Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BPwannabe@137

Homosexuals in Scouting

Recommended Posts

Actually, I was defending science from your misuse (possibly perversion) of it. Science doesn't 'belong' to anyone (as in "my science"). It is free for anyone to employ. I hope you give it a try some day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Actually, I was defending science from your misuse (possibly perversion) of it. Science doesn't 'belong' to anyone (as in "my science"). It is free for anyone to employ. I hope you give it a try someday."

 

You rush to defend science from "perversion", but not anything else! How odd you chose the noun "perversion". I'm glad I didn't employ that word first! Mr. Webster says:

 

Main Entry: perversion

Pronunciation: p&r-'v&r-zh&n, -sh&n

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 : the action of perverting : the condition of being perverted

2 : a perverted form; especially : an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus

 

I said my "science", not "my science". Semantics, is that it?Since science is "free for anyone to employ", I will "employ" it, but I will not "terminate" my commonsense in the process.

 

Since you seem to have me figured out, you probably already know the truth about me, and other right leaning, knuckle-dragging Neanderthals. We really don't need science, as we have The Bible!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Why don't ya'll take a drag at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice Research Study? Start trying to refute that instead of defending microbes."

 

Well, Bugler, if you insist, . . .

 

I'm disappointed in your attempt to "use" science to validate your faith-based beliefs. There are a few pieces of information that you left out of your post that might be important to anyone involved in this conversation.

 

The words you suggested were the "pertinent details" of a good summary of the John Jay/CUNY research study . . .

 

"[The report also broke down the facts regarding the victims and this is revealing. Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78% were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14.

 

In other words, most of the abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called homosexuality, not pedophilia.

 

Regarding the first question, the Board concluded that two main factors contributed to the existence of these abusers in the Church: one, dioceses and orders didn't screen priestly candidates properly (and so sexually and emotionally immature men were admitted to the priesthood).

 

The other main factor was poor seminary formation, where seminarians were not properly prepared for the rigors of celibacy in a hypersexualized world and in the all-male environment of the seminary. Bennett pointed out that many seminaries lost their way in the 1970s, and that this surely contributed to the problem.

 

This data now proves what we've long suspected: the sex abuse scandal has more to do with homosexuality than with pedophilia. The report points out that, "given the nature of the problem of clergy sexual abuse of minors, the reality of the culture today, and the male-oriented atmosphere of the seminary, a more searching enquiry is necessary for a homosexually oriented man by those who decide whether he is suitable for the seminary and for ministry. For those bishops who choose to ordain homosexuals, there appears to be a need for additional scrutiny...."]"

 

. . . are NOT the conclusions of the John Jay/CUNY study, NOT the conclusions of the Roman Catholic Church, NOT the conclusions of the USCCB, or any of its Boards. . . They are the words and conclusions of Deal Hudson. Deal Hudson is editor and publisher of CRISIS Magazine. . . . The mission of CRISIS Magazine is: "to interpret and shape the direction of contemporary culture from a standpoint of Catholic tradition. We are dedicated to the proposition that the crisis of modernity can be answered by a Christian humanism rooted in the teachings of the Catholic Church. We bring the wisdom of the Catholic tradition into direct dialogue with contemporary politics and culture."

 

Hmmmm, . . . the science didn't discuss homosexuality, the Church didn't blame homosexuality, ONLY the Conservative Catholic Press decided that all those abuse cases were really homosexuality and not PEDOPHILIA after all. . . .

 

The number (81% male victims) used by Mr. Hudson and you, Bugler, to substantiate your faulted conclusions and comments, reasonably speaks more to environment than homosexuality. Pedophiles are predators, the ease of finding young male prey is significantly greater for a Priest-predator than the ease of finding young women prey. Even if you could extrapolate any homosexual tendencies from the data, they would be invalid because such a few priests (~4%) are responsible for such a survey-whelming number (~26%) of abuse incidents. Those ~150 priests skew the data to such an extent, they make the question/answer of homosexuality indeterminable.

