Now, I’m not a male, so I’ve never been in Boy Scouts, nor have any of my immediate family been scouts, so I don’t really care all that much about what the Boy Scouts choose to do or not.
However, I’d like to say why I think that allowing homosexual men to lead scout troops is a bad idea. And it’s not because “eew, teh gayz are icky” or anything like that; I think homosexual men shouldn’t be put in charge of a group of post-puberty boys for the exact same reason I don’t think a woman should be put in charge of them (or a heterosexual man in charge of a group of post-pubescent girls). Sexual tension WILL exist in such circumstances, and the whole point of having sex-segregated groups is to eliminate sexual tension as a social factor.
The whole “gays aren’t pedophiles!!” argument is pointless, by the way. If you make a distinction between pre-pubescent children and post-pubescent legal-fiction “children,” then yes, I can believe that homosexuals aren’t any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. But don’t try to tell me that homosexuals aren’t going to be attracted to post-pubescent fourteen-year-old boys, because I will laugh in your face. There’s already a far too common occurrence in public schools, in which teachers will engage in sexual relations with one or more of their post-pubescent students – and this occurs quite frequently among men AND women teachers. If, in the context of public school, inappropriate sexual relationships between a teacher and minor student (which damn well ought to be a relationship in which sexual overtures are absolutely unthinkable) are far too frequent, the logical conclusion is that allowing gay men (or het women) to lead a group of post-pubescent boys (or lesbians or het men to lead post-pubescent girls) is A BAD IDEA. There is guaranteed to be inappropriate sexual behavior by somebody on a rather regular basis. Probably quite a few somebodies.
“Nonsexual zones allow a special kind of trust.” There’s a reason men aren’t permitted in women’s bathrooms, and vice versa; it’s because that zone is one in which sexual tension is forbidden. People shouldn’t have to be on their guard to fend off unwanted sexual overtures while they’re trying to attend to their bladders, which is exactly what would happen if men and women had to use the same communal facilities. One of the primary purposes of sex segregation is to remove sexual temptation (or vulnerability) from a sphere of life. That’s why it’s the BOY Scouts and not the Children Of Both Sexes Scouts. Allow openly practicing homosexuals to join, and you might as well invite the tomboyish girls in too; the major reason for keeping the organization sex-segregated will be gone. The Boy Scouts will no longer be a nonsexualized zone in which the boys can be assured that they don’t need to be concerned about sexual behavior.
Really. If a homosexual man would like to mentor boys and teach them wilderness camping skills or whatever, he can do that with the consent of the children’s parents already, after all, and without destroying a fundamental aspect of a valuable a sex-segregated organization. Whining about “fairness” or whatever is just pathetic. There’s a good reason it’s not suitable, and biology doesn’t freaking care about some mythical, utopian “equality” bullshit.