I meant simply that because some straight people think they are very different from gays, that gays are therefore bad people. So these straight hetero’s see it fitting to further outcast these seemingly strange individuals by adding to their load and making seem like bad people, all to make original said straight guys feel better about themselves.
OK, but I thought we had accepted for the purposes of this discussion that pederasty was different from homosexuality. Pederasts have sexual attraction specifically for pre-pubescent boys. Homosexuals have sexual attraction specifically for post-pubescent males.
In other words, the BSA is not protecting pre-pubescent males from pederasts by banning gays, but post-pubescent males. This is because they share the perception that both gay and straight males are more likely than not to have a sexual interest in post-pubescent minors - the sexy fifteen-year-old (of whatever sex) to which I and others have referred. So it does accomplish something, at least as far as they can tell.
An interesting point. I just finished reading The Stronger Women Get, The More Men Love Football by Mariah Burton Nelson. In it, she details many cases of the kind of sexual exploitation of post-pubescent females by their mostly male coaches that I believe the BSA is trying to avoid with their Scouts.
So yes, I think a case can be made that more ought to be done to avoid sexual contact between even post-pubescent minors, and those who are supposed to be leading and supporting them. Which is what the BSA is trying to do.
Thanks for the clarification, john_b, but I don’t think this addresses what I and DrDeth are saying. The Boy Scouts aren’t trying to make gays feel bad or straights feel good. They are trying to protect their charges from a certain kind of sexual exploitation. Whether or not you agree with their course of action towards that end, it is not as simple as repeating the mantra “gays aren’t child molestors”. Even if they are not, eliminating the sexual component from a relationship can be seen as a positive good.
Perhaps you agree with Esprix that the simple identification of homosexual behavior as morally wrong is homophobia. Perhaps the BSA is entirely wrong in taking what steps it can to prevent it altogether in its troops. The solution for that is for those who disagree with the policy to set up their own private organization which welcomes gays and atheists and anyone else you like. Maybe it will work better than the BSA does - who knows? As long as this gay-friendly version of the BSA does not receive any more (or less) support from the state than does the BSA, I cannot see anyone objecting any more than they do to the existence of the BSA. If we can have officially sponsored GLBT support groups in the schools, why can’t we have both the gay Boy Scouts and the BSA?
On review, I find I am repeating myself. Usually this is a sign that a thread is petering out, or I can’t make myself clear.
Oh well. Thanks for your thoughts.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan, I believe the belief that in order to protect teenager boys from sexual exploitation, they need to be kept away from gay men is an expression of institutionalized homophobia. I consider the “playing the percentages” argument to be a rationalization concealing homophobia, rather than a justification. You obviously disagree. I’m content to leave it at that.
And I firmly reject the notion of a “separate but equal” “Gay Scouts”.
I agree that your first problem with the BSA being the one I share. I do not agree that being gay is not being “morally straight”. Gay dudes are no less & no more morally straight than hetero dudes. I also disagree with the banning of atheists. Again, like I said- scouting is “for all boys”. I don’t know if the BSA’s policys here rise to actual “homophobia”, but they are certainly anti-diveristy. Here, the Scouts are simply- IMHO- wrong. Note, however that back in the '70’s- neither was mentioned. We had a couple of boys that said “I don’t beleive in God” and although there was some effort to get them to go to the VERY non-denominational “Sunday worship”- there was no talk at all about kicking them out. Other than the usual crude & juvenile “gay jokes” there was no discussion of homosexuality, either. Note that I don’t think a gay boy should be excluded from scouting.
Where we disagree is on the second. I agree that a flat out denail of gay men to be Scout leaders is not the only way. However, the practical problems concern me. Having been a scout leader, it is very difficult to get any parental participation. Usually (and note I am talking about the 1970’s here, when I was active) of a Troop of 30>40 Scouts, with maybe 20 being active & regular, there might be 2>4 “Dads” and maybe one “ex-scout” like myself that choose to remain as a Leader rather than go on to Explorers. Thus, although I agree in principle that a Gay Leader could be acceptable given proper chaperoning- that degree of volunteerism just didn’t happen.
Kelly- somehow you do not seem to understand. If Shodan & I make it clear it isn’t just keeping “boys away from Gay men” it is also just as equally “keeping straight men away from girls” and “keeping lesbian women away from girls”, etc. In other words, we understand that a parent has a legit concern about having their teen child away on a camping trip -with little or no chaperoning- with an adult who may be interested in that teen sexually. If they are treating all sexual orientations the same and equally then how can it be “homophobia”? I think Esprix concurs with us- reluctantly?
