"The Supreme Court ruled ... that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders. The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law. The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks. Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said." CNN 2000

The real issue is does an organization like the Boy Scouts have a legal right to exclude some individuals. The Supreme Court has said, "Yes." The constitutional freedoms of association and speech allow a private group to select its members with respect to its organizing principles. The NAACP has every right to decline membership to the Grand Dragon of the Klu Klux Klan. A religious organization can decline to admit persons who do not share the faith in question.

The actions of the Boy Scouts are not based on the fear that homosexual men present a greater risk to young men. The Boy Scouts simply argued that homosexuality is contrary to its organizing principles and that as a private organization--it had the right to select members. As noted, the Scouts won.

Like all rights, freedom of association is not exclusive to groups who are politically correct. One cannot argue a women's shelter need only accept women and then contend the Boy Scouts should amend its organizing principles. Private organizations are just that--private.

The argument about pedophilia is a red herring. The real issue is the role of government in private life.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 13, 2001

Answers

You are wrapping your homophobia in the American flag.

-- (ScoutmasterBob@Georgie's.pup_tent), March 13, 2001.

yeh what jose said.

-- lmao (lmao@the.wholeissue), March 13, 2001.

Actually, I am wrapping the bill of rights in the American flag. Freedom is not a franchise for the only popular or the politically correct. The protections of a constitutional government must extend equally to the noble and the repugnant.

In a free country, citizens may fear or admire what they please... and they may associate with others who share their convictions. You may not agree, and you have every right to voice your disagreement, even in a boorish, semi-articulate manner with your boorish, semi- articulate friends.

It is not the business of the government to support or repress your friends or your foes. For that, you can thank framers of a document far more wise and articulate than us both.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 13, 2001.

Ken:

"The Supreme Court ruled ... that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders. The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state's anti-discrimination law.

Looks like another case of the Federal Government interfering with States Rights. Where will it end? *<)))

Instead of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, how about Person Scouts. Co-ed camping would go over big in certain age groups. The organization might even take troubled teens off of the street.

Cheers,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Alas, no one will address me by my chosen name.

Z, Y, (or X) if you prefer,

The Supreme Court decided a consitutional issue and protected two freedoms assured by the bill of rights. Perhaps the most important role of the Supreme Court is to protect the individual rights of the citizenry... no matter what level of government attempts to trample upon them.

If you actually bothered reading the decision, you will see that it focused on New Jersey's public accommodations law.

From the decision...

"The state interests embodied in New Jersey’s public accommodations law do not justify such a severe intrusion on the freedom of expressive association. In so ruling, the Court is not guided by its view of whether the Boy Scouts’ teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of an organization’s expression does not justify the State’s effort to compel the organization to accept members in derogation of the organization’s expressive message. While the law may promote all sorts of conduct in place of harmful behavior, it may not interfere with speech for no better reason than promoting an approved message or discouraging a disfavored one, however enlightened either purpose may seem"

Fortunately, the Court protected your right to start a troop of Person Scouts. You can exclude anyone who who doesn't abide by your core principles... whatever these principles may be.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 13, 2001.

Ralph; is that better:

I didn't question the basis of the decision, I just observed that it is another intrusion on States Rights.

I might ask whether you think it was a good intrusion. I fully supported the intrusion preventing laws affecting blacks in the south. It prevented state sponsered discrimination. Do you think that this was the same thing?

Not an easy question.

Cheers,,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Jose:

Clearly there was at least one more issue involved here, that of xenophobia. Clearly this runs very deep in some people, to the point where all rational analysis is suspended involuntarily.

I believe it's quite intentional that the supreme court live in an ivory tower, largely unaware of what things are like down here on the ground, and making decisions based on abstract principles only hazily related to the concerns we must muck with in our daily lives.

Except, of course, when the court must make decisions that affect itself directly, like choosing a president. When that abstraction is lost, we become a nation of men and not law.

In the present case, I believe the Boy Scouts' rules were nothing more than a pretext, to provide a vehicle to justify a xenophobic reaction.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 13, 2001.

Xenophobia? Hardly. The BSA doesn't desire homosexuals in it ranks, not because said people are "other", but because they are involved in what the Scouts considers to be evil practices. Many other groups Homosexuals aside, many other groups are probably on their list of undesirables (murders, rapists, adulterers, etc.) because they violate the principles upon which the Scouts were founded. The Scout's Oath does mention keeping oneself "morally straight".

-- notascout (a@a.a), March 13, 2001.

notascout:

Define "morally straight" and document your definition. That would really help.

Thank you,,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), March 13, 2001.

Jose,

This seems rather simple really.The Boy Scouts didn't want homosexuals in it's ranks because of their attraction to the same sex and the possibility,however remote,of harm to it's members,the litigation arising from just such an occurrance and the perception of having homosexual leaders tainting an honorable organization.Even in this PC climate we live in today homosexuals are viewed as pariah by many.

Allthough I agree with your stance on the Bill Of Rights,I believe that it was only the means to achieve their goal of eliminating an unwanted membership base.

-- capnfun (capnfun1@excite.com), March 14, 2001.

Well, the BSA "paid" for their stance. They no longer receive gov funds. Putting the moral right and wrong issue aside, the organization can (and IMO should) discriminate. It has discriminated against women since its inception. However, that discrimination was never challenged (to my knowledge).

The discrimination against gays does in fact come from fear but not the homophobia everyone on this forum is screaming about. It is the fear that every parent has when a child is left in the hands of an adult of the opposite sex. A previous boss of mine was relating a story about his 12 year old daughter. He found out that since the ladies room was crowded, she went into the mens room (that in itself a form of discrimination but totally acceptable in today's society). I understand his concern over this incident. It's not the kind of habit I'd like to see my daughters pick up. The chances for foul play increase tremendously in this environment.

So, even though I may agree or disagree that gays are not normal, morally corrupted or whatever bad connotation you'd like to attach to it, I think the ruling is correct first in a club's freedom to discriminate and second in discriminating against a sexually charged environment. IMO

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 14, 2001.

I never have like the term "homophobia". Literally, it means "fear of man".

As for states' rights, I think individuals' rights are a higher priority.

I think I would make a good boy scout leader. However, I won't do it because their application form for leaders is highly intrusive into affairs I consider to be none of their business, i.e. they want to know what church you belong to among other things.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 14, 2001.

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Q,

Individuals have rights. Government has powers. In a democracy (or republic), these powers derive from the consent of the governed. The framers of the American Constitution wisely noted that a majority could be just as tyrannical as any despot. This is why the bill of rights defines individual liberties that cannot be easily usurped by government, no matter what the good intentions of the majority. One role of the judiciary is to protect the minority from the majority, particularly in the realm of constitutionally protected freedoms.

Again, States do not have "rights." When state or local governments abuse their power and deny citizens of constitutional rights, the aggrieved individuals have a right to judicial relief. The federal government has a constitutional obligation to protect the rights of citizens. This is what happened when the federal government intervened in southern civil rights issues. The Supreme Court acted in a similar manner when it protected the Boy Scouts rights as a private organization. (Unfortunately, the federal government has a rather poor track record in defending individual liberties.)

The whole Civil War "State Rights" argument is a canard. No governmental entity in a constitutional republic has the "right" to deny its citizens freedoms protected by the constitution. We can only marvel at the brilliance of men like Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and Jefferson in framing a philosophy that endures despite our best and worst intentions.

Oh, and if you want a definition of morally straight--ask the Boy Scouts. It is an organizing principles of their organization, and I am not sure anywhere here is qualified to speak on behalf of organized scouting. If the Boy Scouts say homosexuality is not "morally straight," so be it. It's their definition, their private club and their consitutional right. The definition need not be "proven" or "documented." (Really, you can do better than that.)

Flint, one may suspect the Boy Scouts of xenophobia, however, the justices are wise to simply take the organization at its word. So what if the boy scout oath is a pretext for xenophobia. Xenophobia warrants the same constitutional protection as the more "noble" boy scout oath. Frankly, I don't want the Supreme Court considering the relative merit of the Boy Scouts organizing principles. There's nothing but mischief down that road.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

Jose: "The real issue is does an organization like the Boy Scouts have a legal right to exclude some individuals."

Hell, yes, they have that right! They are a private association. This falls under the general right of associating with whomever you please, and avoiding whomever you want to avoid. Simple stuff, really.

But I strongly disagree that this is "the real issue". The real issue is not one of legal rights. That issue was settled when the case was settled. For me the real issue is whether the Boy Scouts are acting irrationally or not.

Again, I don't doubt they have the right to act irrationally. The BSA could also pass a rule requiring all Scouts to salute one another by placing their fingers up their noses and honking. It would be within their rights.

All I care about is that the value espoused in this particular bylaw is not my value. Personally, I find this bylaw both irrational and offensive. So, although the BSA may associate with whom they please, I urge everyone who understands the deep irrationality of this bylaw and the harm the BSA are doing by clinging to it should choose not to associate with the Boy Scouts. That includes stopping monetary support and requesting that the public schools end their relationship with the BSA.

This is simple tit for tat. And well within our rights. That's the real issue.

That's the "real issue" in my book. That other one is a dead letter.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.com), March 14, 2001.

Exactly, Little Nipper. Any group has the right to discriminate irrationally against members of the human race for any reason. We must carefully scrutinize the policies of private groups and decide whether or not they merit support based on whom they discriminate against ... and "why." Any group that is exclusive to any member of the human race must be examined to see whether they warrant support. This is why the "Faith based funding" has so many worms -- and has been postponed. The federal purse will go to groups that openly discriminate on bases of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

-- Deny Bigots Money (look@your.church), March 14, 2001.

What if the Scouts had a REASON (other than a Bible passage) for exclusion? Say, for example, that most of its constituency -- its members' parents -- wouldn't want their heterosexual boy in a showering, undressing or sleeping situation with someone who would be more likely (than another heterosexual male) to be sexually attracted to them.

Would THAT be irrational?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 14, 2001.

Weird that Ken use a women's shelter as an example of a discriminating group. It's a haven for battered people, a refuge for women to escape violence from men. It's not some kind of "club" that irrationally denies entrance to men. It's also very strange he would call a women's shelter a "politically correct" group. Perhaps Ken thinks physical violence is one of those "rights" that ought to be allowed to the private individual.

-- Perhaps you can clarify, Ken (weird@analogy.com), March 14, 2001.

Eve, it doesn't matter to me if you displace the irrational fear from the BSA administration to the BSA members' parents. This may allow you to portray the BSA administration as not personally indulging in their own irrationality, but as simply acquiesing to the irrationality of others. But it still doesn't make the fear rational or the act of exclusion right.

Let's say, for example, that my wife fears men who resemble Anthony Perkins (who played Norman Bates in Psycho). Each time she sees a man who looks like Perkins she barricades herself in her room for several days and wants me to patrol the hall outside the door carrying a shotgun.

My wife's fearful entreaties give me a reason to patrol the hall carrying a shotgun, but does it make the act rational?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

Eve, little nipper doesn't believe that that is the issue. Of course we don't accept adult males showering with female children. That form of sexual discrimination is totally acceptable and rational.

"All I care about is that the value espoused in this particular bylaw is not my value." "deep irrationality of this bylaw" is not "my value". Irrationally calling gays abnormal, against the laws of God, whatever doesn't fit into my way of thinking. Doesn't matter if it stems from religion. The sexual discrimination part doesn't matter. What matters is that *I* think it's irrational and *I* don't have to support it (according to LN).

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 14, 2001.

Maria: "Of course we don't accept adult males showering with female children. That form of sexual discrimination is totally acceptable and rational."

I observe that among the myriads of people living on this earth are many tribes whose children run naked and whose adults are so near to naked that a Westerner would find it hard to consider them dressed. These naked heterosexual men and girls mix freely all day long.

And yet, anthropologists tell us, the result is not one long orgy of unrestricted sex and child molestation. Amazingly, the men continue to follow the sexual mores of the tribe with few exceptions. Those exceptions are punished.

This fact is totally uneplainable by Maria's laws of human conduct. Perhaps they need showers of water for the full effect.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

Buddy: "I never have like the term "homophobia". Literally, it means "fear of man".

Actually, fear of man would be anthrophobia. Homophobia literally means "fear of same".

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

Sorry, Nipper, I don't think so.

From Webster's:

Main Entry: 1ho·mo Pronunciation: 'hO-(")mO Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural homos Etymology: New Latin Homin-, Homo, from Latin, human being -- more at HOMAGE Date: 1596 : any of a genus (Homo) of primate mammals that includes modern humans (H. sapiens) and several extinct related species

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), March 14, 2001.

Little Nipper,

I don't think we're communicating. I hope the following helps to clarify my point.

If a business discovered that most of its customers felt its product would have to conform to their desires and/or needs (and gave their reasons), or the customers would quit patronizing the business, wouldn't it be rational for the business owner to try to satisfy them? If he ignored his customers, he'd likely go out of business -- right?

If you agree, do you see the Scouts' situation as analogous? If not, why not?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 14, 2001.

Well, in those countries the scouts don't need to discriminate in any way. But we're not in that society, we're here where we do in fact find certain rules acceptable. And please don't put "words in my mouth" for I don't have "laws of human conduct".

For the record, I don't believe that gays are anything close to abnormal, misfits, something to be squashed out. I'm probably the only one on this forum that enjoys the Showtime series "Queer as Folk". I have close friends who happen to by gay and I support their life style; always have been a firm believer in "to each his own" and "whatever floats your boat". I don't agree with the fever of bashing gays just because the bible says they are not normal. However I do support the decision from a valid sexual discrimination basis.

Women's centers do NOT accept battered or abused men. And even after the recent "awareness" of this, they still don't accept men. Ken can probably say it much better than I, but he was simply drawing an anology.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 14, 2001.

