DanKroh

Just a suggestion, but you might get more responses if you post this in one of the subforums for troop/Boy Scout stuff instead of the section on Cub Scouts...

Nice articles Horizon. I mentioned the APA stance on homosexuality once, but gave up after I was told that the APA is filled with gays and lesbians who are part of the great gay conspiracy to legitimize their lifestyle. I must have missed that part of the membership packet when I joined. Maybe it was in the fine print.

Aquaticeagle, if you want to read a good paper on the ways that anti-gay writers manipulate statistics and use biased research to support their agenda, take a look at this: http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,015.pdf It is a parody of anti-gay tracts, but the part to examine is the references at the end, where the author comments on how he used bad "research" to support his thesis, in exactly the same way that people like Paul Cameron do.

Welcome to the club, Ed. What's your sleeve length? We're having jackets made....

"No games or tricks here Dan, thats not my style. Apparently you feel the need to belittle folks whom you dont agree to discredit them. You know you can have discussions without being confrontational. For example, if your data is so good, why would confrontation be necessary? I guess we need a psychologist to explain that." Well, then explain why you tried to compare information from studies done on single-parent households to two-parent same-sex households to "prove" your point. Sorry, but I call it like it is. It's a shell game tactic very commonly used by anti-gay writers. No, being confrontational would be telling me I can't possibly be any good at judging credibility of people actually doing research in my own field because I'm not an engineer. Or saying over and over again about how little respect you have for psychologists. "Thats OK Dan, you go ahead and attack away, but send me your data on the small conclusive studies so I can research just how non-biased they are. But get ready, if you really know anything about this kind of research, then you also know that your conclusive conclusion is at a lot more risk than I am." Well, just as aquaticeagle can do his own research, so can you. Google is your friend. And excuse me, Barry, but you seem to be the one who goes into attack mode every time we get into discussions about research. I may attack the methods of the research in question, but you seem to take great glee in ad hominem attacks on me personally and my profession in general. That's definitely your game, not mine.

By the way, Barry, you know that I've been trained as a scientist and have actually performed psychological research, so I think I'm quite capable to judging the credibility of research methods from published reports, and whether those methods include bias. It's too bad you work with so many people you have so little respect for, it must make for an unhappy work environment.

"I know there are lots of other situations beside gay families where kids are raise without both a mom and dad. But that doesnt mean its right. It is still harmful to the family structure." What you see here, aquaticeagle, is the intellectual equivalent of a shell game. Yes, studies show that children raised in *single* parent households do not do as well as in two-parent heterosexual households, so that *must* mean that children in two-parent same-sex households are equivalent to those in single-parent households. Except it actually doesn't, and they aren't. And even though the number of studies actually comparing apples to apples (two-parent heterosexual to two-parent homosexual households) are still fairly small, they are all pretty conclusive in saying that kids do just as well in both (and kids in households with two moms may actually *gasp* do better than those in a mom-and-dad situation).

"There is plenty of evidence that shows that children raised in none mom and dad environments are at a higher risk of teen sex, teen pregnancy, drugs, alcoholism, and social disorders." Then it won't be hard to cite some evidence that shows this for two-parent families where both parents are the same-sex, from credible, non-biased sources, as aquaticeagle has asked, twice now.

Don't forget the part how my faith obviously isn't real faith because I'm not willing to brainwash my children with it. Personally, I have some very strong thoughts about the parenting of people who indoctrinate their children and don't allow them to think for themselves, but good manners prevent me from telling anyone that to their face. But here's a story. I went to Thanksgiving dinner at a friend's parents' house a couple of years ago. My friend's brother called the family together before dinner to make an announcement. Seems his 3-year-old(!) daughter had "accepted Jesus" that morning, and he wanted to express his pride in her before everyone. Now, does anyone seriously believe that "accepting Jesus" meant anything at all to that 3-year-old other than that she said something that made Daddy happy? I'd much rather my children wait to make a declaration of faith at a point where they have the psychosocial maturity for it to actually mean something to them, not to me. And I think that their faith will be all that stronger when it is one that they have chosen, knowing as much as they can about their choices. How can you know if a faith is really "true" if you know nothing about the alternatives?

"Do you have any support for your statement that homosexuality is harmful to the family structure? Please provide it if you do." Careful, aquaticeagle. If you don't qualify that request, you are going to get a list of articles from discredited "psychologists" who use questionable research methods (or outright twist the research results of others), to support their faith-driven agenda.

