posted
I believe the reasoning in the past was that the BSA had a organization wide policy, so the church was in compliance with it. With the BSA now possibly making it troop specific, I really can't see how the church could argue its troops will continue to enforce that ban.
At least, that's where I'm at right now.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I know they aren't a mouthpiece for the church, but this is the way things are going in their home town.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why don't Mormons just get out of the scouts and run their own mormon-theology-OK'ed camping group? They can exclude the queers all they like then. I don't want them bringing the scouts along with them.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: Why don't Mormons just get out of the scouts and run their own mormon-theology-OK'ed camping group? They can exclude the queers all they like then. I don't want them bringing the scouts along with them.
Because the church and the BSA have a long positive history together, and it's a great program. You don't break things like that off lightly.
Getting my Eagle Scout was one of the proudest moments of my life. I will be sad if my son has to go through an entirely different program, even if it's exactly as hard, and very similar. Traditions are long in the forming, easy in the breaking.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess. And if the church sticks with the scouts, and the scouts change not to have a homophobic policy, that just adds another point where they are being pressured to change.
Posts: 805 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's pretty obvious how this is going to end. The rest of the country is going to stop picking on gay people, and about ten to fifteen years later a very important Mormon will hear a voice in his or her(haha just kidding) head that says that they should also stop picking on the gays. And all will be well and missionaries can finally start making inroads in Gayistan.
Posts: 200 | Registered: Jan 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tuesday, before this postponement of a decision, my wife as a Boy Scout leader went to the district meeting. Out troop is out of a local VFW hall, so there is no heavy Religious requirements. A discussion with in the troop concluded that we would accept any gay scouts as the churches could not, and remain faithful to their church. Unfortunately at the district meeting, where all the troops from the area met, the overwhelming majority of leaders--from various churches--wanted the district as a whole to ban any gay scout or leader. It was a bit sad.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tittles: I think it's pretty obvious how this is going to end. The rest of the country is going to stop picking on gay people, and about ten to fifteen years later a very important Mormon will hear a voice in his or her(haha just kidding) head that says that they should also stop picking on the gays. And all will be well and missionaries can finally start making inroads in Gayistan.
Tittles: I'm not especially impressed with how frequently you mock things on this board.
I would advise you change your post of your own volition, before I do it for you. Many people have expressed similar feelings on this topic, without resorting to being offensive.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: I guess. And if the church sticks with the scouts, and the scouts change not to have a homophobic policy, that just adds another point where they are being pressured to change.
I don't see how that's a bad thing. If accepting homosexuals in this way is a good thing, then pressure on the church to adhere to that principle is a good thing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: A discussion with in the troop concluded that we would accept any gay scouts as the churches could not, and remain faithful to their church.
This is not true for many churches.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is going to happen when there are some glaring incidents involving pedophilia in the new gay-tolerant Boy Scouts? Will there be a great effort to sweep it under the rug? Or will we have a round of exposés like we have been having with Catholic priests for the past three decades?
I always thought that the Roman Catholic Church was asking for it by holding to its tradition of celibacy for the priesthood, especially since it demonstrably goes against the explicit teaching of Scripture that elders, bishops, and other church leaders should each be "the husband of one wife." But likewise now the Boy Scouts. You would think common sense would count for something. Must whatever is currently deemed "PC" overthrow everything else? Is society that stupid?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't normally start a conversation this harshly even with you, Ron, but since you promptly brought pedophilia into it and labeled those who dispute you stupid, I'll have at it!
If you knew a tinker's damn about the Boy Scouts of America and troubles with sex scandals-and I say that as someone who very much enjoyed it and am proud of my time in it-you would know that sex scandals are hardly a new territory for the organization. Not unlike many an institution, for some strange reason, which deals so much with adults interacting with children and young people.
Second, your likening of consenting adult homosexuality to pedophilia is stupid and offensive and would do you shame if you had any on these topics.
Third, even as a strictly logical exercise, your comparison is deeply stupid and showcases just how disconnected and irrational your thinking is on this topic. The BSA is not considering allowing homosexual membership of homosexual men and requiring their celibacy, you silly man, and so the comparison between potentially homosexual troop leaders and mandated-by-the-church celibate priests doesn't hold water any better than a colander.