I'm probably the only one on this forum that enjoys the Showtime series "Queer as Folk". I have close friends who happen to by gay and I support their life style; always have been a firm believer in "to each his own" and "whatever floats your boat".

Translation: I like to categorize people and I try to have some friends from each group so that no one can accuse me of bigotry of any sort. This frees me to say anything I wish about any group. So there.

Has anyone else noticed how Li'l Nipper (aka Tarzan) can't seem to leave this gay topic alone?

-- dudesy (dudesy@37.com), March 14, 2001.

Eve: "do you see the Scouts' situation as analogous?"

[Shrug] It really makes no difference to me. Your argument reminds me of the old joke about "business ethics" being an oxymoron. I suppose pimps also need to keep their customers satisfied by designing the product to meet their desires.

"The customer is always right" does not suggest to me that the customer is always rational or moral. If you believe the ends always justify the means, then you are on the right track, Eve.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

Nipper, the Boy Scouts are a private organization. I focus on the overarching principles of constitutional freedoms in this matter. Forgive me, but I consider the constitutional issues far more important than your thoughtful personal opinions. Somehow, the Boy Scouts will have to trudge on without your substantial financial support.

Is no one to call me by my name? A private woman's shelter is an excellent counter-example. It is often politically acceptable to discriminate against men. It is not to discriminate against homosexuals. The principle of free association should apply equally to groups both popular and unpopular. Liberals often seem fuzzy on this point. As a side note, men are also the victims of domestic violence... its just PC to think of all victims as female.

Your (and Nipper's) opinion of "rational" is worth a wooden nickel. You may find Judaism, Christianity or sun worship nonrational. So what. Don't go to synagogue, church or the pagan summer solstice, but spare us the lecture on "rationality." The Boy Scout Oath is not a matter of empirical science, but of faith as are most matters of values. You cannot definitively "prove" the Boy Scouts are wrong nor that your value system is "right." Ergo, the rules of science and rationality do not apply.

As for the suggestion violence is a right, what an asinine suggestion. I'm used to a much better quality of straw in opposing arguments.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

"Has anyone else noticed how Li'l Nipper (aka Tarzan) can't seem to leave this gay topic alone?"

I would be really interested to know what line of reasoning led you to conclude that I am Tarzan and Tarzan is me? Could it be the fact that Tarzan and I both hold similar opinions on this subject for similar reasons? In that case I am several million people. I get around a lot.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

Little Nipper,

I don't see where I ever even HINTED at an "ends always justify the means" philosophy. Where on earth did you get THAT? I assumed it was understood that my businessman wasn't Vito Corleone. In any case, could you exclude criminals and other miscreants from the equation and take another look at my questions?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 14, 2001.

Jose: "Forgive me, but I consider the constitutional issues far more important than your thoughtful personal opinions."

But, Jose, the "constitutional issues" in this question are settled. Maybe your next post should deal with the important constitutional issue of "separate but equal" schools or the right to legal counsel.

As for the BSA limping along without my support - yup, damn straight. They forfeited my support. They earned their shame. They made their bed and will have to lie in it. I hope it is good and uncomfortable.

Jose: "Your (and Nipper's) opinion of "rational" is worth a wooden nickel."

My idea of "rational" happens to include a need for supporting evidence. It is hard to reason without evidence, don't you find?

Faith is another matter. It does not require evidence. It also has no reliable point of contact with rationality. But surely you knew that, Jose? You are a renowned philosopher and they do teach these things in philosophical courses these days, don't they?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

I suppose what annoys me in a debate like this is the idle tossing about of the term, "rational." For me, human behavior is inevitably contextual within culture and other social constructs.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

Eve, excuse me for not being clearer.

The connection I drew to "the ends justifying the means" was drawn from the fact that your questions focussed on the end of the transaction: customer satisfaction. It appeared to me that you were implying that this end provided some justification for the means: exclusion of gays from the Boy Scouts.

Was this not the case?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

Jose: "For me, human behavior is inevitably contextual within culture and other social constructs."

For me, the domain of rational behavior is much smaller than the domain of human behavior.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

"A private woman's shelter is an excellent counter-example. It is often politically acceptable to discriminate against men."

Could you explain, one, the relation of these two sentences; and two, concrete examples of where it is deemed politically acceptable to "discriminate against men"?

If you are implying that women's shelters discriminate against men because they don't allow men entrance (especially those men that have committed violence against the women harbored there), that's like saying society discriminates against prison inmates because society does not let criminals back into the open. The analogy is absurd.

In any case, when a woman has been battered by a man, most social service workers believe it better to seclude that woman from the man that battered her, at least temporarily. In a similar fashion, public citizens are routinely kept secluded from violent criminals, and we do not label this "discriminatory."

If you are saying that it is discriminatory for a womens shelter to bar battered men, that would be subject to debate, and would depend upon such things as whether a shelter could reasonably be expected to provide separate facilities for men and women, and whether battered men and women could be reasonably expected to emotionally recover from their trauma if forced to co-habitate in close physical quarters with the gender that has just assaulted them.

Even if you argued that it was discriminatory to bar battered men from women's shelters, I would argue that battered men would prefer to be secluded from women while seeking refuge from their female tormentors. I would also point out that social service and public health documentation testifies that such initial seclusion of the genders in cases of domestic violence supply the best possible emotional environment for victims to heal -- of either sex. I would further argue that this gender seclusion is not a case of "discrimination," but a routine example of good public health practice.

Therefore, your analogy is in either case, besides unlovely, inapt.

-- Absurdity Stretched (to@limits.com), March 14, 2001.

Your name is well chosen. As you should know, no constitutional issue is ever entirely settled. The principle of free association will be tested again and again in coming decades. The Constitution is a living document... and will be remembered far longer than your writings or mine.

By the way, your support means nothing to the Boy Scouts, particularly as compared to their organizing principles.

I agree that one test of rationality is the balance of evidence although history shows that "evidence" is often misintrepreted. Furthermore, the rules of logic really underpin the whole notion of proof, but that's a story for another day.

You can no more prove that homosexuality is morally correct anymore than the Boy Scouts can prove it is morally wrong. Your faith says it's OK. The Boy Scouts' faith says it not. As such, your criticism that the Boy Scouts are "irrational" strikes me as a bit funny.

Of course, if you could prove homosexuality is morally correct, you may have future as philosopher. Until then, pay attention in class.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

Little Nipper,

I'm sorry -- maybe I hadn't been entirely clear.

The Scouts tread on no one's rights, they did nothing criminal, and they acted in their own and customers' best interests in order to preserve the organization. I see nothing irrational in this case; and see nothing wrong with either the ends or the means here.

By the way, you never addressed my REASON given for the Scouts' customers' dissatisfaction. Could you do so?

Actually, I was trying to communicate that the end of the transaction is the businessman's decision to put out the best product he can

Eve, excuse me for not being clearer. The connection I drew to "the ends justifying the means" was drawn from the fact that your questions focussed on the end of the transaction: customer satisfaction. It appeared to me that you were implying that this end provided some justification for the means: exclusion of gays from the Boy Scouts.

Was this not the case?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 14, 2001.

So much poor thinking and so little time. Check the definition of discrimination. The creation of "men's" and "women's" restrooms is discriminatory. Men are supposed to go into one room; women into the other. What is in the women's room that involves going in groups and taking so much time?

Have you ever seen the sign, "You must be this tall to go on this ride?" Pure discrimination.

To not allow men to enter a women's shelter is a form of discrimination. I am not arguing that this discrimination is not justified. On the contrary, I argue that a private shelter with serving women as an organizing principle should have this right... but it's still discrimination. Why? Because the exclusion is categorical and based on an inherent characteristic, i.e., gender.

To not allow a "batterer" in a woman's shelter is not discriminatory. The man is not denied access because he is male, but because he has engaged in a harmful behavior and there is a need to protect the woman in the shelter. Criminal actions are behaviors, not innate characteristics.

To not allow any man in the shelter is discriminatory. Again, this may be justified by the millieu. Again, as a private entity, the shelter has a to impose rules to preserve it purpose.

The argument has been made that girls do better in all-girl math classes. There are women's studies programs. Some feminists argue that discrimination against men is justified in the interest of gender equity. Justified or not, when you are making decisions based on innate characteristics like gender, you are discriminating.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

The big question in MY mind at the time this came up [several years ago] was whether the Boy Scouts of America was indeed a private or governmentally supported organization. I listened in on some conversations that suggested that the Boy Scouts of America [at the least] received government "perks." A "private" organization cannot receive government funds if they discriminate against ANY group. It's unclear in my mind if "perks" apply.

I haven't followed the BSA results too much, but I do know that many funders and local schools have dropped support since the Supreme Court ruling. This is as it should be, IMO. If you're a private club, you support YOURSELF and you can INCLUDE or EXCLUDE anyone at your pleasure.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

Wow, a classic Ken thread with classic Ken dodges. Takes me back.

Nipper, you're doing a good job here, but remember the advice you gave me on yesterday's BSA thread.

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), March 14, 2001.

It is good to know Tarzan's lack of cognition extends to arguments other than his own. One day, we will have to work on the difference between "I agree" and "That's right."

Anita, if the Boy Scouts receive government support, they become a public entity subject to laws like New Jersey's. If they take the public cash, they lose the private protection.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

What? What was that? Did anyone else just hear a loud ape like cry?

-- cheeta boy (your@monkey.wants.you), March 14, 2001.

Eve: "The Scouts ... acted in their own and customers' best interests in order to preserve the organization."

I am a bit unclear as to what you think these "best interests" were and what they were 'preserving the organization' from.

If you believe that the BSA membership would plummet because prospective members feared some imagined danger from exposure to homosexuals, then this fear is without a rational basis because there is no evidence that homosexuals they exclude from membership are any more dangerous than the heterosexuals they admit to membership.

I fail to see how encouraging and maintaining a baseless fear serves any "best interest". While I clearly agree that what the BSA did was not criminal, there were and still are more appropriate responses available. Eve: "I see nothing irrational in this case; and see nothing wrong with either the ends or the means here."

Let us imagine an all-white country club. Blacks, Asians and Hispanics are expressly forbidden from joining. The board of directors say that if non-whites were admitted, it would destroy their organization and that the bylaws only reflect the desires of the members to be free of cooties. No one has seen a cootie, but the members are certain that non-whites are infected with them and they fear contamination.

Aren't the board members of this country club justifying themselves using the same sort of "rationality" as the BSA?

Eve: "By the way, you never addressed my REASON given for the Scouts' customers' dissatisfaction. Could you do so?"

I presume you are referring to this:

Eve: "What if the Scouts had a REASON (other than a Bible passage) for exclusion? Say, for example, that most of its constituency -- its members' parents -- wouldn't want their heterosexual boy in a showering, undressing or sleeping situation with someone who would be more likely (than another heterosexual male) to be sexually attracted to them."

To me, this is like the country club members not wanting to be infected with cooties. The parents in this case are saying that the presumed sexual attraction on the part of the adult, just by existing, is harmful. I notice no harmful interactions are cited.

Also, as I said earlier, the BSA chose to honor this baseless fear by excluding gay members altogether. In doing so they deprived their organization of leadership and talent. Other, less drastic means were available to address the possibility of harm you posit. Moreover, those other means would be equally effective against harm from heterosexual pedophiles as well as homosexual pedophiles.

But, eve, you are operating purely from a hypothetical position - one that the BSA did not take in arguing their own case. Rather than justify their actions as measures against possible physical harm, the BSA justified their actions on the basis that gays, like atheists, were immoral people and that inclusion of gays in the BSA would result in moral harm to the scouts, not physical harm. They could hardly have been plainer that the basis of their objection was not rational, but religious.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

We find some points of agreement.

The point you appear to miss is that the Boy Scouts exist to promote a particular value system. If an all-white club exists to promote "whiteness," then it can exclude members based on race. I think the Klu Klux Klan has proven this. A country club, however, is often considered a place of "public accommodation." Different rules apply.

What Eve seems to be driving at is that the Boy Scouts are subject to the laws of the marketplace. If they deny membership based on orientation, they may suffer economic consequences. People may leave scouting or start alternative organizations. On the other hand, this particular stance may cause some individuals to join or remain in Boy Scouts.

One can no more measure the Boy Scouts by the standard of rationality than you can measure any faith-based organization by the same standard. Is PETA or the Sierra Club so much different?

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

LN, "I fail to see how encouraging and maintaining a baseless fear serves any "best interest"." That's your premise which I don't agree with. (Obviously since I pointed out that our society doesn't embrace adult male and female children interaction in all situations.) Just because you cite a society who "get along" being in the nude, you subscribe to the notion that our clothed society will act in the same manner. You can't draw conclusions with our two very different environments and continue to stand behind that this fear is irrational. Your opinion which you haven't substantiated, but keep trying Tarzan seems to like it.

-- (anon@ymous.c), March 14, 2001.

Any organization of any sector, public or private, can in fact be judged on the rationality of its practices by certain observable facts, facts we have at our disposal from centuries of scientific research and historical evidence. Suppose a group prohibited black and white people from sexually mating on the grounds that their offspring would be mentally deficient. It can be easily proven through scientific measurements of brain function that such an assertion is false; children of bi-racial parents are just as cerebrally sound as children from mono-racial parents. Therefore, an organization's "reasoning" as to why bi-racial marriage is prohibited would be patently irrational.

Sure, one could simply declare this irrationality a "value," as Jose keeps harping upon, but that doesn't mean that we could not show such "values" are irrational from an absolute scientific standpoint or even from meticulous historical research. Even seemingly subjective "values" can often be proven quantifiably irrational.

The offending organization would then have to rely upon fuzzy moral assertions to bolster the "validity" of their views; mating between blacks and whites is simply "wrong." No proof for their assertion is now required. This is what the vast majority of religions resort to to keep their sometimes screaming biases operational, and this evasion of proof or scientific justification, too, is irrational.

