See the next thread, Boy Scouts And Sex, particularly the comments of, say, “Vince in Lousville” or “ZZ”.

Like I said, I don’t think everyone who opposes allowing homosexuals to participate in scouting thinks that homosexuals are predators. But it’s a factor for more than a few.

No, he ended with it as an obvious centerpiece of Scouting where much influence is had over a boy’s life. You interpreted the expected ‘problem’ in your own manner.

[Ray] “I pointed out what seemed to me to be a reasonably good example of the attitude he [David Nichol] speculated about.

A reasonably good example, based on what you believe conservatives think. Mr. Ingles, don’t you realize that the issue here isn’t even what Bob thinks anymore – it’s that you’ve read a fairly neutral statement of concern, and concluded – primed by Mr. Nickol’s hint – that “See, *there* it is!!”

[Ray] “I did not claim – and do not believe – that everyone who opposes allowing homosexuals to participate in scouting thinks that homosexuals are predators.”

Then that’s all I’m after. Both of you have backed off the blanket nature of Mr. Nichol’s original statement.

I hear a concern about role models and conversations around the campfire of what is normal and good.

Which would not apply to scout meetings or boards of review or merit badge counseling sessions?

Again, Bob seemed to focus on the problem, not of having homosexual “leaders” (his quotes) per se but having them “go camping with these boys”.

You jumped to defend a statement by Mr. Nichols that is a pretty good example of more heat than light.

I pointed out what seemed to me to be a reasonably good example of the attitude he speculated about. I did not claim – and do not believe – that everyone who opposes allowing homosexuals to participate in scouting thinks that homosexuals are predators.

On the other hand, I’ve seen the notion come up enough times that I do think it’s a factor for more than a few.

Mr. Ingles, I didn’t think that all homosexual men are predatory. That’s how I *don’t* hear Bob’s words. I hear a concern about role models and conversations around the campfire of what is normal and good. Now about how *you* hear them: You jumped to defend a statement by Mr. Nichols that is a pretty good example of more heat than light. The credibility of your arguments with me and other readers is going to continue to be shaped by whether you are able to re-evaluate and even retract your position at times. Does your persistence mean that you agree with Mr. Nichol’s position?

Yet they operate on the false assumption that same-sex sexual behavior is moral. It is false because it lacks sound moral argumentation. But that does not stop them.

This attack on the Boy Scouts is a display of unreasoning obstinancy — bigotry. The gay activists seek to entrench progay bigotry in every major social organization. Their ways and means are justified, they feel, by the supremacy of gay identity politics. History is replete with examples of how this sort of thing goes. The gay example is just the latest.

“During this vulnerable and fascinating time of life for boys and into this cherished institution, we are now to do what—introduce sexual identity into the world of scouting.”

Heterosexuality is a sexual identity.

JDD, how would you read Bob’s words more charitably?

Interestingly enough, I even see what you’ve inferred. It’s not what I read from his comment – and I won’t pretend to tell you that I know exactly what Bob meant, as you have. You read a concern about an openly homosexual man going camping, and YOU assume that the concern must be about predatory habits. I think it provides more insight into your biases than to others.

I was referring to this: http://www.scouting.org/scoutsource/HealthandSafety/GSS/gss01.aspx

See the section titled “Two-deep leadership on all outings required.” The two sections after that are relevant, too.

Not only that, the sponsoring organization (often a church) may have their own requirements. To participate in campouts, I’ve been through both the Scout child-abuse prevention training, and the Catholic Church’s version.

I spoke to a person very high up in the BSA today and he informs me that the Adventurers is a co-ed scouting group. He said that instances where girls are on a camping trip with a male leader the troops is required to have at least one female leader also in attendance.

Is that what you mean by two-deep leadership?