vol_scouter

Gern,

One more time, OGE said that he did not understand the motivation for the KGB link. I merely explained that view. You obviously are having a hard time understanding that difference. You certainly continually confirm my views of left wing nuts.

BadenP,

I do not know if Kennedy committed treason or not and I have not accused him. I merely tried to explain why some people discussed it. I have not stated my personal opinion. I remember left wingers discussing Iran-contra at Reagan's funeral. If the left does not want their heroes gored, they should not engage in the same activities. Kennedy served his state and Massachusetts was apparently happy with his representation. For that he is to be commended. For those who do not share Kennedy's socialism, he is not beloved. I would prefer that such discussions be avoided for a few months after the politician's death but neither side will allow it to happen. It seems to only get worse.

"Christy" is listed as fiction even though it is biographical whereas "Roots" has been listed as non-fiction even though it was plagiarized and made up. So what is your point?

I have often read where conservatives will wake some blame for the role of republicans in whatever the issue may be. Left wingers never will admit wrongdoing on the part of the democrats. Thomas Sowell is a black man at Stanford University's Hoover Institute. I am sure that I do not need to point out that Stanford is highly regarded and is certainly left leaning. The Hoover Institute is also highly regarded. So the things to look for in the fiction department are not from Thomas Sowell. The left wing would rather make ad hominem attacks than argue facts since their positions are usually not defensible. In the case of the financial crisis, the blame lays at the feet of the democrats that ask us to trust them now. The democrats are obviously contemptuous of the citizens - why they are re-elected is amazing.

Gern,

I did not indicate my opinion, I merely stated the motivation for the criticism of a recently deceased person. I am of the opinion that had it been someone less influential, rich, and powerful there would have been an investigation and likely charges of treason.

Have you read Duff's book? I have not read John Smith's writings or the Book of Mormon so I should not comment on how I would judge the veracity of his works.

Read "Lord and Scoutmaster" by Karl M. Duff if you can find it. Either this military officer and scoutmaster is nothing but a liar or miracles occur.

OGE,

I believe that the reason it came up at this time is that asking the president of an unfriendly nation to help to defeat a candidate for president is treasonous. So to have someone buried in the hallowed ground of Arlington Cemetery who many consider to have committed a treasonous act, it is hard to remain silent.

Neil,

The numbers are much smaller than is tossed around in the popular press. According to the CDC, male homosexuals in the 'lifestyle' for an extended time make up less than 2% of the population. Apparently, a number of young males 'try out' a homosexual 'lifestyle' which inflates the numbers. Lifestyle is in quotes because I am not trying to imply that it is only a lifestyle choice in all cases because I do not believe that to be the case. Rather it is to be compared to a heterosexual 'lifestyle'. All of that said, the studies are difficult at best but the CDC tends to do a good job so I tend to believe that the actual numbers are much smaller than is often reported.

I agree with your advice on perjorative terms. That is a good strategy.

Returning to the reason for the post - if the boys do not see the award as something 'manly', most will not wish to wear it. Thus, I believe that clothing, awards, et cetera that do not appear 'manly' are not a good idea.

MDsummer45,

Any word yet?

Dan,

I think that we are much on the same page. The folks that I term confused are the ones that you talk about in a transition. I would include in that the unfortunate folks who are trying to decide whether they wish to transition. We may quibble about terminology but I think that people who are dealing with significant emotional problems involving not only gender but other issues are best to avoid being a role model for our youth.

Where we likely disagree would be where a leader wishes to flaunt either by actions or words sexual orientation, transgender, et cetera issues. As a parent, I would not want to have t explain such issues just as I do not want to have to discuss heterosexual relationships on an outing between two leaders (or more I suppose). Obviously, such things cannot always be avoided but I would still try to avoid those discussions.

