Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

BSA National leadership or lack of and the local option

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    The Dale decision still stands, private groups can set their own leadership and membership standards. I don't forsee any troop getting sued.

    Comment


    • Beavah
      Beavah commented
      Editing a comment
      Yah, the Dale case was decided on relatively narrow grounds related to expressive association. That gets tricky for lots of other organizations, eh? Not da churches, but a lot of da community organizations of various sorts, and the "friends of" groups and such.

      Plus, it won't be long before the gay male dad who was turned down for a leadership position by a Catholic chartered organization gets picked up by the press to launch another media campaign about how da discriminatory BSA should dump the charters of any church or other organization that isn't fully inclusive. That will become da next "civil rights" issue.

    • Merlyn_LeRoy
      Merlyn_LeRoy commented
      Editing a comment
      Beavah, today, there aren't supposed to BE any organizations that can't discriminate in all the ways the BSA discriminates for their particular unit, so the local option changes nothing. If organization X can't discriminate after the local option, it couldn't have discriminated before the local option either, and could face a lawsuit in either case.

  • #17
    You know all of this speculation is interesting but is strictly individual opinions and not much else. All of us will have to wait until the decision is made and has been in effect for a while before you can draw any factual conclusions. At the rate National moves it may be another year before they actually make their final decision.

    Barry, come on now, you really think that this will really destroy the BSA, I rather doubt it, besides the deemphasizing of the outdoor program and skills started in the 70's had already started that process and the watered down program of today is the main reason so many scout packs, troops and crews have lost membership, along with incompetently run councils by incompetent professional scouters who lack any kind of ethical or moral work ethic.

    Comment


    • moosetracker
      moosetracker commented
      Editing a comment
      Boys are not men, AZMike.. You are very wrong that all pedophiles of boys must be homosexual or they would not be interested in boys. This is very, very flawed logic that not even scientists who attempt to prove homosexuals are more likely to... will wander into..

      Pedophiles are not interested in sex, they are not aroused by sex.. They are aroused by control and power over someone weaker then they are..

      I do not believe you can convert homsexuals by forcing them into therapy, but I do feel that people can change.. Sometimes homosexuality in young people is no more the sexual experimentation.. Sometimes people are bi-sexual, and yet when they truely fall in love they can make a commitment, this could be to a heterosexual partner or a homosexual partner.. But, some people simply are not and can not be heterosexual.. And forcing them into therapy does more harm then good, especially threrapy that has been uncovered to be either torturous or does damage to their self-esteem. Either the person needs to choose the path for themselves or it is just counter-productive.

    • moosetracker
      moosetracker commented
      Editing a comment
      clarification to my comment about no scientists will state all pedophiles of boys are homosexual - I meant respected scientists.. I am sure you could wrestle up names of some quacks that no one but the homophobic would take seriously.

      Strange.. I wanted to edit my original post, but although it let me try to edit, the changes would not take.. Tried 3 times..

    • AZMike
      AZMike commented
      Editing a comment
      moosetracker, please see my response to why "pedophilia" is too broad a term to describe men who have sex with boys in the thread on "Practical Problems." It's too long to repeat here. The correct term for adult males who want to have sex with boys is pederasty, and it is exclusively homosexual.

      The strange argument you are attempting to make is that a group of males you arbitrarily draw a line around and define as "homosexual" or "gay" includes only those who do not want to have sex with male adolescents, so anything outside your semantic definition must be "heterosexual" or "straight," or a third group that practices homosexual acts (mostly sodomy) but can no longer be described as homosexual. You're doing violence to the English language when you try to do that. Heterosexual males do not have sex with other males, by definition. You are talking about homosexual or bisexual (the "B" in "LGBT") behavior, as defined by the dictionary and common use. There is a perfectly good word that described adult males who want to have sex with adolescent males, "pederasts." The practice of homosexual acts between an adult male and an adolescent, pubescent, or post-pubescent males is "pederasty." It is used by the gay community (some of whom celebrate its practice, both historically and currently), so why not use it when describing who is most at risk to try to molest a scout?

