vol_scouter

Packsaddle, I have presented cogent arguments why homosexuals should not be held as an OK alternative lifestyle and for special risks for scouting from my reading. DanKroh was saying that many religions are accepting of homosexual lifestyles and no longer consider it sinful. My religion does not and my reading of the bible and of scholars leads to believe that it is a sin. So just because there is a movement among some religions to accept homosexuality as not sinful does not make them correct. In science, many times the lone voice that has been demonized has turned out to be the correct view. Society will determine what is right for society by the views of the majority which does mean that the views are right or wrong - the Creator will determine that clearly if my belief system is actually correct. DanKroh implies that non-acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle as being correct is to demonize them. I think that the opposite is becoming the norm - those that do not see homosexuality as a 'good' lifestyle are the ones being demonized.

So ephebophiles are heterosexual and they are the ones who are having non-consensual sex whereas if it is consensual it is homosexual. In other words, the male homosexuals only do good things with youth but the bad heterosexuals do bad things. That is semantics and nonsense. You can't have it both ways. If someone is having sex with the same sex, the relationship is homosexual. If it is opposite, then heterosexual and for both it is bisexual. We obviously read different studies because what I have read indicates a significant risk for homosexuals to molest youth. As you say, all studies have a bias even in the hard sciences such as physics. However, areas such as psychology and sociology have much more difficulty in minimizing the bias. That is because of having to deal with humans and typically having sample sizes that are small (due to the costs of doing the studies and/or participation issues). Hal gives a reference website to debunk Cameron's work. The criticisms can be equally applied to many 'accepted studies' in the literature and the website had rainbow in the URL - which smacks of a bias towards homosexual issues. I am not defending Cameron and I am not attacking Hal's reference - merely pointing out that biases are on all sides. As to the other groups that you mention, blacks do have higher rates of several diseases. Things such as Hep B, Hep C, and AIDS are usually due to habits that current BSA guidelines screen which hopefully prevents them from being role models. The increased incidence and prevalence of hypertension has a relationship to the higher obesity rate but is also higher even after adjusting for obesity. So for a reasonably fit black scouter, they are not setting a bad example. HPV rates are related to the number of sexual partners so if the inference is scouters having sex with multiple partners - that has been covered in other discussions here and I don't wish to go into that area myself at this time. You ask if I care about them, the answer is yes, I am a physician and care about others. My religion and religious beliefs are clear that homosexuality is a sin. So not matter what others are doing, I am trying to stay true to my own religion and beliefs. Whenever I treat patients, my personal beliefs are kept to myself. I do not lecture others about such issues except in the sense of telling patients to avoid bad behaviors - IV drugs, multiple sex partners both heterosexual and homosexual, overeating, etc. I do not see homosexuals as bad people. I also do not have latent homosexual tendencies or gender issues as some as seeming to imply. The Southern Poverty Law Center works on important causes for which I applaud its efforts but it does tend have rather harsh criticisms for anyone who does not agree with all of its views. So even if Cameron's work was valid research, the SPLC would likely have harsh criticisms.

John in KC, I agree. The baby boomers (I am one) have caused this nation much harm, some of which may be irreparable. Hal, You may be correct but I suspect that the actual percent is higher even when adjusted for under-reporting. That is just my opinion which is all that either of us can say.

John in KC, I agree. The baby boomers (I am one) have caused this nation much harm, some of which may be irreparable. Hal, You may be correct but I suspect that the actual percent is higher even when adjusted for under-reporting. That is just my opinion which is all that either of us can say.