OGE, my experience here is that you are a very thoughtful person, who is willing to examine other points of view, even when you respectfully disagree with them. Personally, I find that a very admirable trait. I think that such a thoughtful examination of one's beliefs (through the examination of others') can strengthen one's faith. The ability to make judgments (even hypothetical ones) based on one's moral and ethical beliefs is a hallmark of a fully developed morality. OGE, I have no doubt about your ability to do so. I'm just confounded by the inability of anyone who professes to possess such a strong moral structure to apply that moral structure to ethical dilemmas on their own. You have nothing to apologize for, OGE.

"Way to prove an important point (not brought up here but none the less true), that despite an extensive vocabulary one can still be ignorant and downright stupid. Although I do applaud your use of the thesaurus." And way to prove my point. Since you obviously lack the ability to discuss such issues without resorting to personal attacks, then yes, I do believe I won't be listening anymore. Too bad the ignore user function doesn't work better.

Pack, you are the man, dude. The missus used to joke that that's why I tend to wear my hair on the long side; it hides my horns.

"Dan, if I was in a situation without a priest available, I would do the best I could with the facts I had, the same as I expect most Catholics, nay most humans to do." Yeah, OGE, that's what I would expect most adults to be able to do. That's why I'm confused why the only answer repeatedly given when asked to think about a moral/ethical dilemma is sometimes "ask a priest". Since I obviously don't go around having many discussions with Catholic priests, such answers are rather frustrating. Unless the inability or unwillingness to provide a real answer is meant to be a discussion ender.

Interesting backpeddle there, Pack15Nissan. "Thank you for you response, finally some one who really understands what faith is all about. Faith is believing what you say you believe in not matter who it offends and what the consequences are. I appreciate and respect anyone who will stand by their believes admist the fire." I always find it interesting when people judge whether someone who disagrees with them "really understands what faith is all about". "To the many others who seem to want to comment on my beliefs and imply that I am not being tolerant. Not allowing me to make the comments I choose to make based upon my religious beliefs would make you intolerant of me." Didn't see anyone who didn't allow you to make your comments. Personally, I did say that they also happened to be really, really offensive. But hey, that's ok, because you are going to stand by them under fire because you have *real* faith, right? Or maybe not so much, since you seem to be trying to ameliorate your comments now. Also, I've also never understood this need to say every little thing in one's head, and then try to defend the offensive parts by claiming "my religion made me say it". We have filters between our brains and our mouths (or fingers) for a reason. I don't care if your beliefs tell you that I'm the devil incarnate and that I'm going to hell along with everyone who has ever been associated with me. Frankly, I don't want to hear it, and I think that it is only good manners not to say it. But no one says you aren't allowed to believe it. "All this non-sense regarding educating your children with multiple religions and letting them choose the one that best fits them just shows that you obviously don't really believe your own beliefs." No, actually, I think that shows that I'm secure enough in my personal beliefs not to be threatened by the reality that there are other beliefs out there that my children are going to hear about. And I'd rather they get my best attempt to give them accurate information about those faiths than some of the interesting misinformation that is out there (and on here).

I have to wonder if this inability to make a complex ethical/moral decision, even in the hypothetical as a thought exercise, without consulting a priest is something common among Roman Catholics? What happens if you are caught in a situation where there is no priest available and you have to make a decision *now*?

vol_scouter opines: "Homosexuals are the ones who abuse children of the same sex unless the crime is one of control (power or authority). Sometimes it can be difficult to distinguish between a crime of homosexual lust versus one of heterosexual control. From my reading, homosexuals are much more likely to abuse children of their same sex just as heterosexuals are much more likely to abuse children of the opposite sex." No, no, no, no. Read some research, please. Pedophiles (men) who abuse children of the same sex (boys) are attracted to the feminine qualities of the pre-pubescent children because the men are heterosexual. Which is one of the reasons why pedophilia by straight women is practically unheard of; female sexual offenders virtually always involve boys who are past puberty, at which point it is ephebophilia. Please stop spreading misinformation.

Beaver, just out of curiosity, what is a "gay church"? Is it one that is accepting of gays and lesbians? Where the majority of congregants are gay? Or you have to be gay to join/attend at all? That phrase has always sounded stilted to me; are there "gay banks" and "gay supermarkets"? I've always wondering what people who use it mean by it?

Personally, I think my JOB as a parent is to give my children the tools to use that wonderful cognitive power they have to make moral and ethical decisions for themselves, including what religion, if any, they chose to practice as adults, rather than to dictate dogma to them and turn them into unthinking indoctrinated automatons. But hey, I'm just one of them heathens, and a bad parent, to boot.

