|
In regards to my own person experiences with [the subject of] homosexuality (I don't consider myself homosexual) while in the BSA:
I had multiple scoutmasters during the years I was in scouts. Most of them were older men who were kind of weird, had smelly breath, and gave too many shoulder massages. However, there were never any reported inappropriate incidents with kids. One of the best scoutmasters I had was a community college professor in his early 30s. One time as a meeting was winding down, the boys in the troop were just talking and goofing off, and one of the kids either called some kid a faggot/gay/insert-homosexual-slur or asked about gay people in a tone that suggested homesexuality/homosexuals was/were disgusting. The scoutmaster just looked at him with a straight face, didn't get angry, and said, "There's nothing wrong with gay people. I have multiple gay friends, and they're just people too like you and me."
I thought that was a really healthy outlook for a group of 11-17 year olds to hear; particularly in a place like Mississippi where homosexual slurs are commonplace and socially accepted in many circles. And I heard that from a leader of the BSA. Whatever that's worth.
|
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. (I don't actually have a position on whether the fear of pedophilia is a good reason for banning gay Boy Scout leaders, by the way, but I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and that censoring the conversation is a great way to validate your own opinions, but a lousy way to have an intelligent debate about something.)
And most rapes are committed by males
Holy fuck this took the cake as the dumbest comment... Commited by males on other females.... The male to male rape ratio is NOT AT ALL comparable and if your argument is pedophilia than we best stop Priests and alter boys!
His point was extremely simple, if we're stopping scout leaders on the position that they might attempt to have sex with their troop because of a sexual attraction to that gender then all female troop leaders that are not homosexual should be subject to the same discrimination since the same logic applies. Apparently to be homosexual = find every man attractive including children.
|
I was in the Boy Scouts for years. It was really a life-changing experience in a way, you can experience nature in a way your average ipod touch carrying kid may never get to in their life. You can learn basic techniques which in the past would be considered common sense, like how to tell direction a dozen different ways, how to tie a knot that won't slip, how to build or start a fire. I could go on and on about the benefits of a good boy scout troop.
In all the time I was in boy scouts, the subject of sexuality never came up, much less homosexuality. From my perspective, the notion of taking away funding from these kids, to punish the kids and prevent them from having a life changing experience, because of the stance of some unknown board somewhere, strikes me as really bizarre, and slightly vindictive and spiteful.
Whatever your opinion of these bureaucrats somewhere, there is no need to call for withdrawing your support or withdrawing whatever funding exists, because you are only going to be hurting kids in the end and not whatever assholes you want to punish.
|
On October 09 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, Why not discuss banning men from running troops then? Because no one's brought that up for discussion and because banning gay men is a finer-grained way of banning gay male pedophiles (the theoretical concern) than banning all men (not that it's all that fine-grained).
I'm pointing out that the tangent is irrelevant to the OP about how a scout is being punished.
Show nested quote +(I don't actually have a position on whether the fear of pedophilia is a good reason for banning gay Boy Scout leaders, by the way, but I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and that censoring the conversation is a great way to validate your own opinions, but a lousy way to have an intelligent debate about something.) Why are you accusing me of censoring the discussion? I didn't ban anyone or close the thread because of what someone said. I also think molestation and the like is an important thing to discuss when designing a youth organization... and that's not what some people are doing in the thread... they are either arguing about whether or not the BSA have biblical justification for discouraging homosexuality, or trying to use absent statistics to ban certain innocent groups of people from holding volunteer positions. If you want to discuss policies like two-deep leadership then that will certainly address the concern (although once again it really isn't on the topic of denying a scout his membership/award).
|
United States24807 Posts
On October 09 2012 04:36 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, Why not discuss banning men from running troops then? Because no one's brought that up for discussion and because banning gay men is a finer-grained way of banning gay male pedophiles (the theoretical concern) than banning all men (not that it's all that fine-grained). Show nested quote + so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I'm pointing out that the tangent is irrelevant to the OP about how a scout is being punished. That's a good point (and I admit that I hadn't actually noticed it when I made some earlier posts in this thread), but not the one you were making in the comment I quoted. Show nested quote +(I don't actually have a position on whether the fear of pedophilia is a good reason for banning gay Boy Scout leaders, by the way, but I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and that censoring the conversation is a great way to validate your own opinions, but a lousy way to have an intelligent debate about something.) Why are you accusing me of censoring the discussion? I didn't ban anyone or close the thread because of what someone said. I also think molestation and the like is an important thing to discuss when designing a youth organization... and that's not what some people are doing in the thread... they are either arguing about whether or not the BSA have biblical justification for discouraging homosexuality, or trying to use absent statistics to ban certain innocent groups of people from holding volunteer positions. If you want to discuss policies like two-deep leadership then that will certainly address the concern (although once again it really isn't on the topic of denying a scout his membership/award). Well, "stop with the whole discussion" could be interpreted as an injunction, and I tend to assume an itchy finger on the ban button of TL mods. If that's not your approach to moderation, I apologize for that assumption.