Dan, I subscribed in the mid 1980's to a hardback series that was published every other month. It would pick a disease to explore with several articles written by expert specialists from all over the country. An issue was devoted to homosexual bowel problems. I did not pay to move those volumes many years ago. It was not made up by Cameron whoever he is. So sorry, it is you who are wrong. I am not demonizing homosexuals, I am saying that the homosexual lifestyle of many (most) homosexuals is not healthy and should not be held as a lifestyle to be emulated. It is not a fallacy that many (most) homosexuals have an unhealthy lifestyle. All studies about such issues as sexual practices are fraught with problems. You wish to believe those that agree with your beliefs and experiences. Whether the bad behaviors stem from societal pressures or other issues is difficult to determine. San Francisco is very accepting of homosexuals and has for years yet the homosexual community has many very unhealthy practices. I have been careful not to demonize homosexuals because I do not see them as evil. As Gern points out, there are many unhealthy lifestyles. My agreement with banning homosexuals is as I said: risks to the youth and my religion. To clarify for someone else, pedophiles have sexual with pre-pubertal children and the relationships are usually heterosexual. This is a different group than who would be abusing most youth in Boy Scouts and Venturing. Pedophiles have very high recidivism rates. Dan, I agree that having less of a sense of rejection would make a difference in the homosexual community. The magnitude of the difference could be significant but could also be small. The experiment can not be done. I have cared for many homosexuals and AIDs patients as well. I have coded AIDs patients nearly by myself because others were afraid early in the AIDs epidemic. Many of my homosexual patients have come to me for help and advice. You are not the only one to provide care for and to care about homosexuals.

Gern, Your question was should obese scouters be regarded as good role models. I do not think that they should be role models. I would not favor 'banning' them. Restrictions on activities are appropriate and perhaps many of us will lose their excess weight. I agree with a ban on homosexuals because of my religion and risk of sexual abuse of boys. 'Studies' about homosexuals abusing youth are fraught with politics from both sides. However, heterosexuals by definition do not have homosexual relationships with youth of the same sex unless it is a crime of violence. So it is either bisexual or homosexual if it is pleasure motivated. For those reasons, the ban makes sense to me.

Gern, I agree. The BSA is establishing some weight standards with which I agree even though I am not able to meet those standards presently. We do not allow drinking or illicit drug use. Smoking is not allowed in the presence of the boys.

Dan, Gay bowel syndrome was described as a health issue in homosexual men well before AIDs was first being discovered by observing Kaposi's sarcoma in young homosexual men. Male homosexuals in the typical American homosexual lifestyle have higher rates of Hep B and Hep C than age matched controls. They have high rates of STDs including Condyloma Acuminatum due to the large number of partners tat most male homosexuals report. I have read several studies in JAMA and other journals that indicate many homosexuals still have risky behaviors despite the AIDs risk. AIDs remains primarily a disease of male homosexuals, IV drug addicts, and prostitutes (though researchers believe that most prostitutes get the disease from IV drugs rather than intercourse). Once again, it does not matter whether homosexuality is genetic or not. We do not tell multiple Y males that it OK to commit violent crimes because they are genetically predisposed to do so. We do not tell alcoholics who are genetically predisposed that is OK to drink. We do not fail to treat genetic diseases or accept genetically bad behavior. So whether or not homosexuality is genetic makes no difference on whether the behavior is right or wrong. My 20+ years of practicing medicine makes it clear that male homosexuals typically have unhealthy lifestyles and that some are genetically predisposed. Whether it should be an accepted lifestyle is determined by religious beliefs and the weight that you give to the health aspects of the lifestyle.

Gern, I think that young Nick is correct. Although 'heterosexuals' may make up the largest number of sexual assaults, they are by far the largest group. When adjusted for the total estimated numbers, my understanding is that homosexual are much more likely to sexually assault someone of the same sex. As for the heterosexuals having sex with someone of their own sex, if it is not a crime of dominance then the label of heterosexual is questionable. They may be bisexual or a closet homosexual. One way or the other, homosexuality does not fit with morally straight and does not represent a healthy lifestyle as most practice it for youth to emulate. The BSA reflects the view of many (for what I have experienced, the vast majority) of its' members in the stands.

Scouting effectively bans alcoholics and chain smokers (though if one can wait long enough they can still smoke away from the youth). Obesity is being squeezed out. So the BSA is excluding some unhealthy lifestyles. My point was not that homosexuals should be excluded because they are unhealthy rather that their lifestyle should not be considered a healthy lifestyle to be promoted. The other point is that whether homosexuality is genetic or not does not effect whether it is right or wrong. The Jewish and Christian faiths are based on a Bible that condemns homosexuality. The BSA has decided to exclude homosexuals. I believe that they are correct in doing so and I agree with other posters who have said that those who disagree should join alternative scout like organizations. If I find myself disagreeing with the BSA that much, I will leave.

