Jump to content

Religion/Sexuality


Recommended Posts

"Hans Ziegler's book on scouting contains reference to research that shows homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. . . but he is not the original researcher."

 

Almost guaranteed, he is using Paul Cameron's discredited work, since it is the only "study" I know of that supports this. Published by the aforementioned Family Research Institute (founded by Cameron).

 

"It would be interesting to see the original study, and determine what aspects of homosexual behavior made homosexuals more amenable to this deviant behavior. We know, for instance, that as a group homosexuals are more risk-taking and have greater interest in sex."

 

Also more of Cameron's "conclusions" that have been repeated over and over. However, still doesn't make them any more valid, especially considering Cameron's reputation for misinformation and misrepresentation of other people's research.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

We can only make assumptions about the authorship of the study in the Ziegler book, and perhaps someone can dig this up for us.

 

It would also be worth knowing---if it did turn out to be the Cameron one mentioned--just WHO and HOW the study was discredited. This being 2009, I have seen many instances where a study opposing one person/group's views was loudly proclaimed to be "discredited" . . . upon questionable grounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"It would also be worth knowing---if it did turn out to be the Cameron one mentioned--just WHO and HOW the study was discredited. This being 2009, I have seen many instances where a study opposing one person/group's views was loudly proclaimed to be "discredited" . . . upon questionable grounds."

 

WHO:

1983: The American Psychological Association on ethics violations

1984: Nebraska Psychological Association

1985: The American Sociological Association

1996: The Canadian Psychological Association

 

HOW:

Here is an excellent summary of the methodology flaws in Cameron's work: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center also has an excellent article on him: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=587

 

There is much, much more to be found in the Internet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The BSA is a private organization that can legally set it's own membership requirements. If you don't like it, join an organization that supports your beliefs."

 

I really don't think you read what I wrote. To further clarify, my problem is not with the BSA but with the mindset that discriminating on the basis of sexuality is somehow OK. This is a cancer that runs rampant in our country, far beyond Scouting. I believe strongly in the ideals of Scouting and of America, and that is why I feel that is my responsibility to point out a grevious wrong for what it is.

 

Let me conclude by saying that just because something is legal doesn't make it right.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Link to post
Share on other sites

To further clarify, my problem is not with the BSA but with the mindset that discriminating on the basis of sexuality is somehow OK.

 

Girls are not allowed to be members of Packs or Troops. Does that upset you?(This message has been edited by evmori)

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Girls are not allowed to be members of Packs or Troops. Does that upset you?"

 

Not at all. There is a program for them called Girl Scouts. It is regrettable that the two organizations are not more closely related, but all of this is beyond my point, which is that discrimination against gays now is just as wrong as interning loyal Japanese-Americans was sixty years ago, and as wrong as segregation was a century ago, and as wrong as slavery was a hundred and fifty years ago. It upsets me that so many Americans today continue to indulge this particular blind spot in their ethical compass when most would not abide segregation or slavery or internment based on ethnic origin today.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

Link to post
Share on other sites

DanKroh: A couple of thoughts to share.

 

(1) You never showed that Cameron is the author of the study. You have tried to prove that Cameron is discredited by his peers, but this doesn't matter beans if Cameron is not the fellow cited in the Ziegler book. I just don't know. So your note lacks sting.

 

(2) I'm a skeptic about psychological associations (as well as a number of religious denominational votes). Situations which get highly politicized sometimes result in bad science, wrong judgments and manipulated votes. Many lawyers refuse to join the American Bar Association for this reason. And we all know how worked-over and threatening the situation was for the American Psychological Association was at the time the vote was taken to "normalize" homosexuality. Votes made under compulsion just smell bad. Furthermore, as a field, psychology is sadly prone to abrupt shifts and changes, as well as politicized research. . . all of which lessens the field's scientific integrity.

 

I'm over with this topic. Signing out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, OP was a troll obviously, but that doesn't discredit any of the quesitons he asks or points he makes.

 

Also, he is not asking you to state that the BSA is a private organization. It clearly is, but that does not answer the questions. He is not asking "IS the BSA allowed to ....". The BSA clearly is. He is asking "SHOULD the BSA ....". Which is entirely different.

 

Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done. Take Power of Attorney of a dying man. The Person who holds Power of Attorney can legally change the dying man's will, and can legally make himself the sole heir. It has been done before, taken to court, and the man who changed the will won. That is legal, just as the BSA limiting who can enter, but SHOULD it be done?

 

 

With that in light:

 

I have no problem with aethiests in scouts. They pose no physical or mental danger. And 99% of kids are not trying to push agenda, they merely want to be with their friends. The 1% who wants to agenda push won't have much success if it is 1 vs the rest. He will become a comedy figure whenever he tries to agenda push. Aethiests give no other scouts reservations.

 

However, gay scouts are another story for me. Can you imagine knowing that when you are changing, one of the other scouts also changing is paying attention to your body? That easily poses reservations tothe other scouts. Of course, with this known, I would fully expect the non-gay scouts to make life so miserable for him on camping trips and meetings that he would quit by himself.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Yeah, OP was a troll obviously..."

 

The OP who started this thread in 2008 was probably a troll and I believe that is who XLPanel is referring to. OTOH, Shermanator505, who revived this thread appears (based on his contributions to other threads) to be an Eagle Scout expressing a legitimate opinion about the BSA membership policies. Perhaps in this case he stumbled upon a hibernating bear and decided to poke it with a stick. Not a smart move in the wild but (IMHO) perfectly acceptable in the Issues and Politics section of this forum.

 

I am dismayed that on this one subject some are quick to suggest that if one doesn't agree one should find another organization. How un-scoutlike! We usually agree to disagree on other subjects but this one is off limits? I see no reason why the membership policies should be any more taboo than one's favorite flavor of Woodbadge. Could it be because the policies are in fact "indefensible"?

 

Sherminator, welcome to the campfire. I am glad you are here and I hope others do not chase you away with their bad manners.

 

YIS,

Hal

Link to post
Share on other sites

"(1) You never showed that Cameron is the author of the study. You have tried to prove that Cameron is discredited by his peers, but this doesn't matter beans if Cameron is not the fellow cited in the Ziegler book. I just don't know. So your note lacks sting."

 

Nope, and never claimed I did. I said it was most likely, since that is the ultimate source of those claims. Pretty much every writer quotes "scientific evidence" to support these claims about homosexuality can ultimately be traced back to Cameron (including the ones you espouse, about violence, shortened lifespan, etc). I don't have Zeiger's book, haven't read it, but since you seem to be such a fan, perhaps you can check the footnotes or backmatter in your copy and let us know.

 

"(2) I'm a skeptic about psychological associations (as well as a number of religious denominational votes). Situations which get highly politicized sometimes result in bad science, wrong judgments and manipulated votes. Many lawyers refuse to join the American Bar Association for this reason. And we all know how worked-over and threatening the situation was for the American Psychological Association was at the time the vote was taken to "normalize" homosexuality. Votes made under compulsion just smell bad. Furthermore, as a field, psychology is sadly prone to abrupt shifts and changes, as well as politicized research. . . all of which lessens the field's scientific integrity."

 

Cameron being kicked out of all those organization has not so much to do about his opinions about homosexuality as about his ethics, the fact that he misrepresents other people's work, has outright lied to the press to get a vote to swing his way, and generally practices bad science (as you would have seen if you had looked at any of the links I provided). But it is much easier to dismiss their concerns as being "politically motivated".

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
×
×
  • Create New...