Boy Scouts!

Boy Scouts

As I posted yesterday I did not play baseball as a kid. What I was involved in was Boy Scouts. I joined in 1969 and in February 1971, I earned the rank of Eagle. In October 1974 I was blessed with being named a vigil member of the Order of Arrow. Both honors mean a great deal to me.

I mention this because today May 23, 2013 the Boy Scouts are due to vote on a universal proposition to allow gay youths into the movement. Perhaps nothing over the last few years has divided the movement I love, more than this issue. It is a divisive proposition for a variety of issues including troop sponsorship (most troops are sponsored by religious organizations which might oppose such a move), the fear of parents withdrawing boys mostly because of the fear of molestation of younger kids by older youth and a general fear that the image of scouting might be altered by a decision to allow gay scouts.

15 months ago I did something that I might not have imaged a few years back. I decided to join a group called Scouts for Equity and Arrowmen for Equality. Both groups advocated for and have advanced the cause of allowing gay leaders and youth into the movement. Over the last few months we have been more successful than I could have imagined. We have, with the help of two national board members, placed the issue front and center with the scouting movement. Along the way we compromised one of aims, that is the addition of gar leaders to the current resolution. Today the proposition facing scouting is for the inclusion of scouts, not leaders. We do have a sense of incremental change.

Seven months ago I was one of the inaugural signers of a petition initiated by Eagle Scouts in support of this position. It was a bold step, in the history of scouting no group of Eagle scouts have banned together in this fashion. It was a difficult decision for many. While I am not gay, some of my brethren are and we all run the risk of forever being forced to prove our sexual preference in order to ever participate with the organization again. Still I did not hesitate to sign. I think what is right is right and to me this is right.

Now I am not saying that those of differing opinion are wrong. Far from it we need to understand that scouting must be inclusive of differing ideas. I personally believe that there is room for both ideas in the movement and I respect the other sides’ opinions. The basis of the disagreement can be found in the Scout Oath:

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

The term morally straight was actually added after WWII and some believe it means that gays cannot serve in the movement. Obviously I disagree I believe morally straight means being true to oneself, and being willing to stand up even for an unpopular cause if justified. In short I can see both sides of the issue.

So my position actually comes from a deeper feeling. First Scouting has done well to incorporate medically fragile and disabled kids into their ranks. But only up to a point, today kids are allowed in limited numbers at the adventure camps. Philmont, a place I love and attended three times will take diabetics after six months of diagnosis. Still most kids cannot for logistically reasons attend. I did after I was DX’d but I was not allowed to be a camp counselor, since I was diabetic. Something I desperately wanted to do. The rejection led to my departure form scouting. There are safety concerns of course, but this was a blanket ban. In short I know what it means to be forbidden from participation in my case because of diabetes.

Second I was a member of a trop whose leader was later convicted of being a pedophile. I will call him frank the leader was single, a troop leader for over 15 years when convicted and he had a parade of kids in his “good graces”. I was never one, because I had a two parent home, and Frank did not single out kids with strong support systems. In fact, looking back on it with adult eyes I came to understand that Frank wanted me gone more than anything in the world. The longer I stayed the more danger I posed to Frank being exposed. He did everything he knew to get me run out. Largely because of my mom’s illness, I really did not want to leave and frankly wasn’t until his arrest that I understood what was going on. It was a perfect storm for Frank so he told a few boys in my unit that I cramped his style. Funny really my presence may have kept him out of trouble for a bit.

My belief is that if Frank had been allowed to practice his sexual preferences openly he might have been less likely to abuse kids. At the very least, had parents known, Frank might have had less power over kids and close monitoring instead of pretending that he was not gay. In fact I doubt Frank would have ended up in scouting at all, if his sexual preference had not been more open.

Frank spent three years in prison for his child molestation issues, long after I left the unit. I was asked and declined to testify as a character witness for Frank. Most of the scouts I know who served with respectfully see each other’s points of view and agree to disagree on tis issue.