There we go, that about does it. I'll take the whistle if anyone gives it, and I'll stand by my words. Bigoted, homophobic attitudes such as yours cannot be held up to the light and exposed as laughable too soon, and one of the many good aspects of this story is the way in which people such as yourselves are so eager to help it be done.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What is going to happen when there are some glaring incidents involving pedophilia in the new gay-tolerant Boy Scouts? Will there be a great effort to sweep it under the rug?
And how would be different from what currently happens?
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What is going to happen when there are some glaring incidents involving pedophilia in the new gay-tolerant Boy Scouts? Will there be a great effort to sweep it under the rug?
And how would be different from what currently happens?
Plus, what Rakeesh wrote.
The roles will be switched. Different people will be doing the sweeping and the conservatives will be outraged. There will also be complaints about MSM bias.
Other than that the outcome will probably be about the same.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I don't think that is harsh by half. Good job expressing some of the points I wanted to make, in a less harsh manner that I was tempted to use.
Ron.....keep posting please. You own posts and predictions are by far a better example of why rational people should disagree with you than any stand-alone argument I could make myself.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The roles will be switched. Different people will be doing the sweeping and the conservatives will be outraged. There will also be complaints about MSM bias.
Other than that the outcome will probably be about the same.
About the same? Because attitudes about sexual abuse by members of trusted institutions charged with the welfare of children has remained about the same?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The roles will be switched. Different people will be doing the sweeping and the conservatives will be outraged. There will also be complaints about MSM bias.
Other than that the outcome will probably be about the same.
About the same? Because attitudes about sexual abuse by members of trusted institutions charged with the welfare of children has remained about the same?
Sorry, I don't follow...
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the last couple of generations or so our attitude towards the problem of sexual abuse of children has begun to change pretty dramatically from what it had been before, I think you'll agree, yes? Still a long ways to go but we're at least just about done (at least I hope) with the notion that it simply doesn't happen and that the scandal is more important than the crime. At least, almost done in terms of the pace of social change.
Anyway, so attitudes about sexual abuse of children and young people has been changing, quite a bit. Given that, why would it be likely that reaction to openly homosexual* troop leaders victimizing Scouts would be mostly the same as the reaction has been historically?
There hasn't *been* much public reaction historically, period.
*Which, again, the supposed equivalence between homosexuality and pedophilia. Odd how when a man molests a young girl, it's not a story of 'heterosexual man molests child'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I was just pointing out that currently, when there is a sexual abuse by a heterosexual male in the BSA liberals are scandalized and outraged while conservatives try to downplay or sweep it under the rug.
When gays are allowed to be leaders again and a gay man abuses a kid conservatives will be outraged while liberals try to downplay or sweep it under the rug.
I think you read too much into it.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:When gays are allowed to be leaders again and a gay man abuses a kid conservatives will be outraged while liberals try to downplay or sweep it under the rug.
Why do you think so? I'm not aware of many liberals who're downplaying the sexual abuse committed by homosexual priests in the Catholic church.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think he's saying that liberals, as supporters of homosexuals or their agenda or whatever, will be eager to minimize the scandal when it happens as it will over time, as conservatives are willing sometimes to do with priests.
Of course the truth is it's quite a lot more complicated than that, but we're on this topic now because of Ron's amusing irrational and homophobic rant. But to stay on that topic, it's no longer politically acceptable to attempt to downplay child abuse scandals. It's politically suicidal on the one hand, and on the other it's advantageous to be tough on the matter.
Now what I'm certain WILL happen is that there will be scandals that break, which will be blamed on homosexuals, equating them to pedophiles. Those will be objected to, and strongly, by many liberals and even moderates since thankfully it is becoming clear to everyone over time just how stupid and wicked that argument is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My big problem with the BSA not wanting gay people* in the troops is that no one knows whether or not they are gay when they first sign up for scouts.
posted
My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a homosexual man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are scandals involving pedophilia already, when gays are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?
The comparison I made to priests being convicted of pedophilia is exactly to the point. What connection are you unable to make?
It has been said that the ability to draw valid analogies and recognize them is one of the hallmark indicators of high intelligence. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.
So from everything I've found this is true, but it also seems a little disingenuous to me. I've always thought pedophilia had to do with little children. It turns out that it is children under 11 or some say 13 according to the wikipedia article.
So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.
For the record I lean towards ending the ban but it seems a little disingenuous to me.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a homosexual man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are scandals involving pedophilia already, when gays are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?