      You are using the self-definitions of people who are lying to you. If someone is claiming to be "straight" or "heterosexual," but they are practicing homosexual or bisexual behavior, why would you accept their self-description? Behavior is the truth, not what someone claims to be.


      I can't make any sense out of what "This is very, very flawed logic that not even scientists who attempt to prove homosexuals are more likely to... will wander into.." Maybe its because of the new software.

  • #18
    Twocubdad, until we get this politico correctness thing figured out, a gentleman will insist the adult gay lesbians go first. But just for 19 seconds like everyone else.

    Barry

    Comment


    • #19
      moosetracker wrote: "Pedophiles are not interested in sex, they are not aroused by sex.. They are aroused by control and power over someone weaker then they are."

      You are partly right, but it's too broad to say a sex offender is not aroused by sex. Control and power expressed through sex, perhaps. What you are describing is actually the opposite end of the continuum for sex offenders, non-preferential sex offenders, who tend to be more violent, have more varied and extensive criminal histories, and are often bisexual in their victim preference.The pederastic (or pedophilic, if we use your term) side is preferential. As all human behavior tends to exist on a continuum, it's not a binary choice and offenders can share characteristics from each group. Those on the preferential end of the continuum tend to have very specific victim preferences and will likely be exclusively homosexual or homosexual. The first is impulsive, the second is compulsive. The first will usually be weeded out by even the minimal background checks the BSA does, the second group (pederasts) are less likely to have a criminal history and more likely to be accepted as a scout leader, even if openly "gay" under the proposed New Model of Scouting.

      Comment


      • #20
        So are you saying rapist of women or children who are nice and whisper sweet things, and ask "Do you like it?" are not being violent... Sorry, you are dead, dead wrong! A women or child does not need to be killed or cut up to the point of deformity for rape to be a violent act against them.. Nor, for the rapist to gain a sense of power and control over them.

        Also prepubescent boys and girls are not men & women.. Sorry again you are wrong..

        Do you also believe that if a women is truely raped she can shut her reproductive system down? And if a women is being raped since she can't do anything about it she should just lie back and enjoy it? But, wait a minute those two words of wisdom contradict each other, if they lie back and enjoy it, then by the other persons words of wisdom, they are no longer being raped, for they are then a willing participant.. I mean unless the women kicks and screams and fights then per wise guy #1 it really isn't rape at all...

        Comment


        • AZMike
          AZMike commented
          Editing a comment
          No offense, moosetracker, but what are you going on about? None of that has any relation to what was being discussed, nor did I say that rapists weren't violent. You are confusing motives and method. Why are you discussing the violent rape of women, a horrible act but not at all relevant to what was being discussed? If you're going to respond to an argument, you should address the original point.

          There are not many prepubescent boys in the boy scouts, and no girls at all. Why are you talking about them? Prepubescent, pubescent and post-pubescent boys are all males, which is the term I used. Homosexuals are defined by their interest in male persons, as most dictionaries state.

      • #21
        moosetracker further writes: "clarification to my comment about no scientists will state all pedophiles of boys are homosexual - I meant respected scientists.. I am sure you could wrestle up names of some quacks that no one but the homophobic would take seriously."

        Gay rights activists like to use "science" as a pulpit, and furthermore to declare that the "science" in this case is already "settled," a done deal, we're right and you're wrong and no taps back.

        One of the most efficiently optimized websites for the BSA/Gay issue is this one, sponsored by GLAAD: http://www.glaad.org/blog/dozens-experts-dispel-anti-gay-activists-myth-about-gay-bsa-leaders - helpfully titled "Dozens of Experts Dispel Anti-Gay Activists' Myth About Gay Boy Scout Leaders." It certainly seems popular, as it's one of the first that pops up in any Google search you can see its arguments cut-and-pasted on many websites.