 

Journalism and research science are mutually exclusive - especially to such a pre-agenda'd eye as the Conservative Catholic Press. Mr. Deal's MANIPULATION of scientific data and his Church leaders' words is very disappointing, but NOT SURPRISING. Grouping homosexuals with criminal predators of our youth is a disservice to the truth, and a deliberate misunderstanding of homosexuality. And, to whitwash the predatory nature of pedophilia, in order to prioritize and justify verbal attacks against homosexuals, shows a hatred that frightens me. Can anyone ever read his work again and trust that it has a grain of truth?

 

 

THERE IS NO VALIDATION FOR YOUR POST, OR YOUR BELIEFS, IN THE JOHN JAY/CUNY STUDY.

 

 

"You can spin this any way you want, but homosexuals should continue to be banned from the BSA based on their moral depravity. . . .The liberal elite/homosexual deviants want us (BSA, USA, whole World) to conform to them. . . ."

 

. . .Apparently, spinning can be done in either direction, Bugler.

 

BTW, who are the liberal elite and are they all homosexual?? I guess, by "us" you mean people who think like you do. What makes you think you speak for the USA, and the whole world?? I would even doubt that you speak for the majority of BSA membership - though you obviously speak, at least in part, similarly, to the policy makers of the BSA.

 

 

"The position of a Scout Leader in relation to a youth, is not that dissimilar from a Priest. . . . would you want the gay Scoutmaster explaining his "lifestyle" to you son in detail?" . . .

 

I wouldn't expect any SM to explain his lifestyle to a Scout, but personally, I'm more concerned by my sons' interactions with adulterers, untreated alcoholics, liars, bigots, drug users, chauvinists, and Scouters who don't follow G2SS and/or see "hazing" as "just good fun". If any SM, or other Scout Leader, gets it into his/her head that his/her role somehow resembles the role of a priest, I'll be making phone calls to Council. Fortunately, National policy, G2SS, their own Faith, common sense, and several training courses remind Scouters how little their role resembles the role of a priest.

 

 

I can understand your hope that someone learns something from the RCC abuse crisis. However, I find it odd that you want those who don't readily agree with you to learn from the errors made by those who do agree with you. Perhaps, you'd do better to wish a little learning on the Catholic Church, and the Conservative Catholic Press.

 

jd

 

 

 

 

(This message has been edited by johndaigler)(This message has been edited by johndaigler)(This message has been edited by johndaigler)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"are NOT the words of the John Jay/CUNY study, NOT the words of the Roman Catholic Church, NOT the words of the USCCB, or any of its Boards"

 

-I never said they were. I said, "A good summary of the results of the study can be found at: www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=22733". If that was interpreted as an official site without checking it, I apologize, but I still believe it's a good and accurate summary.

 

"shows a hatred that frightens me."

 

-How is having an opinion that differs from yours showing hatred that that frightens you? If I disagree with you, should I just keep quite so you won't be frightened? I have said nothing threatening or vile, I have committed no hate-speak. I just vehemently disagree with you.

 

"THERE IS NO VALIDATION FOR YOUR POST", OR YOUR BELIEFS, IN THE JOHN JAY/CUNY STUDY."

 

-Yes, there is.

 

 

"You can spin this any way you want, but homosexuals should continue to be banned from the BSA based on their moral depravity. . . .The liberal elite/homosexual deviants want us (BSA, USA, whole World) to conform to them. . . ."

. . .Apparently, spinning can be done in either direction, Bugler.

BTW, who are the liberal elite and are they all homosexual??"

 

-Hollywood, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Time-Warner, etc., etc., and I don't know about all of them, just "Will and Grace", oh, and "Three's Company"!

 

"I guess, by "us" you mean people who think like you do - what makes you think you think you speak for the USA, and the whole world??"

 

-By us, I mean the "Blue America" of the Bush-Gore election and those who don't want the BSA opened to homosexuals.

 

"I would even question that you speak for the majority BSA membership"

 

-I'm sure I do, or they wouldn't be in the BSA. If you don't agree with the BSA you can join another group, or start your own.

 

"though you obviously speak, at least in part, similarly, to the policy makers of the BSA."

