Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CricketEagle

Path To Save Bsa?

Recommended Posts

Really? Because there is evidence that abuse, alcoholism, etc., are also tied to inherited behavior as you suggest sexuality is. HOWEVER, the scholars mostly agree that it is also a learned set of behaviors.

 

I have seen nothing that definitively proves sexuality is an innate characteristic or behavior.

It's not as simple as this is learned behavior and that is genetic.  For alcoholism, data suggests that some people are genetically prone to be alcoholics but the chances of them developing alcoholism is greatly diminished if alcohol is not part of the home lifestyle.  If I recall correctly, alcoholism is 40% genetic and 60% learned behavioral.   Aggressive behavior is similar: partly genetic and partly environmental.  

 

The American Association of Psychiatrists agrees with your conclusion:

 

  "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation." (emphasis added by me) http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/orientation.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always found it a bit odd for people to claim that it's role modeling that makes people gay when pretty close to 100% of gay people were raised in heterosexual households - seems a bit odd to claim that exposure to a gay person for a couple of hours a week, or for 36 hours on a camping trip would be enough to override years of being raised by heterosexuals.

 

I've also found it amusing that, in a still almost puritan America, that the first thing that many people seem to think of when they hear the words gay, lesbian or homosexual - the first thing that pops into their head, is an image of people having sex.  It just makes me wonder how these folks could possibly imagine it if they've never done it or seen it.  Goodness knows what they're actually imagining.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being identified as gay or homosexual is an automatic tag of sexuality.

I'd say that being identified as a human being is an automatic tag of sexuality - the only question that remains is, which sexuality?

 

Why single out 2 to 5 percent of people as being "tagged" with "sexuality", and not the other 95 to 97 percent as well?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American Association of Psychiatrists agrees with your conclusion:

 

 

I was talking about hard science, i.e., biology and not psychiatry. I was talking about learned versus innate behaviors. The APA thinks you are what you are born with. The hard evidence for that position is lacking and far from conclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was talking about hard science, i.e., biology and not psychiatry. I was talking about learned versus innate behaviors. The APA thinks you are what you are born with. The hard evidence for that position is lacking and far from conclusive.

That's an interesting perspective.  I consider psychiatry to be a hard science since anatomical and biological study is part of their medical training.  Psychiatrists first earn their MD before completing a 4-year residency in mental health.  Since they have an MD, they can prescribe drugs for correcting chemical imbalances, for example.  Psychiatrists are fully certified medical doctors.

 

Psychologists can hold a PhD or PsyD and most of their training is academic in nature.  They aren't MDs and they can't prescribe drugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen nothing that definitively proves sexuality is an innate characteristic or behavior.

If one identical twin identifies as homosexual, there is a 20% chance or less that the other twin identifies as such. That fact alone indicates that while genetics probably plays a role (people are probably genetically predisposed to be SSA), it is far from determinative, certainly not like "eye color or height."

 

Evidence appears to be scant on the question of whether children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual themselves. So while it may be correct to say that, "Studies have shown that children raised in gay parent homes are no more likely to become gay adults than children raised in heterosexual parent homes," it may also be correct to add, "However, other studies have shown the opposite."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence appears to be scant on the question of whether children of homosexuals are more likely to be homosexual themselves. So while it may be correct to say that, "Studies have shown that children raised in gay parent homes are no more likely to become gay adults than children raised in heterosexual parent homes," it may also be correct to add, "However, other studies have shown the opposite."

 

That's what I suspected. Inconclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting perspective.  I consider psychiatry to be a hard science since anatomical and biological study is part of their medical training.  Psychiatrists first earn their MD before completing a 4-year residency in mental health.  Since they have an MD, they can prescribe drugs for correcting chemical imbalances, for example.  Psychiatrists are fully certified medical doctors.

 

Psychologists can hold a PhD or PsyD and most of their training is academic in nature.  They aren't MDs and they can't prescribe drugs.