As to the medical versus psychiatric issues, I believe from my reading and experience that some people are born as one sex but have conditions that are not yet identified that causes them to see themselves as something different. I believe that in the future these condition will be identified. Whether they will be considered pathological or normal variation will likely be determined by all kinds of pressures present at the time they are discovered. That said, I also believe that some individuals act in certain ways for shock value and other psychological issues. In neither case am I making a value judgment as to right or wrong. I have worked hard to become highly educated and with an MD and a technical (not biological) PhD which places me into a small group - that could also be abnormal though I do not see it as bad.

Good Scouting!

Gern,

The answer depends upon the studies and facts that you wish to use as was discussed at length between DanKroh, Hal_Crawford, and I. None of the information should be considered entirely factual. Some information points to a significant increase in risk for same sex molestation for adult male homosexual leaders while other would say that the risk is about the same as for heterosexuals. I find the former studies more compelling whereas Dan and Hal find the latter studies more compelling. So religion is not the only reason to avoid homosexual leaders depending upon who you wish to believe. All the studies that I have read have significant flaws that I suspect at least some of the time is related to viewpoint. These are questions that I doubt will ever scientifically be proven one way or the other.

First, testicular feminization is a condition where the person is biologically a male but has no testosterone receptors. As a result, they develop as a female without sex organs. If caught early, the testes which typically have not descended are removed (due to likely malignant transformation) and a vagina is constructed. They tend to be volptuous women (a famous actress has this conditon). Obviously, they are sterile. It points out how complicated these issues can become. In the case of testicular feminization caught early, the person has a vagina, looks, and acts like a female. Unfortunately, many of the other transgender, et cetera folks are confused. The confusion is too often obvious. My children are grown, but as a parent, I do not want to go to scouts (Boy or Girl) with a child and have to try to explain issues that they are not mature enough to deal. Scouting is not and should not be a way for people who are confused to find their identities. It is a place to help young men and women to mature into sucessful, productive, and moral citizens. If scouting lacks its standards, at least in my area there will be no one left to make a council.

I have started at least 3 responses about health care and as a professional, I have some insights worth discussing but Obama and his snitch program scare me. The left said that it was their patriotic duty to protest against President Bush and paid for professional protesters. Now the left is squelching dissent to Obama's plans which is OK. Such a hypocritical stance. These are truly frightening times.

BrentAllen,

You are almost correct. The 80% expenditure is for caring for patients in FIRST and last weeks of life. Enormous expense is associated with premature infants as well as the elderly. Simply allowing physicians to have more authority to stop care that is futile without a threat of lawsuits would make a real and enormous reduction in those expenditures. Obama and the dems are against any tort reform - he has to pay back all of his supporters, in this case trial lawyers. Obama's speech to the AMA did a good job of identifying the problems. Unfortunately, none of his or the house bill will have the desired result. We will have an ever more expensive system in a hyper-inflationary economy while cap and trade move industry to other countries. The congress will not have the backbone to repeal the national health care (though the socialist countries of Europe have had to cut back on their health care system because they don't work well and are too expensive). Can anyone spell economic collapse?

If you wish to compare like things, then stay on the topic of wasteful spending. The topic was not the war. The democrats voted for the war as well. They were briefed and made speeches on why we needed to go to Iraq. I agree that we should not have invaded Iraq but President Bush is longer in office. It is now Obama's spending and the trillion dollars in new debt since Obama took office does not include the wars. Obama is spending money that the country cannot afford. He and the democrats are dooming the country.

Gern,

The invasion of Iraq was wrong but it looks like it might work in the long run. We can all hope that it does work out well for the Iraqis and the US. That sais, we spent what was it 35 or 50 billion dollars on GM and Chrysler to keep them from going bankrupt only to have them go bankrupt. The only difference is that in the bankruptcy, the unions won instead of their contracts being negated. Chrysler is now owned by Fiat so we didn't save Chrysler - we just saved the union. GM no longer exists but a new GM that went through bankruptcy still has generous union contracts. Both companies would have fared better to file for bankruptcy and avoid union contracts so that they can compete with Japanese cars from non-union plants. The way I see, Obama spent $35-50,000,000,000.00 to pay off the unions leaving the taxpayer with enormous debt and two companies that will still have problems competing due to the unions. Obama and the democrats are spending money that the country cannot afford. Cap and trade will drive more business to other countries. The US has the highest corporate tax rate of developed countries but that is not enough for this administration. Obana and the democrat party has financially ruined the country - Bush started it last fall but it was democrats that pushed. I might have some hope for the future if Obama and the democrats were making moves to bring industry back but they are driving it out of the country or out of business.

