The BS Opposition to the BSA GB Lift

News had been circulating that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) would consider lifting the ban on gay scouts and volunteers amidst strong encouragement from the LGBT community and activists.  Of course, once news broke about the consideration, thousands showed up in opposition.  The BSA decided to postpone their decision until May.  It’s not clear why they are waiting until May, nor are their considerations known.  It would seem that they are weighing on whom to alienate – gay rights activists or anti-gay supporters.  Since the BSA doesn’t appear to have a legal obligation not to discriminate against the LGBT community, it is evident that consideration to drop the ban on gays was financially motivated.  Unfortunately, the decision to postpone the decision until May is also financially motivated.

As stated before, the BSA is now concerned with who they want to alienate.  More specifically, they must decide what type of funding they receive.  Since activism for gay rights and equality has increased and been recognized on a global level, the financial impact to large corporations and political impact on politicians have come into the spotlight.  Intel had halted donations to the BSA organization because of their anti-gay policy.  I believe it was the threat of losing funding that led them to consider changing their policy, not necessarily a moral obligation.  Since the announcement, opposition to gay rights has threatened to pull their funding as well.  Nearly 70% of scouts are supported financially by religious organizations.  The decision not to lift the ban will be due to the fear of losing funding from religious groups, as a Quinnipiac poll shows 55% of Americans favoring elimination of the ban, to only 33 percent opposed – clearly a majority interest is not at stake.

It is of course a sad state of affairs, as it has been, that such extremes are taken to protect children from what is perceived to be the evils of homosexuals.  Parents are determined to pull their kids out of a program that teaches them integrity and honor simply because there may or may not be a gay scout leader, or member in their troop.  It’s a pathetic notion that an organization that donates to the scouts would pull their funding just because the BSA says they would allow a gay child the same opportunity as his straight peers.  The intolerance and alienation of the gay community from gay rights opponents will create a self-fulfilling prophecy of evil from homosexuals.  If a homosexual commits a sin it won’t be because they are gay, but because much of society refuses to accept them as an equal human being.

Fear of acceptance and ignorance to understanding is preventing positive development of our youth.  They call one who opposes gay equality a homophobe, because by definition that is what they are.  A phobia is an irrational fear.  Homophobia is an irrational fear towards homosexuality.  The fear is irrational because there is no logical reason to be afraid of someone, simply because they are gay.  Anyone who says they are not afraid of homosexuals, but oppose gay rights is extremely naïve.  They are afraid of the impact to society that would be caused by homosexuals, because that is what they are taught to believe despite any evidence opposing their beliefs, or the lack of evidence to corroborate their fear.  Most homophobia is the result of religious beliefs, which makes it harder to convince someone of the irrationality of their fear because they are led by faith; faith is strengthened, not diminished, by the belief in something despite the lack of evidence in support or the abundance of evidence in opposition.

The case with BSA accepting gay members is just one quest in eliminating the irrational fear of homosexuals.  It could be any organization, the fact this case happens to revolve around the Scouts is irrelevant.  In order to convince opponents of the BSA’s decision to allow gays into the organization, one must understand what the opposition is about.  This is usually difficult when arguing against homophobic individuals and groups, because their opposition is irrational, and they have no clear reason for their opposition.  Reasoning for the opponents usually jumps around quite vaguely: “It’s just wrong” or “it’s immoral” are common arguments, although why it’s wrong or immoral is often excluded.  “Because the bible condemns it” or “Jesus said it’s bad” or “it’s bad for society” are insubstantial claims.  The bible also condones slavery and rape in some situations, but the church no longer enforces these passages because they no longer conform to developing societal morals.  Claiming homosexuals are bad for society is an extremely unaccredited and hypocritical claim as well.  There is no credible evidence to suggest homosexuals have a negative effect on families, communities or child rearing, and any reports stating otherwise are riddled with inaccuracies and presumptuous conclusions at best.  What is the opposition really about? 

Many believe that subjecting their sons to homosexuals in the scouts will increase the possibility of either their sons becoming homosexual, being influenced by the evil nature of homosexuality, or worse being molested.  The first two are easy to discredit.  Being around homosexuals does not switch someone from being straight to being gay.  Chances are every straight person has come in contact with a gay person and did not walk away a homosexual.  Deviant homosexual behavior is yet to be defined.  Exactly what to gay people do that is wrong?  If a gay person commits a crime it isn’t because they are gay.  If this were the case, everyone would be gay.  There is nothing specifically deviant about homosexuals that also cannot be committed by heterosexuals, and being homosexual does not intensify the occurrence of said behavior.  I believe it is largely the third claim: allowing homosexuals to openly volunteer or join the scouts will lead to pedophiles molesting your children.

How ridiculous is that?  Say it out loud, it sounds even worse.  Most will not admit it, but this is the reason to oppose allowing gays in the scouts.  Rick Perry believes the scouts should keep their anti-gay policy because “societies failure to adhere to the organization’s core values was a cause for high rates of teen pregnancy and wayward youth who grow up to be men joining their fathers in prison.”  He makes this claim despite the fact that teen pregnancy is highest in abstinence only educated states.  Where Perry doesn’t specifically say including gays will invite molestation in the scouts, his core values against homosexuality and belief of the evils it causes suggests he doesn’t necessarily oppose that assumption. 

Some are more outspoken about the assumption homosexuality equal pedophilia.  The host of 700 Club Pat Robertson suggests if the ban is lifted on gays joining the organization then there will be “predators as Boy Scouts, pedophiles who will come in as Scoutmasters.”  Tony Perkins, the “leader” of the Family “Research” Council says something similar.  “Leader” and “Research” are in quotations because they aren’t credibly used in that sentence.  Family is a stretch, too.  Really it’s just a council of people who hate homosexuals, and believe the sanctity of marriage and family values will disappear because homosexuals have rights. 

