouting activities provide lots of opportunities for intimacy regardless of institutional safeguards. It's not unimaginable for a leader and a physically mature young person to find themselves in a compromising situation. The litmus test is pretty clear, for me. If it would be imprudent for non-pedophile heterosexual male leaders to accompany young women on camping trips--two-deep safeguards and policies notwithstanding--it would be imprudent to send a non-pedophile homosexual male leader to accompany young men on a camping trip. Bad decisions are made all the time in such situations, sexual orientation aside.

[CardiacCoug]

Can someone explain the difference between sending a gay man on a camp out with boy scouts and a woman going?

Men are generally more sexually assertive (whatever their sexual orientation) than women. That's one difference.

Really though a key point Lebowski has made is that no parent can know with absolute certainty that any supposedly straight (married, religious, etc.) man isn't secretly going to make a sexual advance on a kid. So the two-deep leadership is absolutely mandatory.

I really can see both sides of this argument, I gotta admit, as politically incorrect as the policy excluding gays is.

[Harry Tic]

I went to LDS girls' camp this year. You know, me and about 4 other adults. Somehow we all managed to keep everything on the up-and-up. Crazy, I know.

Does anyone really believe that the typical Girls' Camp and Boy Scout camping experiences are comparable in terms of structure, potential for intimacy, potential for supervision and safeguards to break down? Apples and oranges, I think.