In short this is a big deal and I am glad that this time I didn’t say no to change. In many ways being here in Tu gave me that courage. Once you step out and tell the world about one thing. It is easier to step out on others. Thank you friend for helping me have the courage, online, to take a big time stand on an important issue.

-30-

Rick

Hi Rick, and thanks for posting about an issue that few will dare broach unless to defend exclusionary behavior and principles. I believe nearly everyone on TuD can speak to the unfairness and pain of the stigma diabetes carries.

Just one point of disagreement, probably best discussed off-board. Frank is not, in all likelihood, gay; pedophilia should not ever be confused with homosexuality. Child molestation is about power, and the majority of pedophiles are heterosexual.

muragaki:

I did consider that in writing this article. Frankly I don't know about frank. i do know he was repressed in terms of having a partner. I grew to know know that over the years. I do agree that most pedophiles are in fact heterosexual. Frank on the other hand was almost asexual at least to the parents and kids not being abused.

I do understand the point and do realize that being homosexual is not in any way an indicator of pedophilia. But I do know that in Franks case. Once he left prison he started to live with a grown man and to knowledge left this ear in such a relationship. I presume he was no longer abusing kids and i do knwo his living arrangement.

But again I did mean to imply that pedophilia and homosexuality are related. As we know and as you correctly stated for more heterosexuals abuse kids.

Kudos to you, Rick, for your bold stand. Awesome.

First, congratulations to you and your peers for taking a principled stand without regard to how unpopular it might prove to be.

Second, I agree with your stand and the reasoning behind it.

All that having been said, I seriously doubt that Frank's behavior stemmed from the lack of a partner. Child molestation is a profoundly immoral/unethical behavior, like armed robbery. As Pope Francis said recently, if a priest is a pederast, he was one before becoming a priest. There's no "get out of jail free" card for this. One has the character to do what is right and refrain from what is deeply wrong, or one doesn't. I don't think Frank's life circumstance furnished him with either an alibi OR a rationale.

I do understand the point and do realize that being homosexual is not in any way an indicator of pedophilia. But I do know that in Franks case. Once he left prison he started to live with a grown man and to my knowledge no longer abused kids.

It was likely a poor choice to link Frank's mess with this idea. I do understand that pedophilia is a disorder of brain while homosexuality is neither a disease or a disorder and linking the two is not appropriate.for a variety of reasons. If i had it to do over again I would take that part out.

My fault,

Rick

I understand, but that wasn't quite my point. I don't believe that homosexuality enters into this in any way, positively or negatively. It is not relevant. If Frank had molested little girls, my comment would have been word-for-word the same.

My point is that some people have the conscience, or the ethical sense, or the self-discipline, or the gene, or whatever it is that constrains one to proper behavior, and some don't.

And -- no offense meant -- I have to chuckle at the idea that Frank now refrains from molesting kids because he lives with someone. It's also just possible that he no longer molests kids because he never, ever, ever wants to go back to prison again. Between those motivations, I'm betting that is likely to be the stronger of the two.

;)

David:

I appreciate the comment and yes I have no idea his motivation for molesting children now or not. In fact I cannot swear he is not molesting kids. I do agree that such behavior is not linked to sexual preference. Lets face it Frank may not even be homosexual for all I know. I was gone a few years before he was arrested. I think that Frank was a mess regardless of sexual orientation. My guess is this guy woudl have done kids no doubt the circumstances.

David, I doubt we are very far apart on this issue. as i said I really should not have placed this reference in this discussion. Frank violated the scout oath way beyond any simple issue.

Now here is the other part I didn't say. Tow of franks targets committed suicide one at 21 (a friend of mine) and one at 16. Neither were in the troop at the time. Was it his fault? Beats me, but I do know both were struggling with issues involve frank. One other attempted suicide at 13, franks fault? Beats me. But I heard much later he was struggling as well.

No this was no scout this was and is (if he is still alive, I lost track after I decided to not offer character testimony) a predator. Predators live beyond sexuality not because of it, their lust is tied up in domination and control not sex.

Agree 100%.