"I don't have to prove it. I just believe it. Therefore it is true."

Surely you must agree, Jose, such an assertion is irrational.

-- Such Broad Assertions (so@little.time), March 14, 2001.

Oh, where to start?

An organization is simply a mass of individuals occasionally rowing in the same direction. Within an organization, there are often contradictory goals, actions, rules, practices. Organizations are quite dynamic subject to nearly constant change... with the exception of the American public school system. In short, organizations are extraordinarily complex.

True students of science know that "facts" are in terribly short supply. A great deal of science is based on generally acceptable assumptions. The universe has an uncanny way of keeping us humble.

Your example of "brain function" is a conveniently bad one. Scientists actually know very little about the more complex functions of the brain and the effects of genetics. Certainly, the debate over "intelligence" has been fierce. Until we completely unlock the mysteries of mental functioning, genetics and the genome... your "rational" argument is just an opinion with a relatively high confidence level. (Psst... real scientists know that NOTHING is easily proven.)

Onto to values, if you really want to diuscuss cultural anthropology, you'll find many "values" actually emerged from the self organizing behaviors of early man. It was "rational" to have a prohibition on killing within the tribe. It was "rational" to establish a social structure for raising children and ensuring the survival of the tribe. These self organizing impulses were woven into the nonrational spiritual life of the tribe.

Rationality itself is a value. It's a handy tool for inventing a device or solving a puzzle... but it is not the only measure of human activity. A perfectly rational human society might use the old and feeble for garden fertillizer. A perfectly rational human society might practice eugenics and weed out the less healthy children from birth. A perfectly rational society would be awfully hard on the great masses of imperfect people.

The classic Greek virtues of Aristotle's natural law--beauty, justice, temperance--are quite difficult to measure using the yardstick of rationality. They are, in your poetic prose, "fuzzy moral assertions." They are not matters of proof, but of faith.

You'll only shuffle this mortal coil for a short time. By the standards of reason, you and I are nothing more than food for worms. Ah, but faith, for some, suggests we may be more than biological organisms. We may be creatures of body and of spirit. You can chide the religious as delusioned... but what harm does their faith do you? How are you bothered by a tent revival, a quiet service or even a Boy Scout meeting?

-- Jose Ortetga y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

Jose: "How are you bothered by a tent revival, a quiet service or even a Boy Scout meeting?"

It depends entirely on how the "values" expounded in these meetings are put into play once the attendees move outside of the tent revival, quiet service, or Boy Scout meeting, don't you think, Jose?

Values have a sneaky way of affecting behavior. Irrational values have a sneaky way of inducing irrational behavior. Irrational behavior has a sneaky way of becoming highly..., uh, wierd... and rather undesirable from the standpoint of many of us other philosophers.

Don't you find this to be so?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 14, 2001.

Why should you or the government presumptively poking your nose into the spiritual activities of others? Because you suspect these values might influence one's behavior. The church will open its doors and polite, civil people will coming streaming out full of nonrational ideas about "loving" one's neighbor. Egads! The horror!

Until someone infringes upon your rights, their "values" are none of your business. This is the cornerstone of a free society. When you start talking about "undesireable," I get an Orwellian shiver right up my spine. What I desire is a free society where individual rights and expressions are protected... particulary from the rational and benevolent.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_oretega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 14, 2001.

Jose: "Until someone infringes upon your rights, their 'values' are none of your business."

Yes. True.

But, if you (just for a wild-assed example) enjoyed wearing pink shirts, you might feel a tad bit - shall we say "libelled" or maybe "threatened" - by a group whose membership numbered close to a million and whose "values" included vehemently identifying anyone who wore pink shirts as "immoral" and unfit for the company of anyone younger than 21.

This isn't to say any of the members of that group has accosted you or broken a criminal code... but you might look upon them with, as they say, a "jaundiced eye".

Jose, the last picture I saw of you, you wore a beard. For a lark, let's change the example from "wearing pink shirts" to "bearded". Does your sense of calm equanimity quaver, even so much as a hemi-semi-demi-quaver, using this example?

Would you be even a tad bit less equinanimous if there were a widespread tradition in your native country of assaulting bearded men (such as you), killing them by bludgeoning, or stripping them and leaving them naked and tied to barbed wire fences, exposed to the elements until they died?

I propose this minor fillip, just to "make things interesting", as they say in betting circles...

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

99% of homos wouldnt want to camp anyway,they might break a nail!How about the g.b.s.a. a gay scouts,talk about rubbin two sticks together!

-- Dave Loggin (nohomos@scouts.com), March 15, 2001.

Little Nipper,

You said,

[If you believe that the BSA membership would plummet because prospective members feared some imagined danger from exposure to homosexuals, then this fear is without a rational basis because there is no evidence that homosexuals they exclude from membership are any more dangerous than the heterosexuals they admit to membership.]

Is there evidence that a homosexual male would more likely to be in an obvious state of sexual excitement, and is more likely (please don't read this as "likely") to make an unwanted advance on another male, in a showering situation, than would be the case if he was heterosexual? To me, in this way, it would be analogous to a male/female showering scenario.

If so, why do you find a parental discomfort about this irrational? Thinking through this will also hopefully help you to see that there is no analogy to the country club example you raised.

Btw, sorry about my messy post above -- as you can see, I'd inadvertently left in part of your previous post.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 15, 2001.

First, your assumption reveals bias. You assume I am a white man with a beard. You then invent a prejudice against beards... perhaps because you cannot imagine anyone discrimminating against a white male. Shockingly, there are places where anglos (or even the fair- skinned Spanish) are treated differently because of race.

Ah, but we shall play with your example. In a country ruled by laws, there are protections... even for those with beards. The fact that I cannot join every private club does not bother me. If a club discriminates, I have no interest in becoming a member.

If there are people who feel bearded men are a menace, so be it. It is nothing new to looked at askance... after all, I am an erudite dead philosopher who spends time a country where "Jerry Springer" is popular television viewing.

There are ample legal protections for bearded men, particularly in the workplace and public sectors. What we are really talking about is the attitudes of some people towards the facially hirsute.

How exactly does one change these attitudes? Perhaps the best answer is slowly. I see there are now television shows with bearded male characters. Hollywood stars wear ribbons to find a cure for a disease that has devastated the bearded male community. Funding for this disease outstrips funding for most other maladies. (You'd be amazed at how powerful the bearded men's lobby is.) Bearded men have their own magazines, newspapers and parades. Even in the private organization that excludes them, most of the members do not "hate" bearded men... the simply think wearing a beard is sinful.

If someone killed a bearded man out of sheer hatred, I would carefully consider whether this was an isolated event. I would not buy into the media hysteria and realize that other forms of violence are far more common.

In a country of a few hundred million people, you will have "hate crimes" every year. Were I Jewish, I would not give up my faith because a few hate-filled anti-Semites lurk about. Nor would I ask government to poke it's large nose into private organizations. Sure, it all seems good when the government is trampling the rights of Neo- Nazis... but next week they could be sitting in my synagogue.

I will not chip away at the cornerstone of liberty in a free republic because I feel "uncomfortable" or "nervous" or "put upon."

You cannot squeeze bigotry out of men like juice from oranges. To empower the government is folly and sets the stage for a totalitarian regime complete with thought police. Personally, I'll keep the beard and keep marching to Selma.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 15, 2001.

"To empower the government is folly and sets the stage for a totalitarian regime complete with thought police. Personally, I'll keep the beard and keep marching to Selma."

Ironic statment, considering that it was only through the efforts of government that people of all colors were able to secure the civil rights they have now.

Oh how quickly the comfortable forget.

-- Jenhau Mai (jenhau_mai@nomail.none), March 15, 2001.

Ah, yes, government saved us from ourselves. This should be enscribed on a liberal memorial somewhere.

In the 1960s, the federal government intervened when some southern state and local governments denied citizens constitutionally- protected rights. The irony not lost on me is that this same federal government facilitated the genocide of Native Americans, conducted secret medical experiments on unwitting citizens and kept dossiers on civil rights leaders. The same enlightened federal government allowed slavery to exist for a century or so, denied women the right to vote and everyone the right to a stiff belt of bourbon for about a decade.

Did you ever wonder why your beloved federal government tolerated Jim Crow laws and lynchings until the 1950s? Why did these noble bureaucrats wait until a 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation to address civil rights? Oh, I get it... the government is benevolent, but slow.

Social change does not happen because of government... it happens because people in society change. People like Rosa Parks started the civil rights revolution and individuals, not the State, fulfilled its promise. The racial climate in America improved because people realized that racism is wrong... just as they realized slavery is wrong.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 15, 2001.

"People like Rosa Parks started the civil rights revolution and individuals, not the State, fulfilled its promise."

You forget that the state is made up of people. It is not a faceless, homogenous entity. Individual people, acting as the State, made the decision to eliminate institutionalized racism just as other individual people made the decision to create and maintain institutionalized racism. If it had been up to the majority in certain regions, we would still have Jim Crow laws.

-- Jenhau Mai (jenhau_mai@nomail.none), March 15, 2001.

...If it had been up to the majority in certain regions, we would still have Jim Crow laws.

I tend to agree with this. I also suspect that's what's at the heart of the hard right mantra of "less intrusive federal gubm'nt" - "let us have our own laws down here south of the mas-dix line and up here north of the tree-line in Idaho/Wyoming/Montana. Jesus in every school, mandatory, evolution not. Abortions? Criminal, in every case. And we can come up with our own ideas about what constitutes discrimination, thank you very much."

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), March 15, 2001.

One thing this joker Jose ignores is that "the State" does not act in a vacuum. Just as it was individual people who insisted that Jim Crow laws ended, so it was individual people who demanded the slaughter of the Indians, the denial of the right to vote to women, Prohibition, and on and on and on. "The State" didn't just decide to do these things for the hell of it, it was trying to fulfill the will of the people.

-- Jenhau Mai (jenhau_mai@nomail.none), March 15, 2001.

What a chore.

Yes, the State is made of up individual persons, however, these persons consitute a force that has draconian powers. Try this. Sentence one of your neighbors to death and then try to execute him in your backyard. You might find this difficult, but not if you are the State.

Ah, but you claim the government executioner, the guards, the warden are all individuals. Technically correct, but this misses the point... badly. Individuals operating under the aegis of the State have far more power and often operate independently of the body politic.

Do you think engaging in clandestine medical experiments (like radiation releases) on unknowing citizens was done because a majority of Americans thought it was a swell idea? Only in civics texts are central governments truly responsive to the people. In reality, the actions of government are shaped by powerful interests, some operating in relative anonymity.

People dislike intervention from the federal government because it is like the in-law from Hell. When the federal government shows up on a doorstep, it inevitably wants money or to interfere in some aspect of one's private life. I find it sadly ironic that liberals understand this concept on an issue like abortion, but not an issue like freedom of association.

-- Jose Oretga y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 15, 2001.

Jenhau, "Ironic statment, considering that it was only through the efforts of government that people of all colors were able to secure the civil rights they have now." Hmmm

Now you state, "Individual people, acting as the State, made the decision to eliminate institutionalized racism" Please make up your mind. Which is it, only through the efforts of government as in your first statement or individuals (which is exactly the point Jose was making - nice of you to repeat him)

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 15, 2001.

Jose: "To empower the government [to prevent bigotry?] is folly and sets the stage for a totalitarian regime complete with thought police."

You are setting up a straw man, Jose. If you recall, I agree with the SCOTUS decision. Scroll up and check it out.

I am not arguing, nor have I argued, that bigotry should be remedied by a totalitarian state. I am simply saying that the BSA's actions smack of unreasoning bigotry. Period.

It is my belief that the more people who understand that the BSA is indulging in unreasoning bigotry, the less likely such bigotry will be condoned, approved, supported or subsidized by society at large and the less likely that BSA will prosper to spread its bigoted view of morality to others.

This is merely an exercise in free speech, just as the the BSA's exclusionary practises are an exercise in free association. No totalitarianism required.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

"Yes, the State is made of up individual persons, however, these persons consitute a force that has draconian powers."

Just like society.

"Try this. Sentence one of your neighbors to death and then try to execute him in your backyard. You might find this difficult, but not if you are the State."

If you can convince enough of your neighbors, you won't find this difficult at all. Just ask Leo Frank.

"Ah, but you claim the government executioner, the guards, the warden are all individuals. Technically correct, but this misses the point... badly. Individuals operating under the aegis of the State have far more power and often operate independently of the body politic."

What's this? You make a point, ascribe it to me, and then defeat it? What kind of bullshit tactic is that?

"Do you think engaging in clandestine medical experiments (like radiation releases) on unknowing citizens was done because a majority of Americans thought it was a swell idea?"

Certainly "the State" does things that go against the will of the people. It is equally certain that the people do things that go against the will of "the State", even to the point of using "the State" against people they don't like. This, of course, doesn't make either "the State" or "the People" monolithic and unchanging, as you would suggest.

"Only in civics texts are central governments truly responsive to the people. In reality, the actions of government are shaped by powerful interests, some operating in relative anonymity."

Mulder? Is that you?

-- Jenhau Mai (jenhau_mai@nomail.none), March 15, 2001.

"Now you state, "Individual people, acting as the State, made the decision to eliminate institutionalized racism" Please make up your mind. Which is it, only through the efforts of government as in your first statement or individuals (which is exactly the point Jose was making - nice of you to repeat him)"

You suffer the same blindspots as Jose. Are you he in disguise? My point is that "the State" is not a concrete entity separate from the people. "The State" consists of the people and carries their will, for good or bad. Just as the people are ever-changing and non- monolithic, so is "the State".

-- Jenhau Chen (jenhau_chen@nomail.none), March 15, 2001.

Jose: "I find it sadly ironic that liberals understand this concept on an issue like abortion, but not an issue like freedom of association."

Point of order, Jose.