If you wish to argue that homosexuality is primarily inherited rather primarily learned there are issues as well. Saying that homosexuality is inherited doesn't make it right or a good life style. We do not say that persons who are genetically predisposed for alcoholism should continue to drink. Alcoholism is self destructive as well as risky to others, e.g. drunk drivers. Males with extra Y chromosomes are prone to violent crimes. Should we say that it is OK to assault and murder others because someone has the predisposition? Of course not! Male homosexuality is typically a very unhealthy lifestyle even prior to AIDS. Should we embrace smoking and cigarettes for our boys? Of course not. So similarly, homosexuality should not be embraced as an equally good lifestyle. The CDC reports that less than 1.9% of the population are long term homosexuals - most have relatively short ventures in a homosexual lifestyle. That is a small group to change the values of an entire program. This is not to condemn homosexuals but rather to put things into a proper prospective. Whether homosexuality is genetic or not has nothing to do with the lifestyle being good or not. The lifestyle as commonly practiced is unhealthy and not a good role model for our youth.

Pack, I have wondered if this forum has been shut down as well. The talk that you describe provides interesting insights as do your comments. One must hope that the people can obtain the rightful outcome. I doubt it since they do not have the right to bear arms.

Merlyn, I see nothing more personal than your attacks and accusations at others. You usually lose your arguments and attack others.

First, I did not say that my personal belief equates all abortions to murder but some of my colleagues believe so. Second, professionals in this country currently have the right to decide which cases that they wish to take and which they wish to refuse for whatever their reasons. An attorney does not have to accept ever case that walks through their door. Likewise accountants, architects, and until now physicians. Physicians have recognized an obligation to take anyone who presents in an emergency situation and care for them in an appropriate manner. In that situation, the physician has an obligation to provide or arrange for the provision of life saving treatments. I know of Ob/Gyn's who have performed an abortion in order to save a woman's life but would refuse to perform elective abortions. Obama wants to force physicians to perform all abortions which negates a professional's ability to choose who they want to take as a case. It forces them to commit murder in their eyes - which is a greater issue than the counter examples. If physicians can no longer decide what patients that they can take, then apply it to attorneys, accountants, etc. as well. Also, pack, you are relegating your health care decisions to the government and yourself in this situation. I think that you wish your physician to have input. My medical practice had nothing to do with Ob/Gyn but I did care for patients who had an abortion. I have seen considerable suffering from elective abortions and had I ever been in a situation provide advice to a woman considering an elective abortion, my obligation as a physician would be to present all information. The Obama administration wishes to make such a discussion illegal. That is wrong. When medical students learn about ethical issues, they are told that as professional they will not be forced to perform procedures that they believe are reprehensible. To tell those so trained individuals that they will have to commit murder is nothing but wrong. We tried physicians in post war Germany for performing experiments that Germany told them to perform. They were supposed to remain professional and do no harm. Partial birth abortions takes a child descending down the birth canal and kills it. In a few more minutes, the child will be independent of its' mother. To kill that infant is murder. Why not deliver it and kill it a few hours later? There is not an ethical difference The future that this country is headed toward is one that will lead to its' destruction.

Pack and Dan, The issue is that many consider it MURDER!! Just as most on the left believe that a legal execution is a murder. I know that the left has a hard time accepting that reasonable, well educated, thoughtful professionals view of the world is different than the left.

So pack, you are comfortable with being forced to do something that you consider murder. After 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of med school, and then 4 years of residency to become an Ob/gyn, you cannot just say that the physician can do something else - what? Many have > $120,000 in debt. In order to practice, you must work at a hospital where you must take patients from the ER. You are essentially forced to participate in government programs. This is not right. It is coercion at its best and fascism at its worst. I believe that you are a teacher. What if in order to continue your job, you had to assist in executions? My personal views on abortions are rather moderate but colleagues believe that they are committing murder. Even the military has CO's who are not forced to participate in combat but physicians who are sworn to protect life are forced to murder. This is rapidly becoming a dictatorial society.