Diogenes- Yes, I do have a problem with a hetero man “coaching girls volleyball”. Although in a school setting thismight be safe, I would have grave reservations with that same coach taking the girls away on a week long “spring break” trip with no chaperones. I wouldn’t trust myself so I won’t trust another man.
DrDeth, oh, I get it. I just think that your “reason” is a rationalization: an excuse given so you can get away with unacknowledged homophobia.
I see no need to keep straight men or lesbian women away from teenaged girls, either. Either you trust the person, or you don’t, but whether you trust them or not should have nothing to do with their sexual orientation. The purpose of chaperoning is to keep kids from doing inappropriate things with one another, not to protect the kids from the chaperone.
It’s called Scouting For All. And guess what? I still consider it “separate but equal,” and I think it stinks.
There you have it.
Esprix
I’ll agree with KellyM here, DrD. It should be about the actions of the chaperone, not about “playing the odds” based on someone’s sexual orientation. (Frankly, it sounds a lot like racial profiling.) It’s insulting, IMHO.
Esprix
Wow. At all? Do you believe that straight men are so entirely trustworthy?
I don’t have enough experience with lesbians to comment, but do you really think that adult males making sexual advances towards teen-age females is so rare that it can be disregarded?
I am sorry to say that I don’t believe you here. Could you cite the logic underlying this, or some evidence that it is never appropriate to worry about who is looking after your children?
Quis custodes ipsos custodiet is a very old question.
Regards,
Shodan
And of course it is your right to think that it stinks as much as you like.
Just like it is the right of the BSA to think that a completely different set of behaviors stinks as much as they like.
And aren’t we both fortunate to be living in a country that allows us to think what we like, or go to church wherever we like, or join whatever organizations we like, and teach our children as we see fit?
It’s a beautiful thing. And the genius of America is that we have come to see over the decades that it gets even better if it applies to everyone, not just the ones who agree with us.
Regards,
Shodan
I think some straight men are.
It comes down to whether you trust the individual. And whether you do or not shouldn’t depend on whether they’re gay.
If you trust the guy, it shouldn’t matter if he’s gay or not. And if you don’t trust the guy, then it doesn’t matter if you think he’s straight or not because he could be lying to you about being straight. Your rule amounts to the statement that straight men are more trustworthy than gay men, which I find to be both unfounded and offensive.
I see, so anyone who disagrees with you is a “homophobe”. Riiight. :rolleyes:
One more time. Neither Shodan & I have indicated in any way shape or from that we feel that “straight men are more trustworthy than gay men”. We both feel that both are equally untrustworthy. (I also feel that women cannot always be trusted, either).
Got that? We don’t trust unsupervised adults with our teens (of the “opposite sex”). Not gay men, not straight men, nor lesbians nor hetero women. NO ADULT CAN BE COMPLETELY TRUSTED WITH TEENS (of the “opposite” sex) ON A LONG TERM UNSUPERVISED BASIS. Since this is all inclusive- it cannot be, by definition “homophobia” or even discriminatory.
But no- not even yelling will get thru to you. You have stooped to calling names in GD. You are not worth debating.
That’s exactly what it is. Shodan’s rule implicitly assumes that we can trust straight men more than gay men.
One of the qualifications for being a Scout leader should be that the individual be trustworthy not to abuse his charges. Shodan would substitute an individual evaluation of trustworthiness for a categorical evaluation based on his impression of the relative trustworthiness of straight men versus gay men in that respect. His analysis of the “statistics” shows no evidence of having weighed the relative risk of misidentifying an ephebophile as a straight man; he assumes that all ephebophiles will be obviously gay and so by excluding all obviously gay men one necessarily excludes all (or all but an insignificant few) ephebophiles. This is no different than noting that a greater percentage of black men than white men are criminals and excluding all blacks from consideration because of the increased risk of criminality.
In short, Shodan assumes that all straight men are reliable when they claim to be straight, but that all gay men are unreliable when they claim not to be ephebophiles. It should not be difficult to understand why this is offensive.
I see, so anyone who disagrees with you is a “homophobe”. Riiight. :rolleyes:
One more time. Neither Shodan & I have indicated in any way shape or form that we feel that “straight men are more trustworthy than gay men”. We both feel that both are equally untrustworthy. (I also feel that women cannot always be trusted, either).