        It states that "It is important that parents and educators understand that sexual abuse is about power, not attraction.

        Gay people are no more likely to abuse children, and pose no more of a threat to our young people, than the general population.

        This has been accepted among experts for decades.

        In 1978, researchers studied 175 adult males who were convicted in Massachusetts of sexual assault against a child. 47% were classified as "fixated;" 40% were classified as regressed adult heterosexuals; 13% were classified as regressed adult bisexuals. None were classified as gay.

        In 1989 researchers in Canada measured the actual arousal of various groups of men when viewing certain photos. They found that gay men were no more attracted to young boys than straight men were to young girls.

        In 1991 researchers surveying sex abuse victims in Denver found that only 2% of them had been victimized by someone who identified as gay or lesbian.

        There has been hardly any research done in the decades since, because this is a settled issue among experts."


        Well, the last sentence is demonstrably false, although the fact that the latest one of the three studies they cite is 22 years old, and the earliest one was conducted in 1978 has to be quickly explained away - much better and more current research has been done (see some of those I cited at the request of DigitalScout, who asked that none of them be sponsored by any religious or pro-family organizations) in the related (and more intellectually honest) field of child abuse studies. It's a fine line to walk, however as any scientists who make statements that the LGBT lobby (or the LGBTQ lobby, or the LGBTQIA lobby, or the even more ponderous LGBTTIQQ2SA - I'm not making that up - lobby) finds inappropriate can expect to be publicly chastised as "homophobic," become the targets of Facebook campaigns to pull their academic tenure, and recieve thousands of emailed death threats, if the experience of, say, Professor Mark Regnerus at UT Austin is any example (http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/ut-investigates-professors-study-on-children-with-/nRp5t/). The current political environment sounds exactly like the kind of calm, reasoned, dispassionate environment where quality research on human sexuality can be conducted.

        The letter makes the same claim you did, Moosetracker, that "sexual abuse is about power, not attraction." To which the answer seems justifiably to be, "Who the hell cares?" Whether its over power or attraction, a boy will get sodomized. As pederasts are inarguably attracted to people over whom they want to exercise power, this argument by both GLAAD and moosetracker seems like quite the exercise in hairsplitting.

        It's okay, though, as this is a "settled issue" among "experts." We know this because some of the "experts" who signed this statement of scientific principle include actress Christina Ricci, star of "The Addams Family;" the Reverend Doctor Cindi Love, Executive Director of something called "Soulforce;" Crystal Stehltenpohl, an Actual Graduate Student in the Department of Psychology at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; the Reverend Moonhawk River Stone, M.S., LMHC, a psychotherapist in private practice; not simply the Reverend but the Most Reverend Mark Shirilau, Ph.D, who describes himself as the Archbishop and Primate (I'm guessing that is an attempt at a theological description and not a biological one) of something called The Ecumenical Catholic Church, a schism of which the Vatican is probably blissfully unaware; and at least one professor of psychology at an online university that the Florida Attorney General is investigating for fraud. I'm not sure if those people are included among the "dozens of experts" referred to in the title, but I'm making a wild guess that they are. All very valid judges of the scientific method, I'm sure.

        Comment


        • #22
          "Science" and "scientists" are a comforting pillar to cling behind, but if you think that an opinion on anything in "science" is settled, then guess what? You may be doing something, but it sure ain't "science."

          It is even more difficult to make a claim to authority using "science" when we are discussing soft sciences, like the social sciences, and moreover, when the subject of study is sexual behavior...a field where most of us tend to lie to ourselves and our significant others, much less a 24 year old grad student with a clipboard who is asking us very, very, very personal questions. If you don't think this is true, moosetracker, then quick! - describe on this thread your most embarassing sexual experience!


          Still here?


          Do you think it possible that much of the evidence social "scientists" are basing their conclusions on is sketchy at best?