You clearly wish you had some "liberals" around who would oblige you by acting properly ironic. I am sorry. Maybe some other time.

Right now you are engaged in a conversation with a number of "people". If one of us has failed to "understand the concept ... of freedom of association" then feel free to quote the relevant words and address the speaker of them.

You are demonstrating an uncomfortable tendency to orate to an imaginary crowd that you see lurking somewhere behind us or off to one side. People who exhibit this tendency during a conversation are very off-putting.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

Hey! I didn't make that last post but that is where I was going. Is there another Jenhau here?

-- Jenhau Mai (jenhau_mai@nomail.none), March 15, 2001.

Goo-goo-ga-choob.

Just creating a little havoc. Back to you.

-- Jenhau Chen (jenhau_chen@nomail.none), March 15, 2001.

Nipper, we are arguing past one another (and you are jumping in to an extension of our original discussion). You thinks the Boys Scouts position on homosexuality is irrational and bigoted. Fine. Where you argument gets worrisome is when you suggest these irrational and bigoted ideas "leak" into society. I was not aware the Boy Scouts were proselytizing. In fact, I think the Boy Scouts position reflects that some members of society still feel (for reasons of faith, not reason) that homosexuality is sinful.

I don't think you can prove homosexuality is "moral" any more than the Boy Scouts can prove the behavior is "immoral." As such, both positions are based on values... not on some scientific principles of morality. Because you think your position is correct, you call it the "rational" position. This, I think, oversteps your case.

Personally, I would not belong to an organization that practiced such discrimation. On the other hand, I respect the right of a private organization to have its principles. And I am nervous about the logic that leads to hysteria like "hate crimes" legislation and opens the door for government interference.

I am delighted to hear you agree with the Supreme Court. You will find me supportive of your expressive freedom to decry the Boys Scouts... but how many people do you think will hear you on the end of a long thread on an obscure forum. A more rational approach might be to take your message to a larger audience.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), March 15, 2001.

Jose: "A more rational approach might be to take your message to a larger audience."

This conversation presents a fine opportunity. It seems reasonable to make the most of it. After all, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

Eve: "Is there evidence that a homosexual male would more likely to be in an obvious state of sexual excitement, and is more likely (please don't read this as "likely") to make an unwanted advance on another male, in a showering situation, than would be the case if he was heterosexual?"

I don't know. You seem to be the one who believes this would be germaine. I am not sure why you would like me to present evidence of something that I think is neither of interst nor relevance.

In fact, I don't believe that Scout leaders spend any significant fraction of their time showering with their troop. If memory serves me correctly, they conduct almost all of their activities fully clothed. Nor do I think that it would very difficult to institute clear and unambiguous rules in regard to what would be appropriate behavior during those few moments when mutual nudity is unavoidable.

Also, Eve, you may not be aware of it, but young males very often exhibit penile tumescence both day and night, including many inopportune or embarrassing moments. It is a frequent fact of their lives. I just have to wonder whether the inopportune sight of a Scout leader with an erection would do any lasting harm, provided it was no more than that.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

Little Nipper,

You said,

"I just have to wonder whether the inopportune sight of a Scout leader with an erection would do any lasting harm, provided it was no more than that."

What if the boy was instead your 12-year-old girl, and the leader was a heterosexual male? Still ok?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 15, 2001.

A homosexual murder of a boy

-- (ScoutmasterBob@Rainbow.love), March 15, 2001.

"What if the boy was instead your 12-year-old girl, and the leader was a heterosexual male? Still ok?"

I'll make you a deal, Eve. I will gladly answer this question if you would reveal just how often you think Scout masters disrobe in front of Boy scouts as a normal part of their duties and what evidence you base this on. OK?

I think that your answer would serve to place this entire discussion of naked, priapic Scout masters into some useful perspective.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

Horrific sex crimes are not exclusive to the homosexual community, but society as a whole finds this combination to be most repulsive. The basic argument here is FREEDOM. We all insist on our individual freedoms but rebel against the freedoms of others. Our world is filled with organizations that exclude membership for all manner of reasons. So? If you disagree with their guidelines than you have the option not to join these groups or participate in their activities. Its called FREEDOM and in theory, it applies to all of us equally. Look at your own life and count the freedoms of others that you compromise on a daily basis.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 15, 2001.

Socr@tes, as you so ably proved in your long career in Athens, one may do more than choose not to join. You demonstrated that freedom also allows one to roundly criticize organizations for their inherent shortcomings, their institutional fallacies and their apparent irrationalities. You were quite good at this, as I recall.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

Little Nipper,

Ok -- it's a deal.

To answer your question -- I don't know how often, but I suspect it would be more likely than if the elder was the owner of a grocery store and the younger was a bagger.

Your move.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 15, 2001.

So true my little nipper friend and I still am. The key phrase here is ‘apparent irrationalities’. Yours or theirs….this is the critical question.

-- So (cr@t.es), March 15, 2001.

Eve:

I'm curious about this "shower" thing that you brought into the discussion on this topic last year and continue to do so today. Have you ever engaged in scouting activities? Personally, I don't remember ANYONE showering on boy-scout outings, OR girl-scout outings. There was, typically, one of those water pumps and if a kid fell in a mud puddle, someone would pump while he held his leg under the faucet, but showers weren't part of the experience at all.

American children tend to feel uncomfortable in nudity settings PERIOD. I remember taking a swim class with a girlfriend of mine and we had to shower before going in the pool. There were women of all ages in the shower room and I said to my friend, "I didn't want to see that." She responded, "Neither did I." Perhaps in contrast, we spent a few days at a hostel in Denmark [maybe...you know MY memory]. It was a hostel on a boat [like I know enough about boats to tell you what kind]. Anyway, I showered in the women's shower room [where stalls WERE provided, unlike the group experience at the YWCA], but I was the only one who covered myself with a towel upon exiting the stall. Women of all ages AND children were running around naked before me, putting on make-up, etc. I felt "funny". I wasn't accustomed to displays of nudity.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 15, 2001.

Eve, [snort] you call that an answer? OK. I'll hold up my end of the bargain, even though I find your answer pathetic in the extreme.

I consider that the entire difficulty of my hypothetical 12 year old daughter glimpsing the erection of a heterosexual male adult to center on the question of the male's clear intent. The accidental viewing of an erection, where the adult did not intend my daughter to view it, I find utterly harmless. An agressive display of an erect penis - the equivalent of the adult flashing my daughter so she knew she was flashed - I would find troublesome, but harmful only in the degree that my daughter felt sexually threatened.

In other words, if the connection between my daughter's eyes and the erect penis seemed to be the prelude to a rape, then I'd find the threat of rape, and not the glimpse of the penis, to be the problem.

That clear enough?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 15, 2001.

An accidental peek at an erection you say,

Is not the same as intentional display.

To the eyes of the beholder,

Who wants to be bolder

The difference is just about nay.

-- A (one@eyed.snake), March 16, 2001.

"The accidental viewing of an erection".

Oh, I'm sorry little girl, that thing just popped out by accident. LOL.

-- (nemesis@awol.com), March 16, 2001.

Little Nipper,

I disagree with, but accept your personal “liberal” views on this. But can you see that some parents would be uncomfortable enough with this and other “not-so-accidental” variants, that they would wish to keep their child from this situation, and that such an action would not be irrational?

Anita,

Yep, I was engaged in scouting – one of my sons was a cub scout. And, you know -- (at the campouts I attended) I don’t recall anyone showering either; so I have to admit some ignorance on this issue.

On the same sex nudity thing (e.g., high-school gym, as well as some college experiences we won't go into now :)), by the time I reached my teens, I’d become one of the less inhibited types -- don’t quite know how I got this way, but I just started to see the whole thing as very natural.

Regarding the issue at hand, though -- I just used the shower thing to help illustrate my point that the parents would not be acting irrationally in keeping their child from a situation in which they feel he could be vulnerable in these ways. The actual range of scenarios in which a child might be vulnerable would be much wider, though – it’d also cover undressing, sleeping arrangements, one-on- one outings into the woods, and other activities where there might be a lack of supervision and an “opportunity” for someone.

Further, IF and to the extent the BSA had used this as a reason to exclude gays from their organization in order to preserve the organization’s viability and the security of its members, I can't see how this would be irrational, either.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), March 16, 2001.

I read Anita's post and thought (THOUGHT mind you) what a twit! Anita is attempting to extrapolate her bashfulness into all situations with the scouts. Just because you don't remember showering while camping (only if someone fell in the mud), this should account for every possible situation in scouting. Eve was just bringing up one possibility. There are many others where gay masters find themselves alone with children.

As far as this bashfulness first who gives a rip but since you brought it up... I found that girls are more sensitive than boys as evidenced by the difference of some girls locker rooms and boys locker rooms. In most girls' rooms, there are curtains and individual stalls; in boys rooms it's usually just one big open area with showerheads around the room. So I really don't see any relevance in Anita's life experiences and how they relate to Eve's point of the opportunity presented with gay masters? I'm sure someone will enlighten me.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), March 16, 2001.

Mr. Nipper sir, I had just about decided that you were somewhat intelligent when along comes your ‘hypothetical’ example, featuring your 12 year-old fantasy daughter. You sir are an idiot and that is the nicest thing I can say at this time. You obviously have NO children and beyond your ability as a clever wordsmith, it is doubtful that you have much of a life. Pathetic!

BTW, how is the air in Portland these days?

-- So (cr@t.es), March 16, 2001.

" You sir are an idiot and that is the nicest thing I can say at this time."

You sir are an imposter. The real Socrates would ask pointed questions designed to bring me to the conclusion that what I said was idiotic, thereby leading me to search deeper into the question and to mend my ignorance. You, on the other hand, just make ex-cathedra pronouncements. Do you expect us to be impressed that you are capable of expressing your opinions? Hell, my neightbor's dog expresses opinions... and he doesn't have any testicles, either.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 16, 2001.

Here is a perfect example of an "accidental" penile exposure (but was it an erect penis?). Hoosiers are such bumpkins.

Ooops

-- Lars (larsguy@yahi=oo.com), March 16, 2001.

From the article: "The jury deliberated for an hour and 20 minutes before convicting Phillippo of all three Class A misdemeanors."

First point: The jury decided this was no accident. So, it doesn't fit my example where there is no intent to expose.

Second point: No animals were harmed in the making of this movie. As crimes go, this one is rather mild.

While I would never choose to have my hypothetical daughter exposed to this sort of thing, the consequences of it happening are not severe enough to spend a lot of time or effort trying to prevent it, either.

The equivalent remedy for this situation in terms of how the BSA acted would be to exclude all men from malls, or all young people.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 16, 2001.

Mr. Nipper sir, you are hardly worthy of scholarly debate at any level. Your thoughts are travelling in too many directions and you are using the Queen’s English to divert and side step each element of every issue. Your absurd examples and theories are giving me a serious headache and perhaps a visit to the ancient hot oil baths of old Athens would rearrange your disjointed thinking process.

I ask again sir, ‘how is the air in Portland these days?’

-- So (cr@t.es), March 16, 2001.

Eve:

Thanks for the reply. From what I've seen of scouting, the scout leaders are NOT around when the kids undress for bed. The scout masters don't spend the night in the same tent or cabin as the kids. They spend the night in the "scoutmaster tent or cabin." [What they might do to EACH OTHER in their tent or cabin is none of my concern.]

Regarding the showering situation, kids feel comfortable showering with other kids their age, and as they grow older, they feel MORE comfortable with this. In general, however, kids don't feel comfortable in America when they're pre-pubescent and are thrown into a situation with adults [complete with hairy butts and hairy pubic areas.] This is why adults typically shower separately from children. We can get by with bathing with infants, but at some point a natural sense of modesty kicks in and they ask to bathe alone.

The only incidences I've seen reported of scout masters molesting children were cases where the pedophiles selected one or two children who came from homes where parents showed no interest in the kids. It was always an instance where ONE scout master went alone and the parents of the child neither bothered to attend, nor asked how many were going or how many other scoutmasters would be attending.

Certainly, pedophiles are working the children's areas. Church youth groups have even set up windows on doors through which they can watch to ensure that group leaders don't do anything "funny." Many of the pedophiles turned out to be married heterosexuals.

As I said earlier, as long as the boyscouts receive no tax dollars, they can include or exclude anyone they want for ANY reason. It's up to the parent to decide whether they want their child involved with a private club, and it's up to the parent to decide whether a situation is safe for their children.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), March 16, 2001.

Socr@tes, you try to speak like your idea of a smart person, but what you say isn't worth a bent nickel. I don't think anyone is taken in by it. But you can always hope.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 16, 2001.

Unlike you ‘little’ one, I am not attempting to ‘take anyone in’ as you say. Feeling guilty are we?

-- So (cr@t.es), March 16, 2001.

Okay, so I'm posting an article, but it's directly relevant to this discussion, and quite chilling in its implications.

Court Gives Utah Clergy Protection

Dismissal of negligence suit against LDS Church is upheld Saturday, March 10, 2001

BY STEPHEN HUNT SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

The Utah Supreme Court on Friday banned lawsuits over allegations of clergy malpractice, a landmark ruling that grants broad protections to church leaders when they counsel members of their flocks.

Citing First Amendment safeguards against government intrusion into the practice of religion, the high court unanimously upheld a trial judge's decision to dismiss a child rape victim's lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The alleged victim, Lynette Franco, claimed her LDS bishop and stake president were negligent by mishand- ling her plea for help after she claimed to have been sexually abused by a teen-age church member.

But the high court shied away from defining a standard of care for Utah clergy.

That, wrote Justice Leonard Russon, would "embroil the courts in establishing the training, skill and standards applicable for members of the clergy in this state in a diversity of religions professing widely varying beliefs.

"This is as impossible as it is unconstitutional."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Michael Wilkins wrote: "The courts would be put in a position of overseeing, assessing and passing judgment on a core activity of churches -- the provision of ecclesiastical counseling."