 

-Thank God!

 

If any SM or other Scout Leader gets it into his head that his role somehow resembles the role of a priest, I'll be making phone calls to Council.

 

-I wasn't referring to being like a religious minister. I meant that the youth would presuppose that because each adult was in a traditional role of authority, they would therefore be trustworthy and morally upright.

 

BPwannabe@137 was "just throwing out this topic for some intelligent and interesting conversation." he certainly got that.

 

We are never going to agree on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugler, you're right. We're not going to agree. I had originally written that in my post, but because I know I get way toooo wordy, I was editing things out to cut it down. I'm not trying to convince you to change your beliefs. I just don't want you or anyone else misusing scientifically researched data to illigitimately validate a personal belief.

 

You don't accept homosexuality, and you don't want homosexuals in Scouting. I understand that, but please, don't try to explain it with science. It won't work. Just call it Faith, and everyone will accept that. I'm not even arguing with your position to keep homosexuals out of Scouting - I think my earlier posts explain why. I'm arguing with the way you brought it to the conversation. Mr. Hudson cannot be seen as an independant voice - a truly objective interpreter of any research data. Again to blame homosexuality for the abuse crisis in Catholicism cannot be based on the information found by John Jay/CUNY.

 

" . . ."shows a hatred that frightens me."

-How is having an opinion that differs from yours showing hatred that that frightens you? If I disagree with you, should I just keep quite so you won't be frightened? I have said nothing threatening or vile, I have committed no hate-speak. I just vehemently disagree with you. . . ."

 

I apologize if you thought I was speaking about you. My words referred to the words and actions of Mr. Hudson. His words were, . . ."Overall, 81% of abuse victims were male, and 78% were at or past the age of puberty. In general, the highest rate of abuse occurred among males aged 11 to 14. In other words, most of the abuse involved gay priests molesting teenage boys. This is called homosexuality, not pedophilia." . . . He's saying that because most of the boys were 11 or older, they were teenagers. Obviously, that's a twist because we don't call 11 and 12 year olds teenagers. He's saying that because the boys were "teenagers" this should be deemed as homosexuality and not pedophilia. Redefining pedophilia in order to blame homosexuals, and redefining "teenager" and the "age of puberty" in order to justify blaming homosexuals is an egregious manipulation of scientific data, legal definitions and common understanding. THIS is what represents a hatred that frightens me. I guess, then, for the young women victims, the problem is heterosexuality and not pedophilia!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

 

" . . ."THERE IS NO VALIDATION FOR YOUR POST", OR YOUR BELIEFS, IN THE JOHN JAY/CUNY STUDY."

-Yes, there is." . . . Bugler, believe what you believe, but I've shown you the numbers don't justify what you want them to justify. . . . You know what they say, "Lies, damn lies, and statistics . . ."

 

..."BTW, who are the liberal elite and are they all homosexual??"

-Hollywood, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Time-Warner, etc., etc., and I don't know about all of them, just "Will and Grace", oh, and "Three's Company"!" . . . THAT'S a VERY large paintbrush you're swinging. This and your "Blue America" are divisive and hurtful to many more people than "homosexuals". This borders on ignorant hatred. "Three's company"???????

 

" . . .If any SM or other Scout Leader gets it into his head that his role somehow resembles the role of a priest, I'll be making phone calls to Council.

-I wasn't referring to being like a religious minister. I meant that the youth would presuppose that because each adult was in a traditional role of authority, they would therefore be trustworthy and morally upright." . . . I understood, I disagree. Given the stictures of 2 deep leadership, the BSA doesn't presuppose such trustworthiness. Part of the Church's crisis is that Catholic families believed that wearing priest's traditional role of authority made priests trustworthy and morally upright. Teach your Scouts that trust needs to be earned by a person, not a uniformed role.

