The Reactionary Impulse and Scouting

Note: This was triggered as a response to a woman's distressed choice to deny her six year old son membership in the Boy Scouts. I would note that the information she used as the basis of her decision did NOT come from the Boy Scouts of America, but a Boy Scout bashing organization doing all they could to make their web presence appear to be official BSA.

As a parent of four I recognize the agony that comes with teaching our children. At the age of six, I'm sure I made most of the decisions for them still. By the age of 10, I would probably have weighed the alternatives in a decision such as this and allowed them to choose for themselves. By age 16 I tried to be able to assume the role of "adviser" only, but I'm sure there were times I might have leaned very hard. Some of those times choices were made contrary to that advice.

There is no organization that agrees with and reinforces all the values I feel are important. Organizations that I support all teach or do something that is contrary to my values. The other things they do and promote coincide with my opinions and merit my support. And through that support I have had much more influence than I would have through boycott.

There is no organization that doesn't promote some value or cause that I am against. It is abhorrent to me that the public schools still teach the myth of the "empty continents" about the Americas when it is now apparent that European  diseases preceded colonial Europeans by enough years to have decimated up to 100% of the natives present before their "discovery". Even at that, is it OK to take someone’s property if you kill them by pathogens instead of guns? Movies teach my children that the "normal, accepted" level of violence is much higher than data bear out. The rudeness and anti-social behavior (like the "zingers") in TV promote behavior at which I shudder. I have allowed my children the opportunity to make these choices, while acknowledging my responsibility to teach correct principles in my home and the added burden that popular society places on me by portraying my opposition in the media.

I was a Boy Scout of America. I also was an employee in men's retail. One group did not permit the practice of homosexual behavior in its organization. In the other I was constantly persuaded, even pressured to explore sex with other males. Boy Scouts taught me innumerable things. They taught me treat all life and all people with respect. There was never any gay bashing and certainly no gay violence. I have an overwhelming tendency to be heterosexual. I tactfully rebuff the approaches of the men that flirt with me. That does not make me a homophobe. I also rebuff the approaches of women who are not my wife who come on to me. That does not make me a misogynist. My experience is that the men will persevere and even pressure much more than the women. I certainly have never been groped inappropriately by women the way I have been by men.

In the Boy Scout Oath, the word “straight” refers to personal integrity, not sexual preference .The Boy Scouts of America does not extend membership to males who live a gay lifestyle. Any private organization has the right to include whoever it will as its member. The Girl Scouts does not allow males who “live a male lifestyle” into its ranks. That is their right. There are people who will politicize buying Girl Scout Cookies based on that organization’s practices with a male living a female lifestyle. In my opinion, it is their loss as these girls learn much more than sexual identification from scouting.

In Scouting I learned how to repair a faucet, navigate the Boston MTA and gained many other skills of merit. More importantly, I learned how to set a goal and define the tasks to achieve it. I learned to monitor my progress with objective, empirical guidelines. At work I learned the merits of fabric and weave, how color and patterns work and how to select and tailor a suit so it flatters the wearer. I was not “poisoned” by the lack of gay men in Boy Scouts. I was not “poisoned” by the lack of hetero men in retail.

It is your right, even your duty as a parent to guide your child through the learning years. What choices you make for them will influence choices they make later on. I do not discount beneficent ideas and actions a person or organization because they don’t include gay men. When you reject a beneficent experience because of some attribute that earns your “veto”, your parental responsibility to provide the good experiences and education lost is implicit. How will you accomplish that?

 Your son would not be ruined by the lack of exposure to gay men in Scouting. Despite the rules and stories, he will encounter gay men and boys in Scouting and learn to treat them with respect. He will not ever hear derision or taunting of ANY person in Scouting. It simply isn’t tolerated by BSA charters and executives.  He will encounter the same expressions he will in 1^st grade, and I’m guessing you will allow him to go to school.

It is currently fashionable to deride Boy Scouts of America for their policy excluding gay men. What I have learned from this is that many people are willing to ignore the good of something, even forbid it if the organization’s or person’s ideas are different on some subject than their own. I am satisfied that my values in the home were much more influential than those of any group to which they belonged.

These are the subsequent posts in response. I felt I should include them as nobody has responded here:
 

08:44 PM on 04/18/201

by Nick Franco:

Gay is not a lifestyle. -the American Psychological Association. The Scouts -- and you? -- should really catch up with (already outdated) expert medical opinion. 

Me:
“I use the term "lifestyle" to mean any collection attributes or characteristics that can be defined and grouped. I would therefore also refer to a "heterosexual lifestyle", a "promiscuous lifestyle", a "rational lifestyle" and so on. If you are offended by the word "lifestyle" substitute whatever word you are comfortable with, then put forth your point.

As for catching up on the "expert" medical opinion, I've found that the level of expertise is generally decided by how much one agrees with what we want to see as results from any tested hypothesis. I haven't read a single scientific paper yet discussing the subject of sexual preference or sexual orientation that hasn't been countered by another study or criticized as flawed in methodology. The beauty of science is that every "decision" is open to opposing views. This continues until overwhelming evidence has been accumulated. I have no bias either way for sexual preference or orientation (substitute any word you feel comfortable with as being current). I have never judged any group of humans defined by some variable one way or another. I take people one at a time. My judgment so far is that I've encountered very few that I didn't like and admire in some way.

In fine, this forum is not discussing whether homosexual behavior is good or bad (which seems like a silly waste of effort anyway). This discussion is whether the lack of gay men in scouting would bias a person's attitude and negate the beneficial experiences.”

Neither "hetero lifestyle" nor "promiscuous lifestyle" nor "rational lifestyle" are terms used to pathologize/demonize an entire group of people. The so-called "homosexual lifestyle" is. How you personally use the term matters little in comparison to how the term is used in the public discourse.


Nick Franco:
Overwhelming evidence has accumulated that says homosexuality is natural. Period.


My final post on this issue:

Every 112 days I go to the Red Cross and make what is known as a "double red" donation. They actually take two units of red blood cells from me and give me 500 ml of saline to recover the fluid volume lost.

One of the questions I have to answer every time I donate is, "Have you ever had sexual contact with another male, even once?" Sexual contact is then defined as any exchange by any part of the body of bodily fluids. An affirmative answer to that question disqualifies a blood donor. The American Red Cross simply will not take your blood if you are a male homosexual.

Is your position that because the American Red Cross does not admit male homosexual donors that I should choose not to carry their card and participate in the national blood supply? Their reasons are decided upon and enforced by their charter. They do not publish data as why that restriction is in their policies.