Good analogy Beevah. Big government is a mistake but both parties are moving towards larger more intrusive government. We will all pay an enormous price for our folly. Merlyn, being present on a board that discusses an organization which you are not a member illustrates what others have pointed out. The minority groups wish to deny others free exercise of religion and other rights. Whenever you start losing the argument as you usually do, you resort to name calling. I doubt that anyone on this board posts on atheist boards to annoy others. If I had any sympathy for your point of view in the past, you have convinced me otherwise. Ed is correct, you have the same rights as everyone else.

Free exercise of religion means non-interference. The Amendment was written to assure that the states could have state supported religion but the federal government could not infringe upon the choices of the states. It was never intended to penalize religious groups as it has been twisted. The BSA has a contract with the city of Philadelphia for the long term rental. The city should live up to the agreement or deed the land back to the BSA for $1.

It is interesting to me that the left wishes to quote the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment but never mentions the next clause that guarantees the free exercise of religion. They are more than happy to prevent the free exercise of religion in order to make sure that the government can not be construed as aiding religious organizations in any way even thought that was not the intent of the clause. The Boy Scouts are not violating anyone's civil rights by having membership standards. The right to associate with whom we please is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as well. If that right is lost, then having membership standards for any organization would not be legal. Doctors could join the ABA and attorneys the AMA. Atheists would have to allow Christians and Muslims would have to accept Jews. Obviously, this is absurd. The Boy Scouts do not violate anyone the civil rights of anyone else by using public facilities unless no groups are allowed to use them including families - you have to be related to be in a family thus keeping all non-family out.

Packsaddle, Hopefully all your students did well and learned the subject! I believe that the Fair Tax is a sales tax only. So churches, businesses, etc. would have no national tax burden. Those who earn more and consume more, pay more. Except for the poor for essentials like food, there are no deductions. It will never pass because congress could no longer give tax breaks to friends - the businesses wouldn't need them and their would be none for individuals. Congress would lose to much power. Also, when congress increased the sales tax it would affect everyone so they would be reticent to do so - probably good for us!

89camper, Having a government own it with rights to use by the boy scouts will likely engender a lawsuit from those who wish to destroy scouting.

Lisabob, I am very sympathetic to what you are saying and just read your vent on another thread. I will go out on a limb here because I feel that it is not that the adults in most troops do not know about having a boy led troop but that they really do not wish to relinquish control. It does not not take multiple days of training to be taught that the youth lead the program and that we guide them (sometimes loosely and sometimes more tightly). I just believe that too many adults don't believe in that portion of the program or just will not give up authority. They do not understand that the SM who says little is often more listened to and respected than the one barking orders. I am not sure that WB or any other course will fix that problem. This is a serious problem for many if not most troops that I have known.

Lisabob, That is certainly a frustrating situation. Since your son wants to stay in the troop, keep trying to get the direct adult involvement to a minimum, i.e. 2 adults hiking with the boys. If the other adults stay behind and if the adults camp a fair distance from the boys (we always did that), then the number should not be a problem. Also, only one adult should function as the SM who helps to direct the troop through the SPL. The other adults should NOT give orders except in an immediate safety risk - i.e. likely immediate harm without intervention. The adults should be there as a resource that a youth could call upon if needed and just to share the experience. Adults should give suggestions to the SM, actual or acting, who will make any decisions as to implementation. The SM should be the ultimate decision maker always with council of ASM and SPL. Good Luck!!

Grog's site is excellent but don't forget the classic: Ashley Book of Knots by Clifford Ashley for a comprehensive treatise on different knots and their uses.

Eamonn, In a world where many adults have had leadership and management courses in school or through their jibs, the element missing is skills. Many years ago when many scout leaders were in more rural settings, WB taught outdoor skills when they likely had little management skills. Now people have management skills but little out door skills so what does scouting teach - management of course! If the adult leaders do not possess a wealth of outdoor skills, then no amount of management skills will create a good scouting program.