I believe that there are some aspects of the house bill and Obama's plan that are positive but more negative. I will not say more because I am truly concerned about being reported to the White House.

DanKroh,

You are then most likely right, at least for your study area. I am not disputing your assertation but just still a little cautious. Some of the characters that I see in the gay pride parades make me shudder but obviously they may be OK folks just expressing themselves in ways completely foreign to me.

Hal said that many scouters wished that this would go away - count me in!

Pack,

Actually, you are probably right that we could enjoy a lively discussion. I have found that when reasonable people discuss these issues, that we all have similar goals: national security, the ability to raise our children in a relatively safe environment, a clean natural environment, at least some financial and health security. We differ on how those goals are best obtained. Most of us are turned off by the far right and the far left. So maybe we can have a cup of coffee in the future!

Hal,

I agree about too much bad press and attention to things that are not that important in the long run. The only way that I think letting CO's determine the gay issue is to allow them to be more stringent as well as less. So that a CO could say no gays and only certain religious views. If that carrot is not thrown in, many would leave. I think that you are right about who would join. We still have to be vigilant of EVERYONE to prevent child abuse.

I hope that we get that cup of coffee (which means I have slimmed down to meet the weight restrictions!)

Hal,

Pedophiles by definition have sex with pre-pubertal children. So most of the instances that I have read about or are personally aware do not involve pedophiles. Dan Kroh has correctly identified them as ephebophiles. I agree that they compose the majority of molesters from what I have read in the media and from information that I am privy. The real issue as to homosexuals from a YP stand point is whether or not 'statistically' they are more likely to molest a child than heterosexuals. If the rate of abuse was ~2%, then there would be no real risk as compared to heterosexuals. If it is in the 20-40% range that I have seen, then they are more likely to molest than a heterosexual. You are correct that how these numbers are obtained is suspect especially since many times ephebophile crimes are called pedophiles - which if that is the way it is officially reported then the risk is much higher. If ephebophiles were primarily heterosexual/bisexual but are reported as homosexual, then the risk is over estimated. Maybe Dan has good information that he is confident in the validity that better answers the question but I doubt it considering that the information is not likely recorded by people trained to determine the appropriate classification. I do not believe that asking the molester is entirely valid. It would likely take questioning and some clever scales that Dan likely has or knows about.

I do not mind excluding people to protect our youth. If it can be shown (with good studies not associated with agendas) that the risks outlined are incorrect and that the risks are no greater than the general population, then homosexuals should not be excluded on the basis of YP risks. Whatever national determines, I have no input unless they read these forums and I suspect that most here are in the same boat.

In this discussion, you brought up a good point - we are all scouters trying to deliver quality program to our youth. We do not always agree with some aspects although in some of the other forums Dan, you, and I agree much of the time. I think that if I had the opportunity to share a campfire with you, Dan, pack, and most others, that we would have a great time and be in much harmony as long as we stayed away from these few divisive issues that we do not control.

In a partial response to Packsaddle, Hal, and Dan, an article dealing with the prevalence of homosexuality can be found at the CDC:

Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 1544 Years of Age, United States, 2002, W. D. Mosher, A. Chandra, and J. Jones, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, CDC, Number 362, September 15, 2005. The number of males 15-44 having a homosexual encounter in the past 12 months is 2.9%. Another article that I read at the time of publication several years ago building upon this data and taking all males with long term homosexual relationships was estimated to be 1.9%. The number was smaller as I recall because the higher rates of Hep B, Hep C, and AIDS tended to shorten the expected life spans. Other categories would include bisexuals et cetera. A prevalence of ~2% of the male population makes a definition of abnormal correct. That is without any value judgments. For example, picking people with sufficiently high IQs would make that group abnormal but that does not mean that the trait is bad. It is just noting the prevalence.