LDS Church spokesman Dale Bills said in a news release the church was satisfied with the ruling.

"The decision preserves religious liberty and freedom for all and confirms that lawsuits like these have no merit," Bills said. "We regret that Lynette Earl Franco and her family are unhappy with the Church and hope that they can find peace."

Franco's attorney, Ed Montgomery, said the ruling by the five justices -- all of whom are Mormon -- means the LDS Church is "completely immune from anything they do behind closed doors.

"It's chilling, is what it is," Montgomery said. "You have the most powerful organization in this state doing what it will, without any government regulation at all, and without any redress being available." Montgomery said his clients are considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Salt Lake City attorney Brian Barnard, whose attempt to sue for clergy malpractice in an unrelated case was rejected by the Utah Court of Appeals in 1990, said the ruling has dramatic implications in a state dominated by the LDS Church and its lay clergy.

"There are an awful lot of people put into ecclesiastical leadership positions in Utah who rely on divine guidance, as opposed to training and expertise in providing . . . counseling for people," Barnard said.

The events at the heart of the Franco case allegedly occurred in 1986, when the girl was 7 years old. Franco claims she was sexually assaulted by Jason Strong, a 14-year-old neighbor boy and fellow LDS ward member. The abuse was "so extreme" that Franco repressed the memory for eight years, the justices wrote.

By the time Franco reported the abuse, Strong was preparing to serve a church mission.

Montgomery claims church leaders decided to defend the young male member of the priesthood at the girl's expense. "They used my client to help them protect the very person who molested her," Montgomery said.

Franco claims her bishop, Dennis Casaday, and stake president David Christensen counseled her to "forgive, forget and seek atonement."

Later, the two clergymen referred the girl to a purportedly qualified counselor at a Bountiful mental health center, who, it turned out, was not licensed to practice in Utah. The counselor, Paul Browning, also advised the girl to forgive her attacker and forget the incident, rather than inform police, the girl claims.

Franco's parents finally took the girl to another counselor, who reported the sexual abuse to police. Investigators, however, said too much time had passed to pursue charges.

Instead, Franco sued the LDS Church, Casaday, Christensen and Strong's parents, as well as Browning and his employer, Bountiful Health Center. After 3rd District Judge J. Dennis Frederick dismissed all claims, Franco appealed only regarding the LDS Church defendants.

Despite $70,000 worth of counseling, Montgomery said Franco, now in her early 20s, may never completely recover from being sexually abused.

"But she's worked very hard and she's well adjusted," he said. "Going through this process and bringing awareness, standing up for herself and doing what's right, has been good for her."

In the years since Franco allegedly was abused, Utah enacted a law that requires anyone with knowledge of child abuse, child sexual abuse, neglect, fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal drug dependance to report it to police or child-welfare authorities. The clergy are not exempt from reporting unless the sole source of their information is the perpetrator.

It is unclear how Friday's ruling may affect the mandatory reporting statute.

-- Criminals Should Be Held Accountable (not@protected.com), March 16, 2001.

"[This article is] directly relevant to this discussion, and quite chilling in its implications."

Would you be so kind as to explain what you think the 'direct relevance' of this case is to the present discussion?

This case would seem to have little or no bearing on whether the BSA was justified in excluding homosexuals from becoming scout masters. The abuser in this case was a heterosexual. The BSA anti-gay policy would not exclude similar abusers from becoming scoutmasters.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), March 16, 2001.

"Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said." CNN 2000

"Citing First Amendment safeguards against government intrusion into the practice of religion, the high court unanimously upheld a trial judge's decision to dismiss a child rape victim's lawsuit against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

That's the connection, Nipper. They're both protected under the First Amendment. I am not linking the incidents as similar; just the protection.

-- First Amendment Protects (even@criminals.com), March 16, 2001.

PS why would you care how portland is? Are you trying a lame attempt at intimidating someone?

-- (suck@crates.jerk), March 18, 2001.

Just to clarify the shower scenes on boy scout outings. Please do not confuse cub scouts and boy scouts. Boy scouts can camp all week and yes, they do have showers. The BSA rules prohibit adult and children to be in the shower room at the same time. They have certain times where adults are allowed in.

Also, there is a rule where there must always be two adults present at all times. Not only does this protect the boys, it protects the adults from accusations also.

Now having said that, as a father of a boy scout, I am glad the BSA has this policy. Call me paranoid if you want, but I would prefer NOT to put my son in any compromising situations. The same is true for my Girl Scout daughter. I would NEVER allow her to attend an overnighter with a male leader.

-- Glenn (notimportant@nowhere.com), June 22, 2001.

Glenn, how would you feel about your Girl Scout Daughter attending an overnighter that was supervised by a lesbian Scoutmaster?

-- Just (curious@is.all), June 22, 2001.

"Now having said that, as a father of a boy scout, I am glad the BSA has this policy."

That is because it is a sensible and easily justified policy, using a rational approach to achieve a valuable goal with a minimum of fuss. In my view, this makes it very different from the policy of banning gays altogether.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 22, 2001.

This may not go over very well, but....

I believe most women can control their sexual urges far better than most males. MOST I said.

-- (i@think.so), June 22, 2001.

To Just Curious. I would NOT like my daughter (nor allow her) to attend an overnighter with a lesbian troop master. Even though I also feel that most women are more in control of their sexual urges, it still puts my daughter at risk.

By the way, I wasn't very clear on my first post. Although I do appreciate the two adults at all times rule and the no shared times in the showers rule, I meant to say I support the BSA's policy of excluding gays.

-- Glenn (noone@nowhere.com), June 22, 2001.

"I support the BSA's policy of excluding gays."

Would you mind sharing the reasoning behind this support?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 22, 2001.

Can I help you out there Little Zipper. The Boy Scouts are for normal folks. The freaks have their own ‘scouting’ group….they call it NAMBLA.

-- Bend (over@city.boy), June 22, 2001.

Can't wait to see the definition of "normal".

LN, I had attempted to address this with Ain't and others some time ago. Ain't had posted a thread claiming that a gay somebody-or- other (scout master? don't remember) had molested a child (a boy) somewhere. I read the article as Ain't posted it; I read the link; I read the other news outlets' stories on this. No where did it say the guy was gay. So I asked about it (naively in the hopes that someone besides the "usual suspects" would see the difference between a pedophile and a homosexual; talk about an exercise in futility). And that one simple question ignited a firestorm.

They had no real reason for wanting to exclude gays; just alot of "what ifs" and "could happens". I then raised the point that MOST pedophiles are HETEROSEXUAL; therefore, why would you want your child around ANY adult. Seems these people can't (or won't) distinguish between molestation and sexual preference. It just got worse when I tried to explain that if you "protect" people from ALL the "what ifs" and "could happens", you'd be, well, dead. I swear I heard heads exploding from the confusion. (Reminded me of an original Star Trek episode where the crew "got out of" their dilemma by "confusing" the androids with "logic". The androids' heads exploded.)

But I could be projecting there.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 23, 2001.

But if everything you say is a lie then you are telling the truth...but how can you be telling the truth if everything you say is a lie?

-- Android head smoking as ciruits overload (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 23, 2001.

That was the episode. I still laugh over that one.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 23, 2001.

"I support the BSA's policy of excluding gays."

Would you mind sharing the reasoning behind this support?

LN--

As you pointed out on the Honolulu ACLU thread, there is no right to be included by a private entity. If the Honolulu ACLU excludes Justice White from their debate, that is their legitimate choice. If the BSA excludes known homosexuals from being scoutmasters, that is their choice.

If people don't approve, they can boycott the scouts or ACLU; they can start a competing group.

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 23, 2001.

As I said back on March 14:

Hell, yes, they have that right! They are a private association. This falls under the general right of associating with whomever you please, and avoiding whomever you want to avoid. Simple stuff, really.

But I strongly disagree that this is "the real issue". The real issue is not one of legal rights. That issue was settled when the case was settled. For me the real issue is whether the Boy Scouts are acting irrationally or not.

I still agree with that statement.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 23, 2001.

Patricia, get back to us when you have children.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 23, 2001.

FAT chance of that! Like the pope giving advice on sex.

-- Know (your@limits.Patricia), June 23, 2001.

I'd like to address Patricia's very misleading statistic. Yes, it is true that the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual. That is because the majority of adults are heterosexual. However, the percentage of gay men who are pedophiles is considerably higher than heterosexual.

In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males are more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, they appear to be three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations (1). And this does not take into account the cases of homosexual child abuse, which are unreported. NARTH's Executive Director Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, says that about one third of his 400 adult homosexual clients said they had experienced some form of homosexual abuse before the age of consent, but only two of those cases had been reported.

While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (2). Further, since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (3), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (4).

(1) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.

(2) K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.

(3) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.

(4) Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.

-- Glenn (noone@nowhere.com), June 25, 2001.

To Little Nipper,

Why do I support the BSA's policy on excluding gays? I thought I said this earlier, but I always try to keep my kids out of situations where harm may come to them. Since a gay man is attracted to males, this could be a compromising situation. The same is true for my daughter. I would not want her on an overnight trip with an adult male OR an adult lesbian female.

-- Glenn (noone@nowhere.com), June 25, 2001.

NARTH Mission Statement (bold emphasis mine):

Welcome to the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) -- a non-profit, educational organization dedicated to the research, therapy and prevention of homosexuality. NARTH, founded in 1992, is composed of psychiatrists, psychoanalytically informed psychologists, certified social workers, and other behavioral scientists, as well as laymen in fields such as law, religion, and education.

Got any other data, Glenn?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 25, 2001.

Should have finished that thought; sorry.

My point is simple where your "data source" is concerned. They are NOT bi-partisan. They have a very deep vested interest in showing that homosexuality can be "cured". Huh?!?!

Another point I'd like to raise is this. Why is this even an issue? What business is it of ANYONE'S what anyone else's sexual preference is? (And I'm NOT talking about PEDOPHILES. But neither is NARTH.)

Whatever happened to the credo of the "right": PRIVACY. LEAVE ME ALONE. GET OUT OF MY LIFE.

Or does it only apply to THEIR lives?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 25, 2001.

Patricia,

Let's suppose that there is the same percentage of homosexual among pedophiles, 10%. So, we can assume that 10% of these pedophiles are homosexual, seeking out male children. What do pedophiles do to satisfy their needs? They seek out where children congregate, schools, parks, and boys and girls scouts outings. What better way to satisfy their hunger then to be placed "in charge" of children? Many parents want to "protect" their children against harm and reduce the situations where they would be placed in harms way. With great concern, they entrust the care of their children to the schools, city parks and recreation facilities, and scoutmasters, knowing that on occasion a pedophile may infiltrate the system. In order to reduce the chances, the boy scouts have the policies described above. But, do you honestly believe that if a gay pedophile wanted to grab a boy, these boy scout rules would stop him?

Let me try to put this in other terms. A neighbor whom you trust has asked you if he can keep your dogs for the weekend. He explains it will be great fun for the dogs and you can take a much-needed vacation. You agree but have concerns because this neighbor has some not so trustworthy friends. Aw, you can't be bothered with the "what ifs" or the "could happen". You allow this friend to take your dogs. Upon returning the dogs, you discover that they have been abused in some way. What would you do? Would you continue trust anyone in caring for your dogs again? Or would you think twice about the "what ifs" or the "could happen". Try to multiply your feelings a hundred fold for someone with children.

"Another point I'd like to raise is this. Why is this even an issue? What business is it of ANYONE'S what anyone else's sexual preference is?" I certainly don't care about someone's sexual preference. But when it comes to the care of my children, it matters greatly. Just as I would be concerned over an adult male caring for my daughters.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

I'm sorry; but I think there was a miscommunication somewhere along the line.

I'm most decidedly NOT saying you shouldn't watch out for your children. Why the "dogs" example? You seem to have an unfair advantage here in that you know who I am, but you choose to remain anonymous. Very curious. But let's go with your example for a minute.

You state that I know that my neighbor, whom I trust, has some friends who are untrustworthy -- and I KNOW they are untrustworthy. What makes you think for a minute I'd leave my dogs with them? Remember, according to your example, I KNOW these "friends" of his are not trustworthy.

Do you KNOW that every gay man is untrustworthy? No you don't. Big difference there. You don't even KNOW these "gay men".

I'm also most decidedly NOT saying the Boy Scouts have to accept anyone. Unless they accept public money, they can do whatever they want.

What I AM saying (again) is that one cannot reasonably protect another from ALL the ills of society and that some people (you?) are reacting out of fear of the unknown.

I wonder if "Glenn" and NARTH and many others have ever met a gay man. Yet they somehow feel "qualified" to judge an entire group based on an example or two; in this case, an extreme example or two. And to go by their very own words, they ARE judging an entire group of people.

Do we judge all heterosexuals based on a few pedophiles? I certainly don't; I doubt "Glenn" and NARTH do either.

So why the double standard?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 25, 2001.

So why the double standard?

Because THOSE people are different, that's why!

-- Uncle Deedah (unkeed@yahoo.com), June 25, 2001.

"I always try to keep my kids out of situations where harm may come to them."

I presume you are home-schooling them, because few schools follow the BSA'a bold lead. They negligently permit teachers to be of the opposite sex from many of their pupils.

Mainly, my point is that if the BSA is worried that their adult scoutmasters might molest their young charges, then they are taking irrational and ineffective precautions that are unlikely to produce the desired results. The whole policy is predicated on the BSA knowing the sexual habits of their scoutmasters, so that the policy will only exclude those who are open and honest about their homosexuality. Pedophiles, OTOH, are invariably secretive and deceptive.