"I really don't want to get into a religious debate but I will defend against attacks." And there's nothing for a good defense like being really, really offensive. (Hmm, I don't think that's how that saying is exactly supposed to go.) Hear that, ScoutMomSD, anyone who isn't a Christian is a bad parent. Sign me up!(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

mmcnulty, I think that unless individual cubs get money from popcorn fundraiser for their personal use (i.e. scout bucks account, campership, etc.), you are under no obligation to send money with them to boy scouts. On the other hand, if they pay a year's worth of dues, and only spend 2-3 months with the pack, then it's probably fair to send a prorated amount for that to their new troop. In our pack, that is what we do; we have a set amount from the yearly dues that gets transferred to the boy's new troop. As far as popcorn sales go, we give boys who raised over $250 in popcorn sales a $50 campership, which has to be used before cross-over and can not be transferred (and they are told this up front when it is awarded), but I do know units that will transfer camperships.

I can't help thinking of Dustin Black's recent words: "Most of all, if Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago, I think hed want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told they are less than by their churches, or by the government, or by their families, that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value. And that no matter what everyone tells you, God does love you..." And those gay and lesbian kids grow up to be gay and lesbian adults, who continue to be told that they are less than. And that *does* do great harm.

"But, do you want to play the odds with your child?" Nope, but since the majority of men who molest young boys are straight, I think we should ban all the straight leaders. "Do you also want to play the odds with your gay friends and the accusations that could be made against them?" No more than I want to see my straight friends accused, which is much more likely. "Based on my own personal experience, I fully support the ban on gay leaders in scouting. It is the prudent thing to do." Ok, well since my own personal experience with this issue involved straight men, I fully support a ban on straight leaders in scouting. It's the prudent thing to do. Oh wait, that's why we have all these safeguards in place. Youth protection training for both youth and adults. Two-deep leadership. No one-on-one contact. Well, there are no gay men allowed in scouting, so I suppose all that is completely unnecessary, no? Beaver, have you considered what exactly about their victims pedophiles are attracted to? Their manly chest hair? Their deep voices and overdeveloped pecs? No, they are attracted to the *feminine* qualities of pre-pubescent boys. Because they are *straight*. Gay men are attracted to male qualities. As I've said before, if you define all same-sex molestation as being performed by homosexuals, then only homosexuals will be doing the molesting. However, the research does not support that little exercise in sophistry.

Our pack was supposed to have our Winter Freeze-Out camping trip at a cabin at Resolute back in January, and it was canceled because they had not yet recovered from the ice storm we had here in mid-December (y'all probably heard about that). When we tried to reschedule, we were told the camp would not reopen until April. I guess this event will mark that re-opening. Either that, or you might want to check and make sure the event is still happening...

Hey John, My reading of the requirements for Outdoorsman is that you can actually earn it without camping overnight: Do two of these: 1. Present yourself to your Webelos den leader, properly dressed, as you would be for an overnight campout. Show the camping gear you will use. Show the right way to pack and carry it. 2. With your family or Webelos den, help plan and take part in an evening outdoor activity that includes a campfire. 3. With your parent or guardian, take part in a Webelos den overnight campout or a family campout. Sleep in a tent that you have helped pitch. 4. With your parent or guardian, camp overnight with a Boy Scout troop. Sleep in a tent that you have helped pitch. And do five of these: 5. During a Webelos den meeting, discuss how to follow the Leave No Trace Frontcountry Guidelines during outdoor activities (See page 72.) 6. Participate in an outdoor conservation project with your Webelos den or a Boy Scout troop. 7. Discuss with your Webelos den leader the rules of outdoor fire safety. Using these rules, show how to build a safe fire and put it out. 8. With your accompanying adult on a campout or outdoor activity, assist in preparing, cooking, and cleanup for one of your den's meals. Tell why it is important for each den member to share in meal preparation and cleanup, and explain the importance of eating together. 9. Discuss with your Webelos den leader the things that you need to take on a hike. Go on one 3-mile hike with your Webelos den or a Boy Scout troop. 10. Demonstrate how to whip and fuse the ends of a rope. 11. Demonstrate setting up a tent or dining fly using two half hitches and a taut-line hitch. Show ho to tie a square knot and explain how it is used. 12. Visit a nearby Boy Scout camp with your Webelos den. Presumably, he could do #1 and #2? That would satisfy the first part without any actual camping. Nos 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 could all be done by a boy with the kinds of several physical limitations you mention, as long as he *did his best*. At least, that's my take on it. We also have a young man with multiple physical challenges who is currently a bear, so I've been reading all this stuff pretty carefully to make sure he's not going to have any significant road blocks to earning AoL if that is his goal.