Opponents of lifting the gay ban are determined to keep the scouts pure and molestation free, just like it has been in the past, except for, you know, it’s never been like that in the past.  Just three years ago in a case of sexual abuse the Oregon Supreme Court ordered the BSA to release what is referred to as the “perversion files”.  The case revolved around a scoutmaster that was accused of molesting 17 boys, and later found guilty.  The 1,247 files are reports on individuals volunteering or employed by the BSA that have cumulated over 2,000 instances of abuse between 1965 and 1985.  The BSA started keeping these files and using them internally in an effort to track scoutmasters that have been found to abuse scouts. 

“More than 3 million reports of child abuse are received each year, including half a million reports of child sexual abuse. As a major youth-serving organization, the Boy Scouts of America has a unique opportunity to help protect the youth of our nation.”

This is an excerpt from a BSA handbook given to parents to warn their children about child molesters.  The handbook was distributed in 2005, five years before the BSA was forced to release their records of child abuse allegations.  The BSA also did not report these offenders to the police when the abuse occurred.  The BSA apparently was not concerned about informing the community of possible predators, rather they were concerned about mitigating exposure of the organization to litigation.  829 of the files involved molestation of 1,622 boys.  In some cases, either more than one boy was molested per occurrence or multiple occurrences were reported.  To further highlight the disturbing nature of this situation, these are only reported situations; considering only 10% of molestation cases are actually reported, it would be easy to accept that far more accounts of sexual abuse occurred.  Maybe these scoutmasters were homosexuals?  After all, you don’t know someone is gay unless they tell you, or if they are wearing a fabulous scarf.

Is this a preemptive measure, then?  Will allowing homosexuals in the BSA increase the occurrence of pedophilia?  The answer is an emphatic NO.  The truth is not just philosophical, it’s scientific.  Yet, tt’s not enough to tell proponents of the BSA gay ban won’t result in homosexuals molesting boys, so here’s the proof.

First off, the math just doesn’t add up.  Child molesters are overwhelmingly male, but the victims are overwhelmingly female.  Without facts and figures, one may deduce that most molestation encounters of children are heterosexual.  However, the encounters in the BSA were homosexual, or male on male.  In reality it’s not a homosexual or heterosexual encounter at all.  The psychology department of UC Davis performed a study on molestation compared to sexual orientation.  One may describe a male as homosexual once he has molested a male scout; however, a male child molester choosing a male as a victim does not indicate the offender’s sexual orientation.  Many child molesters lack an adult sexual orientation completely.

“…many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women.”

In a study of 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child:

-47% were “fixated”, meaning they had never developed a sexual orientation

-40% were regressed heterosexuals

-13% were regressed bisexuals

None of the men identified as homosexuals, nor were they primarily attracted to other adult males

In another study, the medical charts of 352 sexually abused children were reviewed.  Less than 1% of the occurrences involved a gay or lesbian offender.  The study did not mention if the offender-victim relationship was same-sex.

A study in Canada enlisted the help of homosexual and heterosexual males to try and link the relationship of pedophilia and sexual orientation.  All men were determined to have physically mature adult sexual partners.  The men were then shown photos of boys and girls, clothed and unclothed in various environments.  The applicant’s sexual arousal was measured for each photo.  The conclusion was that homosexual men were no more attracted to male children than heterosexual men were attracted to female children.  This is the exact, scientific antithesis to the argument that homosexuals are more prone to pedophilia, and putting them in an all male child environment will result in higher cases of molestation.

Male scout leaders molested male scouts because they were pedophiles, not homosexuals.  There were so many occurrences in the scouts during 1965 and 1985 not because there were homosexuals infiltrating the organization, but because it was an environment susceptible to pedophilia.  There was a large selection of unsupervised children, and what’s worse is there wasn’t a deterrent to improper action.  If you got caught molesting a boy, at most you got kicked out of the scouts, but imprisonment wasn’t a worry. 

In the late 1980’s, the BSA developed the Youth Protection program.  The program was the result of pressure from law enforcement due to the rise of child abuse.  Unbeknownst to law enforcement at the time, the BSA had been keeping secret tabs on all of the child abuse allegations within the organization.  The program included policy changes that would prevent abuse from occurring such as requiring at least two adults on all trips and outings, no one-on-one or private contact between a scoutmaster and a member, requiring all scout masters to sleep in separate quarters from scouts and prohibiting supervision of scouts during compromising situations (showers, dressing, restroom breaks, etc.).  The BSA also required all volunteers and paid scoutmasters to pass background checks.  Since the program took effect, the BSA recorded one instance of abuse – AND there have been gay scoutmasters who had publicly come out during this time, and then promptly ejected from the scouts despite no bad behavior.

A homosexual is no more likely to be attracted to a young boy than a heterosexual.  The attraction is not because of sexual orientation, rather to the age of the child.  Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally susceptible to pedophilia.  Actually, given the fact that most pedophiles are individuals without a sexual identity, I would expect homosexuals to be less susceptible to pedophilia.  Scouts may actually be safer with gay scout leaders.

The hypocrisy is overwhelming, but it really isn’t shocking.  The ultra-conservative religious indoctrination of homosexual beliefs is ever present.  Getting followers to fear gay people is the core strategy of their war against homosexuality.  One must decide if they will continue to accept an irrational fear in an effort to protect obscure and discredited morality, or if they will be flexible with a changing society as humans develop into a more reasonable being.