          I honestly doubt that psychology can have "settled science" in the same way that only the hard sciences can. Perhaps only mathematics can, actually. I don't think the basic axioms of math have changed much over the last thousand years or so, but you can find a graveyard of discarded concepts in physics, in physiology, in astronomy, in cosmology, in biology, in chemistry, and most other "hard" sciences. Google "phlogiston," "spontaneous generation," "the aether," "heliocentrism," "the steady state universe," or "Lamarckism." Each was in their time considered to be state of the art, "settled" science that the experts in their field all cited as fact.

          If we look specfically at psychology, the field for which you are claiming an authority, the Freudian theory of psychoanalysis was considered settled science until quite recently. Now it's considered an antique, and most clinicians consider its claims to be pseudoscience at best. Was "science" wrong then, when it claimed that children claiming to be molested by their parents were actually hysterics and that every girl secretly wanted to have sex with her father? If "science" was wrong then, could it be wrong now?

          As recently as the 1960s and 1970s, pedophilia and more specifically, pederasty was thought by most psychologists and psychiatrists to be curable and manageable through drugs like Depo-Provera - advice that the Catholic bishops of that era took to heart with tragic results. If we should not have trusted "science" then, why should we trust it when it makes claims about homosexuality now? Because we're smarter now? Many psychologists, psychiatrists, sociologists, judges, and philosophers claimed that laws against sexual contact with children were the "artifact of a restrictive morality" in the 1970s (the same era as one of the three studies GLAAD cites). "Science" at that time claimed that imprisoned child molesters should be "deinstitutionalized," that intrafamilial child abuse was both extremely rare and less damaging to the child than sexual assault by a stranger, and that children were often complicit in their own rape, and that reporting sexual abuse could be more damaging to the child than silence. And that's from the textbooks, popular culture was much worse!

          So why could "science" be wrong then but not now, moosetracker?

          Until the APA changed its position on homosexuality, it was the official position of the APA that homosexuality was a behavioral disorder and that it was treatable. Under pressure from homosexual psychologists, they reversed their position. So, was science "wrong" then when it was settled, but is "right" now when the results are more pleasing to an increasingly secular society?

          Should we trust "science" more because it is an accordance with our current views of morality? There was not a single scientific or medical textbook on embryology or obstetrics that did not state that human life began at conception until just after Roe v. Wade - a change that did not seem to be based on any new scientific discovery, just a new moral climate. Were embryology and obstetrics "wrong" then and not true "science?"

          You could certainly argue that science "evolves," and old concepts are discarded as new ones emerge.

          But how do we know when we should hit the scientific Pause button and decide that now, certainly, once and for all...we have "settled" science? Will the claims of social scientists on the inherent safety of homosexuals as leaders in Scouting be held forever, or could they change as science's claims on the mutability of child molesters has changed?

          Comment


          • #23
            Well that was a long winded tirade about nothing.. I did not say it was a settled issue if homosexuals are more likely, least likely or equally likely.. I will say the majority of research has proved homosexuals ARE NOT more likely, but some research will side with you.. The scientists with the odd results, I will not automatically label quacks, though I prefer the majority of the research, which disproves the results of the few..

            Who I said I would highly question their standing with other psychologists is any scientist who state ALL pedophiles whose victimize young boys are due to molester being a homosexual.. Which is what you stated. Those scientist can be filed away in history with the scientist who tried to prove that black people where linked more to apes then the human species, had lower intelligence, and could not survive without the guiding hand of a master..

            Comment


            • #24
              What the heck is with this site and trying to post? Everytime I try to post it seems I get some type of error message.

              Comment


              • #25
                What the heck is with this site and trying to post? Everytime I try to post it seems I get some type of error message.

                Comment


                • Peregrinator
                  Peregrinator commented
                  Editing a comment
                  You can say that again!
              Working...
              X