 

The point being that you cannot pinpoint things in psychiatry as well as you can in other part of medicine. There is no conclusive evidence one way or the other about how one forms their sexual identity. Is in innate? Is it observed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparing gay to KKK is very odd to me. (I refuse to go there)

I wish you well in your scouting experience with your son and I you are able to insulate him from everything you see as evil in this world.

g

Isn't it interesting that you didn't find the doctor comparison odd. I wasn't comparing anybody, I think most folks got that. I was giving examples to support the point that our reputation is just as much an influence to others as our actions. Some here are implying that whether or not someone's personal life is known or not, their image is only what they project personally in front of the group, which of course isn't true.

 

I also have gay friends, relatives, and coworkers, I don't understand what your point was there. And I guess using the word evil was just an emotional vent to be condescending, but I'm confident you just didn't kick your kids out the door and wish them the best of luck. By the way, I'm about to be a grandpa, so I'm past guessing and experimenting with raising a family and into reflecting my observations and life experiences.

 

Barry

Edited by Eagledad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about anyone else, but I am not worried about gay people role-modeling kids into being gay.

 

What I would be concerned about, is people role-modeling immorality and influencing kids to disregard sexual ethics and morals, or role-modeling a contrary sexual ethic. If someone is openly living as actively gay, that for most people would count as role-modeling immorality. The problem isn't turning kids gay. The problem is giving kids an example that is, on its face, less virtuous. Not only is it less than virtuous, it is counter-virtuous, because it is not merely a failing to live up to the standard, it is a rejection and repudiation of the standard of virtue, an inversion. There have always been differing understanding of virtue, ethics, and morality in BSA. That isn't new. The question is, how much contradiction and conflict between those standards can there be while still being able to function together? At what point does mutual trust and understanding break down within the organization and between parents and leaders? 
 

 

On the other tangent, unfortunately the physical aspects of mental health questions, things like chemical imbalances, those sort of things, are extremely hard to study because it usually means taking a a brain apart, something that is only possible on the dead. Psychiatry and psychology also have a very large amount of correlation substituting for causality, because certainty of causality is almost unreachable in those fields due to the complexity of the brain (and that is before you get into the puzzle of the mind-brain relationship which is nearer to being a question of metaphysics than medicine but is yet at the heart to of the issue).

 

Twin studies pretty much have ruled out a purely genetic causes of sexual orientation, but also indicate that if one twin is SSA, the second is much more likely to be than a random person in the population. This would seem to point to a gene that enables it, or predisposes, but does not determine. It is possible this is a factor determined by what is called "epigenetics". It is also possible it is a nature + nurture situation. I know the fad is to say gay people are born gay (perhaps some are) and that is the way it is, but I know people who have same-sex attractions, but did not always, for some it developed over time, went through phases that went one way and then the other before their attractions settled into a pattern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news- We were told today at a meeting with a "high ranking authority" in the church that the LDS church will continue their sponsorship of BSA.  The gay leader thing is not a problem, since sex is not a part of Boy Scouting. 

 

I do sincerely hope, however, that LDS scout leaders will get the training they need and the desire to run the program as it should be, so that it is a positive experience for our boys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news- We were told today at a meeting with a "high ranking authority" in the church that the LDS church will continue their sponsorship of BSA.  The gay leader thing is not a problem, since sex is not a part of Boy Scouting. 

 

I do sincerely hope, however, that LDS scout leaders will get the training they need and the desire to run the program as it should be, so that it is a positive experience for our boys.

I hope you are right.  I know we have a lot of leadership in our district that is LDS and I would hate to lose them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news- We were told today at a meeting with a "high ranking authority" in the church that the LDS church will continue their sponsorship of BSA.  The gay leader thing is not a problem, since sex is not a part of Boy Scouting. 

 

I do sincerely hope, however, that LDS scout leaders will get the training they need and the desire to run the program as it should be, so that it is a positive experience for our boys.

 

Who told you this?  Local leader, seventy, etc?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christineka, did your source give you any information about when this decision may actually be announced? So the six-figure salary folks at National can start breathing again?

  • Upvote 1

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  

×