Toleration for the Boy Scouts

As a pediatrician, I have been aware of and have carefully considered the Supreme Court's ruling on the BSA's policy on homosexuality. I have reached a very different conclusion, however, from Girard et al.

The authors state that "There is no medical evidence to suggest an association between homosexuality and impaired moral judgment." This is an absurd juxtaposition! To design such a study first requires one to define "impaired moral judgment," which is (1) not a medical issue; and (2) the issue already begged. Unfortunately for the case being made by Girard et al, there are several reports in the medical and nonmedical literature of gay adults who have tested positive for the human immunodeficiency virus who purposefully failed to use condoms during anal and oral intercourse. Does this not qualify as impaired moral judgment? Perhaps it depends on who is doing the defining.

The authors also state that "the BSA stands without scientific foundation" when they claim that an avowed homosexual is not a role model for traditional family values. Once again, the juxtaposition is ludicrous! Traditional family values have been around for centuries without the benefit of a scientific foundation. It seems that these authors are only interested in using "science" as a weapon, not as a tool for illumination.

The authors claim that the BSA is promoting "misunderstanding and intolerance . . . with potentially life-threatening consequences." I think the authors themselves are guilty of misunderstanding and worse, fear-mongering.

For the record, their claim that the BSA excludes homosexual persons from membership is simply inaccurate. There exist gay Boy Scouts and gay Boy Scout leaders who have not been asked to leave the organization. The difference lies in being openly or, more to the point, obnoxiously gay. The Supreme Court, in a victory for those who believe in freedom of association, has granted the BSA the ability to exclude those whose behavior has crossed a certain threshold.

I have plenty of patients and parents of patients who are heterosexual. Many of them are revolted by the obnoxious behavior of some homosexuals. They have a right to feel that way. They are glad that the Supreme Court has shown the wisdom to rule in the BSA's favor. To pursue a campaign of persecution against the BSA, as the authors are suggesting, smacks of intolerance—an attribute they are anxious to decry when it suits their other needs.