Funny, everyone who answered my question about the camping had to put additional conditions and qualifiers on it.
One of the main reasons I posed the question is because this is exactly what people are faced with with regard to the Boy Scouts of America. You know they have been sued for discriminating against Gays for not allowing gay Scout leaders. Here we have a private organization with their own views regarding morality and the very real concern over situations exactly like the question I posed. For some reason, people are all up in arms about gay rights, but when it comes to the rights of a private organization to decide what they do and do not want their children exposed to, rights go out the window.
If my child was to go camping, I would choose the option that was the most safe for my child. That would be a straight, same sex chaperon or a respected man-woman couple. And, I would like to add that pedophiles are known to seek out access to children. That is why so many pedophiles become Priests - it gives them access to young boys and it affords them the advantage of authority over them. So, where children are concerned we must be especially vigilant. Does anyone wonder why this type of thing is seldom discussed. In fact, most on the Left are quick to point out that these men are Catholic priests, but when it is mentioned that they are also gay, they respond by saying that they "identify" themselves as straight - as if that matters. I identify my cock as being 9" - that doesn't make it so.
Now I do not mean to suggest that gays are necessarily pedophiles. What I would rather point out is that the Left bends over backward to sweep anything that might make gays look bad under the rug. They do this because they feel that showing gays in a good light will encourage people to treat them better and acknowledging the bad might encourage people to treat them poorly. That is why nobody was able to give a straight answer to my question without including additional specifics. They had to take the focus of the question off of the gay aspect and steer it toward the question of person knowledge of the chaperon. This is not objective thinking.