Alright, try and follow along with me: pedophiles are much, more more 'closeted' than homosexuals. Pedophilia is a vastly riskier and more dangerous (if caught) behavior than homosexuality. So, what, you think the BSA will just be able to screen out pedophiles because of screening out openly gay behavior?
Your argument is, it comes as no surprise, profoundly foolish. Homosexuals aren't pedophiles, despite your shamefully ignorant direct comparison. Get thee to Westboro.
quote:The comparison I made to priests being convicted of pedophilia is exactly to the point. What connection are you unable to make?
You discussed *celibate* priests, not just priests. That (and other reasons) is why your objections were offensive and foolish. The lift in the ban wouldn't just permit celibate homosexuals.
quote:It has been said that the ability to draw valid analogies and recognize them is one of the hallmark indicators of high intelligence. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.
Even if i and others hadn't demonstrated how deeply, hopelessly flawed your analagies were...oh. Called me stupid again. Ouch! You didn't do so by presenting reasoned arguments, though-you simply reiterated your initial ignorance and asserted it was true, clearly.
Again: enjoy your rapidly shrinking market share of the American cultural experience. Continue to proudly speak out your laughably ignorant homophobia, since it shames the moderate towards your end of the spectrum into silence, lest they become figures of fun as well.
And while you're at it, could you make some more predictions and then when they are proven false, lie about it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.
So from everything I've found this is true, but it also seems a little disingenuous to me. I've always thought pedophilia had to do with little children. It turns out that it is children under 11 or some say 13 according to the wikipedia article.
So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.
For the record I lean towards ending the ban but it seems a little disingenuous to me.
Heterosexual relationships between adults and 13-17 year old children are already illegal. We call it statutory rape. Scouts can't earn their Eagle Scout once they are older than 18. So...I guess there is that one year of super vulnerability where we will have to do something like say pass a rule that forbids scout masters from having relationships with their scouts. Wait we already have that too.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.
There might be something to this, but stiles, to ask a candid question in hopes of a precise answer: in your opinion, are the arguments against permitting open* homosexuals into the BSA really that nuanced? Are the arguments in your experience commonly so statistical? That is to say, when you hear people speaking against homosexuals in the BSA, is it because they say 'well people of any sexual preference will have a range of ages and physical developments they will be sexually attracted to, and in any population there will be some for whom the attraction exists for more youthful members of their gender preference. Therefore, by permitting homosexuals into the BSA, we will be increasing the pool of people which necessarily increases, through no additional deviance on the part of the pool, who are attracted to younger people?'
Or in your experience are the arguments not much more often open or subtle direct links between homosexuals and pedophiles, such as we have here with Ron?
*Open, how galling. Heterosexuals are never 'openly' heterosexual.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Ron: There is no link between pedophilia and homosexuality. The BSA could have a policy of *only* homosexuals can be scout masters, and instances of pedophilia would not change because of it.
So from everything I've found this is true, but it also seems a little disingenuous to me. I've always thought pedophilia had to do with little children. It turns out that it is children under 11 or some say 13 according to the wikipedia article.
So those who are arguing against homosexuals are thinking of much more developed teenagers (i.e. 13-18) and thinking in their mind that well of course homosexuals are more likely to be attracted to them. Then the opposition comes along and says homosexuals are no more likely to have pedophilia than the average person except attraction to 13-18 year olds isn't pedophilia.
For the record I lean towards ending the ban but it seems a little disingenuous to me.
Heterosexual relationships between adults and 13-17 year old children are already illegal. We call it statutory rape. Scouts can't earn their Eagle Scout once they are older than 18. So...I guess there is that one year of super vulnerability where we will have to do something like say pass a rule that forbids scout masters from having relationships with their scouts. Wait we already have that too.
I don't see how this addresses anything. Pedophilia (or acting on it) is illegal too.
So what you are saying is that since statistics say homosexuals are no more likely to be attracted to 0-11 year olds than heterosexuals they will not have any attraction to 13-18 year olds.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why do you feel homosexuals would be more attracted to a 17 year old boy, than a heterosexual male would be attracted to a 17 year old female?
I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Why do you feel homosexuals would be more attracted to a 17 year old boy, than a heterosexual male would be attracted to a 17 year old female?
I feel that a homosexual will be exactly as attracted to a 17 year old boy as a heterosexual male would be attracted to a 17 year old female.