I think that Dan is correct and that the majority of male homosexuals will not harm male youth. Most are basically good people (basically good here representing the norm). From conversations with scouting professionals and from non-scholarly descriptions in the mainstream media of supposed scholarly work, the rate of homosexual molestations is well higher than 20%. I have no way to know why and how certain homosexuals sign up for scouting, but if it in any way reflects the prevalence in society, then a conservative estimate is that homosexuals are molesting youth at a rate 10x higher than heterosexuals. The number that I have seen is more on the order of 40% but I do not have ready references. So I see the current ban as a YP issue. It is unfair to the male homosexuals that would never molest a child but it seems prudent.

A previous poster did a much more eloquent job than I earlier in asserting that when it comes to his ability to raise his children free from having to deal with homosexual issues and other issues that are not appropriate for children, stay out of his business. I wholeheartedly agree. My children, male and female, are through graduate school so these are not issues for me now. However, I would not have my children in an organization where that is an issue.

Where are the demands from the left to repeal the Patriotic Act? The left and the media were consistently attacking President Bush over the Patriotic Act. Obama promised to repeal the act but has done nothing to do so. He has been busy but such I hated act by the left (and by many of us on the right as well) should take little political effort. Yet, Obama is insisting on a socialist health care plan being passed even if the senate has to resort to the so-called 'nuclear option'.Does the democrat party like the information gathering now that they totally control the government?

Obama and the DNC received significant financial support from the SEIU (~$61 million). The SEIU is attending democrat town hall meetings in T-shirts and physically excluding people with opposing views. Does it not bother others that a private organization is excluding citizens at open meetings with their duly elected representatives? The left for years has sent bus loads of protesters to disrupt meetings and charged police brutality if order was restored. I have seen many Youtube videos and the people attending the meetings are not physically disruptive and are not preventing the democrat representatives from speaking. They do want to be heard and they are angry that democrats are not listening to their constituents. After listening to numerous news reports, I have not heard that any of the excluded citizens were not constituents. No one has asked if the thugs pushing them out were constituents.

The White House is requesting that we 'snitch' on other Americans and send the emails to the them. What will be done with the information? We all know that some will merely forward the emails to the White House. The White House will then be able to compile a list of dissenters (I am only saying that it can be done - they have not said what will be done with names, et cetera). If you are not frightened by what is happening it is because you trust Obama. I do not trust him or have I ever trusted any president to that extent. This president is adding to the gradual lose of rights. Even if he is trustworthy, which I do not believe to be true, the next may not be. I have experienced the 50's, the tumult of the 60's, et cetera. I have never known some many people who are actually frightened of their government. There were concerned about Clinton's stance on gun control but no run on the gun stores. I truly hope that fears are miss placed but the attack on the political process by the left continues and continues to try to silence the voice of any opposition.

Christians are a particular target for the left and Christians are being demonized. I am seriously considering no longer posting to this site or others not because of not wishing to defend my views but due to fear of reprisals.

DanKroh,

I think that your response would less relaxed if President Bush had said:

"There is a lot of disinformation about the Iraq war out there. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we cant keep track of all of them here at the White House, were asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about the Iraq war that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

You and the media would, correctly along with myself, gone ballistic. Asking people to send their recounts of casual conversations, emails, et cetera is the same things that Stalin and others have done. What will be done with the emails? Will the people originating the offending opinions be effected? Will their names be kept? Remember, political speech is the most important speech to be protected for good reasons. This will have a chilling effect on free speech. This is wrong!!!!

It is not new that speakers and Congressmen are 'shouted down'. It has been done since the sixties by the left. They are now seeing the same ill behavior since the right has read their playbook. I cannot remember a president asking Americans to turn each other in to the White House over their political views. These are scary times.