Got that? We don’t trust unsupervised adults with our teens (of the “opposite sex”). Not gay men, not straight men, nor lesbians nor hetero women. NO ADULT CAN BE COMPLETELY TRUSTED WITH TEENS (of the “opposite” sex) ON A LONG TERM UNSUPERVISED BASIS. Since this is all inclusive- it cannot be, by definition “homophobia” or even discriminatory.
But no- not even yelling will get thru to you. You have stooped to calling names in GD. You are not worth debating.
DrDeth, you just proved my point. You state that nobody is trustworthy. Fine. But you clearly believe that straight men, categorically, are more trustworthy than gay men, categorically, and will tolerate the use of such categorical rules. That’s “gay profiling”.
There is a name I could call you now, but I won’t because it would be rude to do so.
I’m going to have to disagree with you. In a situation or organization involving a small number of people this may be possible but at larger scales it becomes impractical. Let’s look at the hypothetical situation of sexual consent and minors. Are there some minors who are mature enough that they could give meaningful consent to sexual contact with an adult? I don’t know many sexually mature minors who I would consider to be in that category (able to meaningfully give consent) but I accept the likelihood that there are probably some out there. Statutory rape laws are in place in order to protect the vast majority of sexually mature minors who would not be able to give meaningful consent. The law makes no subjective distinctions, nor can it practically speaking, on the maturity of an individual minor in such cases. The result is that such cases are prosecuted in a consistent fashion even though a small (tiny?) fraction involved a mature minor who knew what they were doing.
To use another analogy, I know that many military personnel are required to undergo security background checks prior to being allowed to enroll, gain access to certain classified information, etc. I’m sure that the sorts of things that the military checks for in a persons background eliminate a number of honest and competent people loyal to their country. This is unfortunate but is a piece of reality that must be dealt with. It would be highly impractical (and less efficient) to allow the person conducting the background check to say “Well… I’ve known Joe since the second grade. I know he’s a good guy. I’ll just give him a pass”.
Now, I want to make it clear that I’m not saying that there are only a small fraction of gay men who can be trusted. What I am saying is that relying on a subjective evaluation of an individuals character is impractical when determining nationwide policy for a large group. I repeat: I’m saying nothing about the content of the policy, rather about the impracticality of relying on local judgement with regard to matters of organizational policy.. In an ideal world maybe it would be possible to rely on the efficacy of selecting ideal candidates based on individual trust. Unfortunately, and I mean this sincerely, we don’t live in that world.
Grim
P.S. I can empathize with the rejection of a “Gay Scouts” organization. Homosexual people want to be considered just as mainstream and un-noteworthy as anyone else. By excluding them from some of the most common and easily recognized private institutions they feel (with justification) as though society has tacitly approved their diminishment as worthwhile people. For this, I am sad. As Esprix has mentioned there are likely other policies which could be pursued in order to gain the same results. I would be interested in seeing progress made in that direction.
And no one has implied that they don’t have that right, as the SCOTUS affirmed.
And isn’t it interesting that the goverment endorses and financially supports one way of thinking over another - the one that discriminates and teaches bigotry. Wow - we’re so lucky. :rolleyes:
Esprix
How sad. I figure I can trust people until given a reason not to, rather than not trusting them from the get-go. Interesting.
Then, again, perhaps the BSA should enforce or subsidize their existing policies to prevent any improprieties, rather than engage in wholesale discrimination and profiling.
Just a thought.
Esprix
NO! I beleive NOTHING OF THE SORT . I believe that straight men or neither more or less trustworthy than gay men I beleive gay men are neither more or less trustworthy than straight men . Either you are putting words in my mouth- where I have repeatedly stated over & over again the opposite- or you have a severe problem with reading comprehension. Since you seem to have problems reading this, I put it in nice bright colors so it will sink into your closed mind.
Your behavior here, and your debating techniques are reprehensible. You call names, impute things to posters when they have stated the reverse, and put nasty racist words in other peoples mouths. Your posts are libelous & inflamitory, not to mention subliterate.
Okay, then, why are you arguing (as I’m perceiving you are; correct my error if appropriate) for the BSA policy of excluding all gay men – given that you feel nobody is trustworthy enough to be the sole chaperones in such a situation?
Perhaps I’m missing a point – but I think you just sank your own boat.
DrDeth, I know you have said that you believe that straight men are no more or less trustworthy than gay men. I simply do not believe that you actually believe that, given that you have presented arguments in favor of restricting gay men from access to teenaged boys that necessarily require that you trust gay men less than you trust straight men. Either you are confused, or you are a hypocrite; I leave it you to figure out which.