This whole child-molestation idea is a red herring. It is also an excellent example of how the BSA's decision reinforces a harmful and mistaken stereotype. The BSA claims the real reason they exclude gays has nothing to do with sexuality. For the BSA, a homosexual is not a moral and upright person. They similarly believe that an atheist or agnostic is not a moral and upright person and they have enacted a similar ban on atheists or agnostics.

Yet, in spite of this fact, this whole thread quickly demonstrated how widespread the belief is, that the BSA was only acting to protect young people from sexual molestation by lustful gays and that such concerns fully justified the ban!

Why aren't more folks coming here and arguing how "most pedophiles are atheists"?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.

I used the "dog" example to indicate the concern a parent may feel towards gay men in charge of their male children. Your quote, "They had no real reason for wanting to exclude gays; just alot of 'what ifs' and 'could happens'", seems rather naïve. Parents sometimes behave "irrationally" as viewed by childless adults. Walk a mile in a parent's shoes before you criticize their concern over "what ifs" and "could happens".

All right, I'll make the example more suitable. Your neighbor has been known to keep company with friends who like to "play with" dogs. For the most part, this behavior occurs in about 10% of the population and quite acceptable in most circles, but this "playing" can sometimes lead to abuse by some unscrupulous "dog players", as in any deviant behavior from the other 90% of the population. His friends have never been arrested or suspected of any criminal activity. He assures you that he has rules that will restrict any "dog player" from playing with your dogs too harshly or inappropriately. You think his rules will work just fine. Would you allow your dogs to go for a weekend outing with your neighbor? Would you react differently if your dogs return with apparent signs of abuse?

Yes, it's quite ludicrous to come up with an example that will help a childless person understand the "real reason" behind preventing gays in the boy scouts. Fact is, there is no comparison between your love for your dogs and a parent's love for his children.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

"The example" is irrelevant. What I said stands; but LN phrased it better than I did.

It appears that you are basing a justifiable fear (of your children being molested) on an unknown; even worse, you are basing the fear on someone else's stereotype.

And I really resent your last sentence. You can't KNOW what I feel in my heart, so don't presume to know.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 25, 2001.

"They [schools] negligently permit teachers to be of the opposite sex from many of their pupils."

Yes, they do, but schools don't hold class overnight. And there have been reports of teachers who abuse their trust (who are not known pedophiles) and make sexual advances towards their students. The infamous example is the woman who coaxed her lover-student into killing her husband. Yes, home schooling would have prevented such a case and each parent weighs the pros and cons of each alternative.

"the policy will only exclude those who are open and honest about their homosexuality. Pedophiles, OTOH, are invariably secretive and deceptive." And they will find their way into every situation that will quench their thirst. (I wrote above ". . . on occasion a pedophile may infiltrate the system".) I don't disagree with this.

"BSA's decision reinforces a harmful and mistaken stereotype." From my point of view, it doesn't. I don't stereotype gays; I don't believe that they are abnormal because they enjoy men. I have relatives who are gay and I love them dearly. I accept their lifestyles and would trust my relatives with my children's lives. I don't however, extend that trust to all gays, just as I don't extend that trust to all heterosexuals.

Gay men would entice a younger male into a compromising situation as much as any heterosexual male would entice a younger female. Would you agree that these situations are equally likely? I would not want the girl scouts to allow heterosexual male scout-leaders for the same reason. Can you understand the comparison? Scouts go on over-night excursions. This can not be controlled 24x7. Over the course of a number of trips a gay leader could develop a relationship with a younger scout, just as much as a heterosexual male teacher could develop a relationship with a female student. The difference is that the opportunity for abuse is less in daylight hours.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

Straights---you cannot stop us. We are everywhere, not just in the Boy Scouts. We are in your Little Leagues, in your churches, in your schools. The laddies like us. We give them candy, ice cream, toys, money, video games and physical pleasure.

-- (Alan@NAMBLA.com), June 25, 2001.

Patricia, I'm just asking you "what if" the unthinkable actually happened? How would you feel and how would you react if it "could happen" to you? Your hand waving does little to address your fight for gay liberation.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

"Scouts go on over-night excursions. This can not be controlled 24x7."

So you send multiple adults on those overnight excursions and you train them to keep track of each other as well as keep track of their charges. If the BSA isn't already doing this, they are negligent.

Moreover, this approach is the only one that would have any chance of working. It is specific to the problem.

If you as a parent, or the BSA as an organization, think that a policy of excluding open and avowed gays from being scouts or leaders is sufficient to avoid this problem, then you are embracing a completely false sense of security that is likely to get you both into trouble, because it would prevent you from implementing an effective means of prevention.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.

Questions for Patricia and Little Nipper:

Are either of you gay?

Other than your obvious far-left leanings, has either of you actually had any real life experiences with the gay community?

In your quest to profile yourselves as politically correct champions of various social misfits and degenerates, you fail to understand that most human beings find homosexuals to be repulsive and in opposition to the masses. If I am to understand correctly, Patricia is a mid-forty’s alcoholic spinster that has never been married and has no children. As a parent, I am offended that someone like she would have the gall to say anything about the safety of OUR children. So Pat, do the rest of us parents a favor and shut the hell up about that which you know nothing.

Little Nipper is more of a mystery but liberals can be counted on to jump on these bandwagon’s, regardless of the social consequences.

-- A Parent (who@really.cares), June 25, 2001.

"Patricia is a mid-forty?s alcoholic spinster that has never been married and has no children."

Gee, A Parent, welcome to the fun and exciting world of ad hominem argument.

I think you'll find that with just a little more practise, you can completely destroy the credibility of your position with anyone who does not already think as you do - and with work, you may discover a way to make yourself an embarrassment to them, too.

In case you didn't know - whether I am gay or a liberal has nothing to do with the validity of the positions I am taking or the arguments I am making. I have no intention of answering such a question, on the general principle that it ain't none of your damn business who I have sex with. Not only is it purely rude of you to ask, but asking does far more to muddy the waters than to clarify them.

OTOH, whether I am familiar with or have had dealings with the gay community is obliquely relevant to the topic, but only insofar as it speaks to the scope of my knowledge. The answer to that is yes. I have. I know or have known many gay people. The majority of them were solid citizens in stable, long term relationships.

Now, be so kind as to address my points.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.

The one on your head or the one up your ass?

-- Another (concerned@parent.com), June 25, 2001.

LN

"So you send multiple adults on those overnight excursions and you train them to keep track of each other as well as keep track of their charges. If the BSA isn't already doing this, they are negligent." I'm sure they are doing this to a certain degree. Is this meant to imply that certain adults will act as midnight patrols?

"Sufficient"? Did I say it was sufficient? It avoids a compromising situation, just as in heterosexual teachers and opposite sex students. Certainly no where close to sufficient.

Now please address my statements prior to your copy and paste, "Gay men would entice a younger male into a compromising situation as much as any heterosexual male would entice a younger female. Would you agree that these situations are equally likely? I would not want the girl scouts to allow heterosexual male scout-leaders for the same reason. Can you understand the comparison?"

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

Dear ‘A parent’,

Please understand that Little Nipper and his/her liberal brethren suffer from the dreaded PC reasoning syndrome. They have little or no real world experience or personal moral standards to draw from so they resort to the PC party line and approve of any and all manner of deviant behavior. Look at their leaders; Ted Kennedy, Jack Kennedy, Gary Hart, Bill Clinton, and the latest piece of work….Rep. Gary ‘Lady Killer’ Conduit. They are to be scorned not argued with.

-- Another (concerned@parent.com), June 25, 2001.

A Parent: "I would not want the girl scouts to allow heterosexual male scout-leaders for the same reason. Can you understand the comparison?"

Well, apparently the Girl Scouts don't "understand" the comparison between having a male scout leader and a homosexual scout leader, either. They exclude one and permit the other.

From this link:

Given the Boy Scouts? troubles, why aren?t the Girl Scouts sued and picketed for not allowing lesbian Scout leaders? Because the Girl Scouts do not have "a discrimination policy," as they like to put it. Girl Scouts doors are open to all, including homosexual Scout leaders and girls.

Marty Evans told one interviewer, "We don't discriminate, and we don't permit the advocacy or promotion of a particular lifestyle or orientation. Those are private matters between a girl and her family. All role models at all times. If a leader's behavior is appropriate, and she does not advocate for any particular lifestyle, that's great.

As for the liklihood of any adult, heterosexual or homosexual, engaging in sexual activity with a minor, there are laws, social taboos and specific organizational rules designed to minimize that liklihood. Such contact is legally a form of abuse. These safeguards tend to discourage casual sexual abuse of kids by adults in situations where the chances of getting caught are relatively high.

Believe me, an adult scout leader on an overnight camping trip with at least one other adult and a bunch of kids, all sleeping in tents, is no place for a casual sexual liason. Clearly you haven't slept in a tent for a while. They present a barrier to noise every bit as effective as tissue paper. Try slipping into a tent at night and make one tiny misstep, risk one moment of accidental discovery, and you'll have a dozen kids blabbing what happened inside of five minutes.

Frankly, even if I were chaperoning a dozen underage girl scouts - under those conditions I'd have to be insane to try a stunt like that.

To illustrate: when I was twenty, I had a much better, safer opportunity for hanky-panky with an underage neighbor girl. I was tempted. If society had been indifferent to how I treated her, I might have gone forward. But the firm knowledge that this was one kettle of fish I didn't want to dive into kept me away.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.

Oh, Oh Nipper, please, DO ME, DO ME!

I…I….I can’t…what will your mother say?

You idiot…I AM her mother.

-- Nothing (behind@the.zipper), June 25, 2001.

I read the link LN, and still didn't find that the girl scouts are permitting male leaders. I'm not as concerned over lesbians because (as with all women and as someone noted above) most women don't force themselves sexually on others. True, they do on occasion, but those numbers are much smaller than male sexual abuse.

"Such contact is legally a form of abuse. These safeguards tend to discourage casual sexual abuse of kids by adults in situations where the chances of getting caught are relatively high." Come now, ever hear of "where there's a will there's a way". Yes, I haven't slept in a tent in a long time but I could be very quite when the situation warranted. I could "get away" with a little hanky panky with stirring no other arousal.

May I remind you that you have yet to address my questions.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

Call me biased (you'd be correct), but A Parent has ALREADY destroyed any credibility s/he might have had with me.

Why don't you "do [ME] a favor and shut the hell up about that which you know nothing".

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 25, 2001.

Clarification: That last line was directed towards A Parent.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 25, 2001.

"I read the link LN, and still didn't find that the girl scouts are permitting male leaders."

Stop. Think. Your point was that having a male homosexual Boy Scout leader was comparable to having a male Girl Scout leader. Another variation on this point would be to say a lesbian Girl Scout leader was comparable to having a male Girl Scout leader. Now if you don't understand, back up and try again. You'll get there.

"May I remind you that you have yet to address my questions."

But I have. What in the name of god do you think I was addressing when I discussed how likely anyone was to get a bit of nooky on an overnight scouting trip? That was your concern. I addressed it.

Your whole argument boils down to first, assuming that an openly homosexual man who was inclined to be a Boy Scout leader would be strongly inclined to have sex with the underage young men in his troop. You have yet to show this is a well-founded assumption.

Next, you must assume that the boys under his care would be receptive to his advances. Knowing what Boy Scouts were like when I was that age, that seems damned unlikely to me. Few young men are inclined that way. Most are not.

The older they are, the more confirmed they will be in their own sexual identity. The younger they are, the less likely they would be attractive to anyone but a raging pedophile - and you've shown no good data that excluding openly gay men would have the slightest effect on excluding pedophiles.

Lastly, you assume that somehow an adult scout leader could somehow consummate his desires in the midst of a clamoring gaggle of young men who can't be counted on to sleep when you want them to, follow directions when you want them to, or stay put at any hour of the day or night - sneaking into a tent where you will not be noticed - and having sex with some kid when the penalty for being caught is the ruin of the rest of your life.

Listen. It is clear you believe all these things are true. You think I am wrong. I think you are crazy to believe this. But then, a lot of otherwise sensible American adults seem to get weird around sex in general and homosexuality in particular. Reality loses out pretty fast.

I'm with Patricia on this. That crack about alcoholism should have cut it off right there.

Get thee and your kids to a nunnery. No sex there. (Uh, yeah... no sex... no sir.)

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 25, 2001.

Let me repost here, "Gay men would entice a younger male into a compromising situation as much as any heterosexual male would entice a younger female. Would you agree that these situations are equally likely? I would not want the girl scouts to allow heterosexual male scout-leaders for the same reason. Can you understand the comparison?"

LN Please answer the question. Compare male hetersexual overnights with younger females and gay overnights with younger males.

My handle "A parent" has been used by others. Please don't confuse me with those others responding on this thread. Please read the entire email address. I did not make those assumptions about Patricia's lifestyle. Frankly, it's none of my business. I now understand why Patricia has trouble reading.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

LN "Few young men are inclined that way. Most are not."

You probably are unaware of the ways of seduction. Men, who are so inclined, generally know how to "seduce". First they become friends, then they build trust, then they do a little, and build on that. My comments on "enticing" were referring to these methods. Most young girls aren't inclined that way towards their male teachers either. However, let the games begin. I had hoped you weren't that naive.

Patricia, you have also avoided my question.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 25, 2001.

You are correct and I apologize; wrong "A Parent".

By "question", are you referring to "Would you agree that those situations are equally as likely?" If so, no I would not agree. And my disagreement stems from *percentages*. There is a much higher *percentage* of heterosexual males than there are homosexual males. Therefore, it is MORE likely that a heterosexual male will "entice a a younger female". But it really goes back to what L.N. said earlier (and it is MORE applicable to heterosexual males). If a man (or woman) is a pedophile, why on earth do you think they'd advertise it? No, "A Parent", a pedophile would most probably NOT put him/herself into a position where they would be EASILY discovered. I would highly doubt that a pedophile would become a scout master in order to molest boys. That's just a little too high-profile, ESPECIALLY in light of the scouts' position on gays.

