It is not Prejudice. It is Prudence

To the indignation of many, the Boy Scouts of America continues to resist lifting its ban on openly gay and lesbian adults being scout leaders. However, with the decision by two high level scouting commissioners, James Turley and Randall Stephenson to oppose the policy, Gay activists are encouraged. The wall is cracking.

Much of the opposition to gay (open or otherwise) service in scouting is framed in terms of morals. Advocates on keeping the ban in place frequently point to the requirement that scouts be "morally straight". Others cite the right of private groups to determine who is eligible to be a member of that group and who is not. As opponents to gay scout leaders are finding out, both of those are losing arguments. Privacy is a flimsy argument for a group as large and as public as the Boy Scouts of America. Morals are seen as too subjective and too capricious to carry any weight in public. By the lights of these arguments, the BSA's ban on gay scout leaders is doomed. It is only a matter of time and money before they yeild. Interestingly, the most potent argument for keeping the ban in place is the one most frequently ignored: the argument based on common sense.

Even the most cursory of glances across the public landscape reveals a distinction that is so common it is rarely, if ever noticed. Mixed gender groups and activities involving children go to great lengths to restrict and regulate the interaction between adults and children of the opposite sex in any potentially intimate situation. As a society we have concluded that in many circumstances it is unsuitable for adults of one gender to supervise children of another because of the sexual ramifications apart from simple biology. We refrain from allowing adults and children to shower with each other or sleep alongside each other if they are of opposite sex and not related, even then we place restrictions on it. We do not allow adult men to escort young girls into the restroom or change alongside them at the swimming pool. It is usually a matter of policy to segregate the sexes where there is the opportunity for mischief. As history has shown time and again, scouting is an opportunity for mischief.

Keeping adults and children apart where there is an enticement to abuse is common sense. To do otherwise would be reckless. Naturally, gay activist groups bristle at the notion that homosexuals are more inclined to child abuse than any other group. Statistics bear them out on this. However, sexual orientation should not be the Scouts primary concern, abuse should.  The occurrences of adult men, of any sexual orientation, molesting children are few. Nevertheless, they do occur with alarming frequency. Even if the odds of any particular man being a sexual predator are small, it is significant enough that the possibility must be taken into account. The occurrences of adult women molesting children, while spectacular when they occur, are so statistically rare as to be hardly worth mentioning. Nevertheless, it too does occur and because of that, provisions have to be made

The issue is not whether gays and lesbians are capable of being scout leaders.  Of course they are. One does not have to be heterosexual to teach someone how to build a good Soap Box Derby racer or start a campfire. It is about the close quarters and the intimacy of scouting life. The prospect of sharing a shower, a room, or a tent with someone who may be attracted to you and find you sexually appealing can be uncomfortable and unpleasant, especially for a child. How many women (even liberal women) would feel comfortable letting their daughter dress, shower, and sleep among men even if the chance of molestation were negligible? Very few I imagine. That is why men and women have separate showers, bathrooms, dressing rooms, and barracks. When it comes to our children, thoughts and glances can be as alarming as anything else.

Wanting to avoid intimate situations involving children and adults who might find them appealing is not prejudice. It is prudence. The fundamental problem is that is is easy to make accommodations for gender. It is near impossible to do so for sexuality. Such concerns will naturally be brushed off by those in favor of lifting the ban. As far as they are concerned, guidelines and policies will be enough to keep everything above board and the children safe. It is believed that reason and rules will be enough to keep human inclinations in check. Even the Catholic Church has failed to quash human nature. It is unrealistic to believe that the Scouts will do any better.

The issue is not about the Scouts banning gay people from leadership positions . It is about banning openly gay people from leadership positions. There is a difference. If the kids don't know their scout leader is gay, their scout leader's sexuality is not an issue. The issue is about what kids should be taught about homosexuality. Many feel that openly gay scout leaders would be a valuable "learning opportunity" for kids. That may be. But the peculiar nature of the scouting experience due to the opportunities it provides for intimacy along with the importance of role models and bonding make it ill suited for a class on human sexuality.