 

jd

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to repeat my question: as long as local COs retain the authority to exclude gay leaders, why is it important to prohibit other COs with different beliefs about homosexuality to from having such leaders? With a very few exceptions, Scouting respects differing religious beliefs (the main exception being belief in a Supreme Being)--what makes this one different? Again, I urge you to answer why this restriction should apply to units other than your own--units in which the members are in agreement that having gay leaders is not contrary to their religious beliefs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, why not. Personally, I think there should be a local option on Brave. There's some French exchange students in the area and I'm afraid that this bigoted view - "A Scout MUST be Brave", is preventing some of those boys from joining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's have everything a local option! Then nothing comes into question & we can do whatever we want! ;)

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster says:

 

Personally, I think there should be a local option on Brave.

 

Through your facetiousness, you actually help make my point. If you actually did believe there should be "local option" on any of the actual points of the Scout Law, then one might wonder where one could really draw the line. But I am pretty sure you don't believe that.

 

The line is between the "values" that are universally held within the BSA and those that are held merely by a majority of people within the BSA. The first category (which includes the 12 points of Scout Law) are "values of the BSA" and are not eligible for "local option." The second category are NOT "values of the BSA" and should be eligible for local option. Whether a leader should have to uphold the "value" of heterosexuality is in the second category.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So homosexuality has nothing to do with being clean or reverent, or even being morally straight. Hmmm. That being the case, I suppose you feel the act of murder belongs in the second category as wellsomething that should or could be examined at the local level. After all, does the Scout Law say anything about murder? How about rape? Perhaps we should have the local option for rapists or those who engage in bestiality? Just because your religion (whatever it may be) enables you to view vile acts as something other than what they actually are, that doesnt mean the rest of should. Furthermore, The BSA does not have to embrace the views of the majority or seek universal acceptance. Neither should affect the criteria for the BSAs moral positions. The BSA (or rather those that who oversee the organization) determines the moral tone of their choosing and the policies that reflect the same. Its their right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rooster, your response is not helpful. As far as I know, there are no religions seeking to be CORs that think murder and rape are OK. However, there are large religious denominations in this country--Christian ones--that happen to disagree with you (and me, by the way) on whether homosexuality is a sin or not. It may seem obvious to you that a gay person is not "reverent" or "clean," but it's not obvious to many thoughtful religious people.

 

Let me put it another way. In my personal view, people who smoke, drink alcohol, get divorced,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, hit the button too soon...

 

Let me put it another way. In my personal view, people who smoke, drink alcohol, get divorced, gamble, etc., are acting immorally and "uncleanly" and thus are violating the Scout Law, as I would interpret it. However, obviously, people disagree about all of these. However, just because you might think divorce is OK doesn't mean I assume that you also think murder and rape are OK.

 

To put it yet another way, I share the view that homosexual behavior is sinful, but I can't understand the loathing that people have for it compared to other sins that I consider just as bad and often more destructive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its the insidious nature of any sexual sin that I loathe. And as one human being speaking to another, I have to assume that you understand this. Sexual temptation is the only sin, which the Bible exhorts us to fleeto run away. Why? For most men, almost every man, this sin has power that is uncommon and pervasive. Men risk losing their wives whom they love; because they are drawn like a moth to flame to fulfill their lustful desires to be with another woman. Other men, become so twisted in their lust, they are consumed by their own selfish impulses and force themselves on women. And still others, due to their lack of discipline to ignore or to resist sexually perverted thoughts, relent and become enveloped by even sicker desires to satisfy their flesh. And in the case of homosexuality, men have convinced themselves that one man pressing his flesh with another man is simply an expression of love. Insidious is almost too subtletoo kind of a word to describe the vile and unrelenting nature of sexual sin. So yes, I loathe homosexuality, like I loathe all sexual sin. Not because the men who embrace this sin are lesser beings than other sinners, but because so many have fallen prey to its lure, and they have become so enamored by its ability to gratify the flesh that they fail to see how wicked they have become.

 

In regard to the BSA, it is a primary topic of discussion because as you no doubt know, homosexual activist groups have been targeting the organization. It isnt because homosexuality is worse than adultery or alcoholism. However, if/when a bunch of adulterers get together to attack the BSAs bigoted polices, they too will be singled out and loathed for their efforts to normalize (if not celebrate) their vile conduct.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×