And a point you seem to be completely overlooking -- A Homosexual Isn't Automagically or Necessarily a Pedophile. Just because NARTH claims outrageous percentages doesn't make them so. Just because some people look upon them as "degenerates" doesn't make it so. People will believe what they want to believe; they will see what they want to see; and usually it's because They Know What They Know and don't let silly little things like "facts" get in the way.

I must reiterate that it appears you are basing your (justifiable) fears on stereotypes and old wives' tales. Protecting one's children from pedophiles (and any danger) is a *justifiable fear*. Protecting one's children from homosexuals has nothing to do with that.

If not, then what question? Frankly, I think L.N. has said it better than anyone could have.

BTW, I don't have "trouble reading". One obvious mistake (an easy oversight, possibly made by others as well) does not "trouble reading" make.

(An aside to the OTHER "A Parent": Your words have a certain illogical ring to them. Any particular reason for that? LOL.)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 25, 2001.

I volunteer time in our children's schools and in cub scouts, among other places. I also work a "regular" paid job. It is stressful in the extreme to keep the schedule workable. One flat tire and my day is fried. Only a handful of other parents do this. Only one of these parents is a full time stay-at-home mom, and we depend on her too heavily to fill in our gaps.

We volunteer at the school because we want to make sure our children are getting the help they need. Their teachers welcome us as valuable help when their own state and federally mandated schedules get tight. We volunteer in cub scouts because without us there would be no scouting program at the school. We volunteer on weekends and at night. We take care of extracurricular school functions. We make sure the parents of all the children in the school are kept informed about the activities at the school.

Let me tell you why parents are so hysterical about the possibility of contact with a homosexual. They don't want to help with the functions themselves. Their lives are too busy to help anyone else, not even their own children. They want to drop the kids off and not worry about it. They assume if they can keep a homosexual out of their children's lives, they can relax about the pedophilia issue. They want to legislate against it, and forget it. They want someone else to make sure their kids are safe. They're busy.

The truth is, when a pedophile went after a child in our community, it was a heterosexual pedophile with a young female victim.

If the boy scouts don't want homosexuals in their ranks, fine. It's a private club. My house is private, and I don't want people bringing their pet rats into my house either. (That happened. The guest was forced to leave. He turned the rats loose before he left.)

Just don't forget that most parents don't help with their kids activities. They want their kids to have a good time, and they want to dump the responsibility for that good time on others willing to do it.

-- helen (not@this.time), June 25, 2001.

As usual, Helen is the voice of reason. Thank you. (Because I doubt people say that to you enough.)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 26, 2001.

You probably are unaware of the ways of seduction. Men, who are so inclined, generally know how to "seduce". First they become friends, then they build trust, then they do a little, and build on that.

What a naive thing to assume to be 'probable'.

Listen, A parent, I am in my forties, I am not naive. I am observant and like any human being I have long been very motivated to understand the mechanisms of seduction. Not many things are more motivating.

Let me fill you in on a little secret: I don't care how "aware" you are of the ways of seduction, it isn't easy to seduce a fifteen year old against his (or her) sexual preferences. I don't care what crafty method you use!

At age thirteen I knew exactly what kind of sex I wanted! I wanted it so badly I could taste it. I wanted it so badly I would have committed criminal misdemeanors to get it. I was NOT confused about which gender I preferred and I really hadn't been CLOSE to being confused for as long as I could remember. If someone of the wrong sex had started groping me, no matter how long I had known them, I would have noticed right away that I DIDN'T LIKE IT! Moreover, I knew as a thirteen year old that I didn't have to put up with it if I didn't like it!

If you want to protect your kids, teach them THAT, for chrissakes! Let them know that their bodies are their own and it don't matter shit who gropes them - if they don't want it, they need to complain - LOUDLY, immediately and often!

Do that and, even though you might not be able to protect them from every unwanted sexual advance, you can protect them from being used, abused and misused.

If you don't teach them that, then SHAME ON YOU!

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 26, 2001.

"And a point you seem to be completely overlooking -- A Homosexual Isn't Automagically or Necessarily a Pedophile" I have said that I have gay relatives and I love them dearly. I DON'T fear gays as some disease. There are gays workings at my children's school. It doesn't bother me in the least. They are as good or as bad as heterosexuals. I never equated gays to pedophiles. I don't believe this anymore than you. So I haven't overlooked any points that you have made and stop presuming my beliefs. I have no "old wives" tales, I'm quite "progressive" in my thinking, and you have no basis for those comments. You are projecting some of YOUR sterotypes onto me. I don't mind, just be aware you are doing it.

You don't believe in the comparison because the percentage of gays is low. Yes, you are correct. But if allowed, the percentage of gays, I believe, in the club would rise. As a parent I would be concerned. My question to you Patricia was regarding your dogs and if you would feel the same way "what if" it "could happen" to your dogs.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 26, 2001.

LN, at least Patricia gave me an answer to the question I posed to you. You must have been good at dodge ball. You sidestepped me each time. Each time I responded to your oblique replies and repeated my question. Par for the course.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 26, 2001.

One other comment, LN. Congratulations on being such a strong youngster. Some youngsters aren't. Some can be manipulated. Those are the types that older men seek out. And also, thank you for telling me how to be a parent. How many children do you have? Have you taught them how to be strong also? In other words do you practice what you preach?

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 26, 2001.

LN,

You asked if I home school. No, I do not. However, a day in school is a lot safer environment than overnight camping. And if there are ever day trips for either of my children's classes, then my wife or I have ALWAYS attended/chaperoned. As I originally stated, you can call me paranoid if you want, but I feel better safe than sorry where my children are involved.

I also believe you questioned whether I know any gay people. Yes, my female cousin is gay. I remain on good terms with her although I disagree with her choice of a lifestyle. And just like I would not bring my children over to my brother's house when he was living with a girl, I do not bring my children over to this cousin's (and her partner) house. I do NOT want my children to see either of these lifestyle choices as acceptable. So pedophiles aside, that is another reason for supporting BSA's stand on open homosexuals.

One last point, my son is only 10, soon to be 11, and is spending a week at Boy Scout summer camp this week. I don't believe at 11 you were so sure of who or what you wanted from sex.

-- Glenn (noone@nowhere.com), June 26, 2001.

LN, pedophiles look for kids without a support system at home. That's pretty easy to find at dumping grounds for working parents, particularly in the summer. Skating rinks, swimming pools, and parks are full of kids without adult supervision for several hours at a time. It's easy to spot the kid hanging around alone. These kids may not eat meals with a parent, much less have in-depth discussions about bodily privacy, victimization, and sexuality.

Sometimes the pedophile will zero in on a parent with a child care problem and offer to help. The child is silent based on the perceived friendship between the abuser and the parent and will often assume s/he won't be believed. The child may not want to increase the stress levels at home by reporting.

Pedophiles are fixated on kids. They know how to manipulate kids psychologically. Parents who have close relationships with their children may assume they covered all the bases and that the children will report abusers at once -- and they are wrong.

In addition to talking to kids about touching and privacy issues, I highly recommend that parents get involved in the schools, church youth groups, and summer camps with their kids. It will usually take at least one unemployed or underemployed parent per family to do this. That's hard to do, but not impossible. When I think I don't have the strength to drive home from work at 1 am and then get back up at 6 am to get the kids ready for a new day, I remember that they won't be with me all that long.

-- helen (m@d.at.babystalkers), June 26, 2001.

"A Parent", then I don't understand what this is all about. I thought I had said way up on this thread that if the scouts want to exclude some, it's their right because they are a private organization.

I addressed the "dogs" question, in detail.

So this leaves me more than a little confused because you are the one perpetuating the myths, yet you accuse me of "stereotyping".

This appears to be going in circles. What gives? If you don't like the answers I gave, that's one thing. But I gave you answers, which is what you asked for.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 26, 2001.

Patricia is this your answer in detail? "'The example' is irrelevant." I tried to give you an example that would allow you to be "placed in my shoes". Your reply didn't tell me how you would view the situation if it were presented to you. (I understand that the club is a private club and by its nature can restrict membership. I agree with this and this alone should be the end of the discussion.) But I would like to address your comment on "They had no real reason for excluding gays..." How would you feel if a dog "club" didn't restrict its membership? Would you have any real reason for excluding people who enjoy "playing with" dogs? I hope I have conveyed my question to you.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 26, 2001.

Uh, no, the "detail" was here:

You state that I know that my neighbor, whom I trust, has some friends who are untrustworthy -- and I KNOW they are untrustworthy. What makes you think for a minute I'd leave my dogs with them? Remember, according to your example, I KNOW these "friends" of his are not trustworthy.

Do you KNOW that every gay man is untrustworthy? No you don't. Big difference there. You don't even KNOW these "gay men".

My comment on "they had no real reason to exclude gays" was in reference to the posters on the thread in question. Does that clear it up for you? Come to think of it, though; the "what ifs" and "could bes" seem to be the "reasoning" behind the scouts' decision, too. But again, it doesn't matter. Unless they accept public money, they can do what they want.

If I had a private club, and accepted no public money, and didn't hold the meetings in a public school or other public place, I could exclude and include anyone I want.

Again, what is the point of this? IIRC, I was addressing Glenn's citation of NARTH as "factual evidence" and then you entered the conversation with some questions that I have now answered.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 26, 2001.

Patricia: I assume that you know you're beating a dead horse here. The "concerned" parent already said that ANY heterosexual man would try and seduce a younger girl. Heh. I'm reminded of when SO took a contract at a local University. The "eye candy" should have been extraordinary [or so he thought.] He came home and said, "They all look about 12 to me." My daughters and their friends are in their early 20's and he sees them as CHILDREN. You're not going to convince this poster that either homosexuals OR heterosexuals aren't interested in sex with children unless they're PEDOPHILES.

Helen made some good points, as well, as did LN when he discussed how children should be taught from EARLY childhood that their bodies were NOT to be a source of amusement for ANYONE. Helen's points were particularly appropriate because the ONLY cases of homosexual abuse amongst scout leaders occurred in cases where the parents wanted to "pawn off" their children on another. Hell...these parents didn't even inquire as to how many children were going on the trips, or how many adults would be there to supervise.

I was both a brownie and a girl scout. As a girl scout, we spent WEEKS making tooth-brush holders, etc. for camping, but when it came time to go camping, not ONE parent was willing to chaperone, including MY mother. We never did go camping. When MY kids got into scouts, both my husband and I went along on every trip. I worried about ANYONE who might take charge of my children, but I didn't worry about their gender or even their sexual orientation. I just made a point of being there.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 26, 2001.

Yes, I do realize this. And you made the point that I guess I've been trying to make all along -- if you are a "truly concerned parent", you make NO distinctions where your children are concerned.

When I was in school (as well as when I was a brownie and a girl scout), my Mom ALWAYS chaperoned. She'd take the day off work just to be a chaperone. Few were the times she couldn't do this, much to my dismay :-)

My Mom was also a den mother for the cub scouts; my Dad worked in every youth group in our grammar school, etc. My Mom co-chaired the sewing club and co-produced their fashion shows for years -- even AFTER I left the grammar school. Of course we had those parents who never did anything, never WANTED to do anything where their children were concerned.

I've noticed over the years that most of those kids ended up dead or in jail, almost to a man. How sad.

Come to think of it, the kids of the overly-protective parents pretty much ended up the same way. My parents were not overly- protective; they were genuinely interested in the groups and trips in which we participated.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 26, 2001.

I see that Anita once again is giving her personal anecdotes and then making her generalizations based on such.

" The 'concerned' parent already said that ANY heterosexual man would try and seduce a younger girl." Please identify exactly where I stated this.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 26, 2001.

Glen: "One last point, my son is only 10, soon to be 11, and is spending a week at Boy Scout summer camp this week. I don't believe at 11 you were so sure of who or what you wanted from sex."

I agree. I was much more vulnerable at age 10 and 11 than I was at age 13 or 14. I was much more afraid of adult authority and had less independent judgement. If you want to chaperone your child, I say more power to you.

But as I have pointed out repeatedly:

1) There is absolutely no reason to think that a healthy homosexual adult male would find a 10 or 11 year old boy either attractive or sexually stimulating. Would you want to have sex with a 10 year old child? I assume not.

2) Such a sexually immature child would only be of interest to a pedophile.

3) The problem of protecting children from pedophiles is not solved in any way by keeping them away from openly gay adult men. The BSA policy of excluding gays both as scouts and as scout leaders will not prevent a single pedophile from becoming a scout leader. Not one. Ever. Pedophiles are far too knowing to be entrapped by such a naive strategy. The very idea it would trap one is laughable.

4) Even the BSA admits that their exclusion of gay scouts and leaders has nothing to do with protecting scouts from pedophiles.

Protecting children from pedophiles is serious business. I applaud anyone who takes the appropriate steps to protect those children from sexual predators. It also has nothing to do with the Boy Scouts excluding gays. It astounds me how these two issues are intertwined in the public mind. All I can say is that the public is badly, badly confused and misinformed on this subject.

A parent:

You keep harping on why I didn't answer your question and you accuse me of dodging.

The question, in full, was: Gay men would entice a younger male into a compromising situation as much as any heterosexual male would entice a younger female. Would you agree that these situations are equally likely?

This question came loaded. You may not have done it deliberately, but your insistance that I answer it under its own terms, exactly as written, shows that you are aware that it is loaded in your favor and you keep hoping you can goad me into pointing it at my foot and pulling the trigger.

"Younger" is the obviously loaded term.

It would be ridiculous of me to say that any adult male would be disinclined to pursue a sexual liason with a "younger" person. A 30 year old would entice a 25 year old in a wink. A 20 year old would entice an 18 year old just as quickly - probably with a greater sense of urgency, too.

But your question doesn't make any distinctions between those perfectly normal examples of sexual enticement and a grown man enticing a 15 year old adolescent or a 10 year old child.