I just reread your post and I'm conflating your argument with other arguments I've seen. You were addressing pedophilia only because Ron brought it up. So in fact you didn't conflate the two.
What I find disingenuous is when someone says they don't want their 15/16/17 year old son camping with a gay leader and the counter argument is that gay people are pedophiles so they won't be more attracted to the kid than a heterosexual man. To me that counter argument is invalid.
A valid argument would be that the BSA has 2 leader rules in place to avoid that.
Do you think that homosexual men will not be more attracted to teenagers than heterosexual men?
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.
On a side not it seems that every occurrence of teacher to student sex scandal that I've seen in the last 4 or 5 years has been female teacher with male student. Just throwing that anecdote out there.
Posts: 362 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Will that many gay men lead scouts? I assume leaders happen in two ways: lifelong scouts go on to become leaders or parents take on the role of leader because someone needs to. Both of those categories can include gay men, and I would be inclined to trust a parent, or someone who has been a scout nearly forever.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.
On a side not it seems that every occurrence of teacher to student sex scandal that I've seen in the last 4 or 5 years has been female teacher with male student. Just throwing that anecdote out there.
One of my teachers was dismissed from school for soliciting a female student for sex.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Throwing another thing out there: the Boy Scouts don't have the same incentives to cover up child abuse as Catholic churches or universities with creepy football coaches. While individual leaders are useful assets, no one leader controls hundreds of members who could lead the flock, they aren't anointed as representatives of God, nor do they pull in irreplaceable amounts of dollars as an individual.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I mean, yes it's ultimately going to happen. There absolutely will be a gay scout master who will misuse their relationship of authority and seduce a boy. I suspect it will likely be at the same rate male teachers have sex with their female students in high schools.
On a side not it seems that every occurrence of teacher to student sex scandal that I've seen in the last 4 or 5 years has been female teacher with male student. Just throwing that anecdote out there.
One of my teachers was dismissed from school for soliciting a female student for sex.
Recently when I was chatting with an old friend from high school she mentioned that our science teacher hit on her friend the summer after graduation. To my knowledge he probably still teaches and coaches girls volleyball. Perhaps the creepiest detail of all is that he was young fit and social, add the social prestige of his profession and education and there is no reason why he would resort to hitting on a petite eighteen year old.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a homosexual man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are scandals involving pedophilia already, when gays are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?
The comparison I made to priests being convicted of pedophilia is exactly to the point. What connection are you unable to make?
It has been said that the ability to draw valid analogies and recognize them is one of the hallmark indicators of high intelligence. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.
My point was perfectly reasonable, despite the hysterical bile Rakeesh habitually pours out. Where would a black man most like to have free entry, if not to the Boy Scouts? If there are already issues with theft already, when blacks are not openly welcomed into BSA leadership, what must inevitably happen when all restraints are removed?
It has been said that the ability to draw terrible, homophobic analogies and not recognize them or what they are actually saying is one of the hallmark indicators of being Ron Lambert. Too bad that Rakeesh (and Kwea, et. al.) evidently fall so far short.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just so that the point isn't lost on you as easily as usual, Ron, just to make sure that we understand that I am saying about your reasoning why the gays shouldn't be allowed to be in the boy scouts is because keeping them out protects children from pedophiles.
It is a line of reasoning about as offensive and bogus as if you had said "the blacks shouldn't be openly allowed to participate in the boy scouts because it will protect them from criminal activity." You could draw up superficial trend comparisons and say that because blacks are on average more associated (somehow, doesn't matter if we're talking about valid statistics here, we're talking bigotry) with a bad thing that their exclusion apparently protects us from.
It is literally as offensive, bigoted, and horrific a thing in either form, and it relies on catches of bigotry and homophobia that haven't caught up with how readily we admonish and dismiss the same offensive statements when it comes to race.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would interest me to know stats on non-closeted gay men an pedophilia because my gut says that non-closeted gay men would actually be less likely to be pedophiliacs compared to straight men. If you have examined your sexuality and openly declared yourself to be outside te mainstream, it seems unlikely that you would then be hiding your real sexual interest. If you are going to hide yourself, why not pretend you are mainstream?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Rakeesh, I don't think that is harsh by half. Good job expressing some of the points I wanted to make, in a less harsh manner that I was tempted to use.
Agreeing with this and I have nothing to add, because if I did it would get my post whistled. That post of Ron's gave me a rage headache.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
