As a point of fact, I'm never comfortable with questionable tactics, even if the outcome is something I favor. The ends don't justify the means and just because dirty tricks play in our favor, the precedent it sets is unacceptible. Especially where the government is involved, since even if we trust those who wield power now we would be eroding our defenses to future authorities we don't trust. The government coersing private organizations and private citizens should not be tolerated, period.

Now, the whole homosexuality bit is quite a touchy subject here (I keep meaning to say something meaningful on that front, but wow is it a minefield!), but I agree with you here: banning gays from the scouts on the basis of pedophilia as a threat is just dumb. Now, it is a reasonable argument that only a gay man could pose any such threat to young boys (in this male-only context, of course), but gay != pedophile. Interestingly I've been meaning to post on the topic of pedophilia -- amusingly, I finished reading Lolita right as a bunch of news articles came out regarding pedophilia and the Internet and 'protecting the children.'

As a final point, I hate the argument of 'protecting the children.' It's an oft-abused argument used for a whole slew of things and while it seems noble and evokes an emotional erespose, I think it can be shown that most things done to save the children are either ineffective or actively harmful. But that's another argument for another time.