So, instead of answering your imprecise, loaded question, I addressed your implication instead: that any healthy adult male would be on the prowl for sex with young people of an age to be in the Boy Scouts. My answer is the younger the "younger" person is, the more unlikely a normal adult would be interested in enticement.

Your question also didn't make the slightest acknowledgement that different circumstances drastically affect the 'liklihood' of such 'enticement' taking place. So, I addressed this missing piece of your question more thoroughly. Even a sex-hungry adult who is tempted to 'entice' an physically mature 15 year old is going to refrain from enticement in the open. Statutory rape laws ensure that.

The best way to prevent such unwanted enticement is to make sure there are at least 3 people during interactions. Exercise that one precaution faithfully and your "equally likely" drops to "equally frustrated" in a big damn hurry.

Does that answer your question?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 26, 2001.

You all know gay or bisexual people, whether you are aware of it or not. You work with them, play with them, are related to them. (They all come from families just like yours, they didn't all just magically appear under cabbage leaves in the garden). They probably don't discuss their sexual preferences with you, unless you have shown yourself to be someone who doesn't have a problem with it. Sometimes their spouses don't even know, or just don't discuss it with people. Most of the time it is none of anyone's business.

I'm a parent, with young kids in school. It's a demi-rural area, not necessarily the acme of suburban sophistication, so probably pretty average in many ways. I know at least two bisexual parents, and a couple of pairs of lesbian parents. At least one of them is underemployed, so that she can be there for volunteering at the school, not just for the sake of her kids, but for the good of all the kids.

I've got a good idea of who at least some of the gay staff at our public school are. They are damned fine at what they do, and I treasure them. I had at least one gay teacher back when I was in public school. I know that many homosexual kids realize they are attracted to others of the same sex as early as the age of 10, and that those acknowledgements have been made for decades, long before it was routinely talked about. Are you aware of how high the suicide stats are on gay and lesbian youth, who haven't yet managed to learn the coping skills to get through days where "faggot" is muttered or screamed around them all day long?

Parent's grapevine discusses what families may be in trouble, where you might not want to send your kid for a sleepover. It's the heterosexuals we worry about. The kid with a stepfather, or worse, the mom with just a boyfriend.

I see some kids who have that look in their eyes already, that haunting "deer in the headlights" look I remember from some of my good girlfriends in childhood, especially the one whose dad would hand her off to his brother when he was finished. On one level I can laugh like crazy at the "Uncle Fucka" song in the South Park movie, but on another level I know that straight uncles and straight dads can commit soul murder. We didn't talk about it back in those days, of course. At a family funeral, my cousin took me aside and told me how my hetrosexual dad had fondled her once when she was 12. There are two daughters of (heterosexual) Protestant clergymen who are good friends of mine. Both were molested by their fathers. Do we see a pattern that may indicate just who is a more likely potential problem in our communities?

This is not abstract theory around here, it is real life. I don't want Boy Scouts using tax-payer-funded public spaces to exclude the kids of other tax-payers for irrational reasons. If they want to consider themselves to be private and selective, let them meet privately away from public property.

-- Firemouse (girlscouts@don't.discriminatelikethat), June 26, 2001.

LN congratulations you have addressed it.

"Exercise that one precaution faithfully and your "equally likely" drops to "equally frustrated" in a big damn hurry." So we need to allow gays scout leaders and at least 3 "on patrol" at all times during an over night.

Oh and Anita, least I forget. While you are relating your personal experiences, please explain your ex's relationship with your daughters. Are you more cautious now then you were?

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 26, 2001.

"So we need to allow gays scout leaders..."

There is nothing necessary about allowing them. But allowing them would certainly make the BSA a more reasonable and less discriminatory institution.

"...and at least 3 "on patrol" at all times during an over night."

I would just put four scouts per tent, with the leaders tenting in their own tent somewhere in the middle of the site.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 26, 2001.

"LN congratulations you have addressed it."

Odd. I didn't say anything I hadn't said earlier.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 26, 2001.

"Gay men would entice a younger male into a compromising situation as much as any heterosexual male would entice a younger female.

Here's the answer to the question you asked FIRST, "parent." I see that LN addressed it before *I* did. Your SECOND question regarding the fears I had about my ex, based on what he SAID were addressed at the time. I sat my kids down and explained to them that NO ONE [emphasis on NO ONE] was to be honored if that person touched them in ANY way that made them feel uncomfortable. I explained that if such a thing happened, they were to scream "NO" at the top of their lungs and run away to tell an adult what had happened. Am I more careful now? My kids are grown now, and they're happy adults who take responsibility for their behavior.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 26, 2001.

Anita, do you see a difference in the statement you wrote, "ANY heterosexual..." where you conveniently discarded the first part of the statement you just posted? If you don't see the difference, then I cannot begin to teach you at your age. Hmmm, another example. I ask, "Are you more cautious now?" And you reply with the state of your kids. I ask about you and your attitudes toward a certain incident in your life and you reply that your kids are responsible for their own lives. Can you see your indirect response? You are not compelled to answer me or any other anonymous poster on this net. I just hope that you are smarter than you let on.

LN, no you hadn't stated any of those agruments prior. You did not describe the "loadedness" of my questions. You assumed certain aspects of my questions or (omissions thereof) and decided to only address your pre-conceived notions of my omission. Further you go into an analysis of the word "younger". I assumed we were talking about boy scouts and their leaders. The younger would apply to the scouts and the implicit "older" applies to the leader. (Your dancing is not as good as Fred's but keep dodging. You have become extremely good at that.) And after the zig, you reply, "Odd. I didn't say anything I hadn't said earlier." Thank you very much. I've enjoyed the chuckle.

-- A parent (who@is.always.concerned), June 26, 2001.

I'm getting confused here, Parent, and it may very well be due to my low IQ. If my children are grown, why on earth would I become more cautious? I'm no longer in a position of protector.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 26, 2001.

"(Your dancing is not as good as Fred's but keep dodging. You have become extremely good at that.)"

You may find that humorous, but I am in a surly mood today.

You said I answered your question. Now you are back to accusing me of "dodging" again. So what am I "dodging"? Spill it.

Or was that intended in the nature of a 'playful slap'? If so, go playfully slap somebody else. I'm not in the mood for it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 26, 2001.

As have we, "A Parent". You seem to have no problem whatsoever berating any and all whom you perceive have had the temerity to NOT answer YOUR questions. Oh the horror; the indignation. How DARE named, regular posters NOT answer the queries of an anonymous poster? Woe is you!

But wait a minute; a quick scan of the thread reveals a couple of interesting little tidbits: We've all answered you, even as you've changed the subject and changed the questions. Yep; every one of "us" whom you've queried has responded to each one of your questions, including the "new" ones. In fact, I had to point out my response to you, as did L.N. (and yet you accused ME of having "trouble reading"). You have yet to comment on or respond to any of the answers we've provided you, except to "scold" because a nuance of yours was missed. One wonders why.

I wanted to ask you what Anita's ex had to do with the discussion here. She didn't mention him; what is the relevance for you? Anita DID respond to your other question (about her level of "concern") by noting the AGES of her children (OK, so it required a couple of thought processes to understand the response). "Grown" would indicate, to me anyway, that her children are no longer in danger of being attacked by pedophiles; consequently, there wouldn't be as much "concern" on Anita's part. Wouldn't you agree?

And wasn't the fear of pedophiles the entire gist of this discussion? Isn't that why you support the decision by the scouts to exclude gays?

Funny thing here; you still haven't answered any of MY questions, most notably: "What is the point of all this?"

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 26, 2001.

Since I joined NAMBLA, I have been so fulfilled! Here is our Bulletin. Don't you love our cover-boy? Mmmmmmm, yummy. He is in my troop.

-- (ScoutmasterBob@pink.puptent), June 26, 2001.

NAMBLA and Scouting are very synergistic. I have my boys practice their knots during bondage.

-- (ScoutmasterBob@Camp.Runamok), June 26, 2001.

Jesus Patricia, you really have trouble understanding the other point of view, don't you? Of course Anita answer the question but not directly. Parent pointed that out. "Berating"? You can dish it out but you can't take it can you.

I think that Parent is pretty accurate with LN's dancing around. He followed the zigs and zags as much as he could but LN is the one that lead the discussion in all kinds of directions. After re-reading, LN had difficulty answering Eve's direct question. Do you also think that Eve was berating?

And the point of the question, for the "hard of understanding", is that Anita experienced "any heterosexual male" (in particular her ex) sexually abusing her daughters. I'd say that's pretty dang close to the topic of this thread. You and LN have no kids. You and he cannot speak with ANY dang authority about what a parent feels about this situation. Honestly, your opinions are worthless. That's the fuckin point of all this. "no real reason" my ass!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 27, 2001.

Anita experienced "any heterosexual male" (in particular her ex) sexually abusing her daughters.

This isn't correct. My ex SAID some things once that led me to believe he COULD do such things. My one daughter said something once that led me to wonder if he HAD done such things. In all these years since, I've never heard anything [nor seen any behavior] to indicate that any sexual abuse took place.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 27, 2001.

I'm not even going to bother, Maria, because no matter what I write, you turn it into what YOU want to read. You believe what you want to believe because you know what you know.

Good for you.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 27, 2001.

"You and LN have no kids."

And how in hell do you claim to "know" this?

The fact is, I have consistantly refused to make this a discussion about my personal life. That is why I did not directly answer the question about whether I am gay and I refuse to divulge other details of my family life. They are not relevant.

And I would much rather lose a few "debating points" with people such as you who can't understand that principal and think you know more than you do, than to use my personal life to "justify" my opinions just because some anonymous moron asks me to. Demanding to know the ages and numbers of my children is just such a tactic. Claiming that I have none because I don't answer is another such "debating point".

Your assumption about the presence or absence of my progeny, however, is totally unwarranted.

By the way, Maria, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Have you ever advocated the overthrow of the government of the United States? Have you ever committed a violent crime? Have you ever been the cause of a traffic accident through negligence? Have you ever cause personal injury or grievous bodily harm? Have you ever made a child cry?

I would appreciate answers to all these at your earliest popssible convenience. Failure to answer will be taken as assent.

In your face,

Little Nipper

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 27, 2001.

LOL, LN. I've always felt more comfortable discussing the stupid stuff that's occurred in MY life versus pointing the finger at others, but it makes no difference. MY posts are misrepresented just as much as the folks who share NOTHING.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 27, 2001.

I'm pretty much the shining example around here of what happens when you DO share anything about your private life.

Won't make that mistake again :-)

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 27, 2001.

Patricia: I think I want to be one of those old people who disregard what others think about them. We only go around once, AFAIK, and I intend to have fun. Did you ever see the movie, Harold and Maude? There are a number of changes I'd make in the Maude character [in the fantasies I have about my life as an oldster], but I agree with some of her basic tenets.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), June 27, 2001.

LN--

I don't have the link but I dimly recall you identifying yourself as a father. Am I recalling incorrectly or have changed your mind?

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 27, 2001.

Lars: "I don't have the link but I dimly recall you identifying yourself as a father. Am I recalling incorrectly or have changed your mind?"

Ask Maria. She is certain to know.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 27, 2001.

Anita, I've never seen the entire film; just snippets. But yeah, I want to be like that when I grow up. Absolutely.

Reminds me of a joke some comedian did once. You can tell how long a couple has been together by how they act towards each other in public. The newlyweds will be all sweetness and "Oh, honey" this and "Yes, sweetie" that. By the time they've been together like fifty years, it's "FUCK YOU. WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK YOU'RE DOING? GET OVER HERE AND HOLD THIS FOR ME. MAKE YOURSELF USEFUL." and "YOU'RE FULL OF SHIT" blah blah blah.

The funniest thing is seeing this happen in a mall or store.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), June 27, 2001.

LN, Anita, and Patricia, I want you to know that I'm exercising great self control. Ah, what the hell...

LN, I know that you're a great dancer and would probably post anything just to be contrary. Does that help, Lars?

Anita, and you *do* post the "stupid" stuff quite often, which I don't resent, just find funny.

Patricia, so which couple do you resemble in public?

I got to do something about being so direct. Or is it oblique, as Tar would say?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), June 28, 2001.

Actually it doesn't help Maria but I think I know the status regardless. LN, you leave us no choice but to speculate.

Just so that I don't leave anyone speculating about me---I have never had bio-children but did do my share of parenting with my step daughter who still chooses to honor me with "Dad".

-- Lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), June 28, 2001.

Lars: "LN, you leave us no choice but to speculate."

I can think of one other choice. Really. I can.

For example, Maria did not answer a single one of the questions I asked her a short time ago. Would you say to her, "you leave us no choice but to speculate" about her former membership in the Communist Party? I think not.

Why does my case require your speculation? The answer is: it doesn't.

You'll do it because you feel like it, not because you have to. When you are done with me, feel free to speculate about your next door neighbor's sex life and bank account. Just don't say you "have no choice".

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), June 28, 2001.

I have a "reset" button, I wear it on my head.

I slap my "reset" button, when ugly words are said.

Because my "reset" button is mounted on the back,

I bump my "reset" button whene'er I hit the sack.

So tell me your life history and all your lifetime woe,

Tomorrow when I wake up, I swear I'll never know.

So if I think I know you, this is what I'll do:

I'll hit the "message" button and say, "Mother, is that you?"

-- helen (this_a_real_address@yahoo.com), June 28, 2001.

Anita and Pat pretty much won this one. Hands up. :-)

-- me (I sez@you.know), June 29, 2001.

Wrongo sez breath! Jose won!

-- Patricia (and@nita.lib.losers), June 29, 2001.

Where'd Jose go? I'm afraid that the remaining participants can't hold a candle to his rhetorical skill.

-- J (alfa_spider@go.com), July 28, 2001.