I must admit that in the past it was kinda unclear when a mod was discussing or moderating. What we do now is place a public note at the top of a thread if there is a 'rule' or a thing not to discuss. Sometimes mods will say in a forum post "from this point on, stop talking about X or there will be warns/bans". While they should really put a public note along with a mention of what page# it is effective for, I would still take them seriously. However, if a mod is discussing the topic and makes no mention of moderation, then you should consider it their opinion on the matters at hand. I'll be sure to be clear if I am moderating a topic and thus want people to stop discussing X (I don't do this in topics I am discussing or invested in though personally).
|
You cannot have someone in a leadership role that could engadger the safety of the children, they should grant the title but not allow him to lead kids.
|
On October 09 2012 00:45 Capped wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 00:43 MooMu wrote:
[Christians of the board, do you really fucking think God gives a damn whether or not you like to stick your pecker in another man's ass? Do you consider all that savage shit in the OT divine and true?
Woah..as much as i agree, thats a bit rude. And theres no talking to devout religious people about these things, believe me.
Lmao that's just as ignorant as the people you're bashing! Not all "devout religious people" are narrow minded kid.
|
On October 09 2012 04:54 TheLunatic wrote:
You cannot have someone in a leadership role that could engadger the safety of the children, they should grant the title but not allow him to lead kids.
Homo doesn't mean pedo. Repeat after me, homo doesn't mean pedo. And again. And again.
|
On October 09 2012 01:50 SilverWolfe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 01:12 Zealos wrote:
Agreed, it's the worst part of democracy too. The thought that people like this vote makes me quite pessimistic for the human race. neversummer is just as human as you are. Basically you are saying you don't like democracy because people who disagree with you are granted the freedom to vote. Doesn't that seem childish to you?
Democracy is a clearly flawed system, it's just the best we've got. But thats for another thread...
|
You should all check out the Penn and Teller episode of 'bullshit" that covers the bsa. its very informative on this topic and i believe is available on youtube.
|
On October 09 2012 04:36 jdseemoreglass wrote:
I was in the Boy Scouts for years. It was really a life-changing experience in a way, you can experience nature in a way your average ipod touch carrying kid may never get to in their life. You can learn basic techniques which in the past would be considered common sense, like how to tell direction a dozen different ways, how to tie a knot that won't slip, how to build or start a fire. I could go on and on about the benefits of a good boy scout troop.
In all the time I was in boy scouts, the subject of sexuality never came up, much less homosexuality. From my perspective, the notion of taking away funding from these kids, to punish the kids and prevent them from having a life changing experience, because of the stance of some unknown board somewhere, strikes me as really bizarre, and slightly vindictive and spiteful.
Whatever your opinion of these bureaucrats somewhere, there is no need to call for withdrawing your support or withdrawing whatever funding exists, because you are only going to be hurting kids in the end and not whatever assholes you want to punish.
Is it really right to fund an organization that would expel any gay or atheist kid if they are found out, though? It's not just banning gay/atheist leaders, but any and all members, kids included. Is that really the kind of organization you wish to support? And should they get the amount of government support they do get?
And who's being vindictive here, the BSA or the people calling out the BSA?
|
This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids.
On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion.
I don't even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are...
When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
|
On October 09 2012 04:54 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 04:36 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:34 micronesia wrote:On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, Why not discuss banning men from running troops then? Because no one's brought that up for discussion and because banning gay men is a finer-grained way of banning gay male pedophiles (the theoretical concern) than banning all men (not that it's all that fine-grained). so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I'm pointing out that the tangent is irrelevant to the OP about how a scout is being punished. That's a good point (and I admit that I hadn't actually noticed it when I made some earlier posts in this thread), but not the one you were making in the comment I quoted. (I don't actually have a position on whether the fear of pedophilia is a good reason for banning gay Boy Scout leaders, by the way, but I think that it's a legitimate subject of discussion and that censoring the conversation is a great way to validate your own opinions, but a lousy way to have an intelligent debate about something.) Why are you accusing me of censoring the discussion? I didn't ban anyone or close the thread because of what someone said. I also think molestation and the like is an important thing to discuss when designing a youth organization... and that's not what some people are doing in the thread... they are either arguing about whether or not the BSA have biblical justification for discouraging homosexuality, or trying to use absent statistics to ban certain innocent groups of people from holding volunteer positions. If you want to discuss policies like two-deep leadership then that will certainly address the concern (although once again it really isn't on the topic of denying a scout his membership/award). Well, "stop with the whole discussion" could be interpreted as an injunction, and I tend to assume an itchy finger on the ban button of TL mods. If that's not your approach to moderation, I apologize for that assumption. I must admit that in the past it was kinda unclear when a mod was discussing or moderating. What we do now is place a public note at the top of a thread if there is a 'rule' or a thing not to discuss. Sometimes mods will say in a forum post "from this point on, stop talking about X or there will be warns/bans". While they should really put a public note along with a mention of what page# it is effective for, I would still take them seriously. However, if a mod is discussing the topic and makes no mention of moderation, then you should consider it their opinion on the matters at hand. I'll be sure to be clear if I am moderating a topic and thus want people to stop discussing X (I don't do this in topics I am discussing or invested in though personally).
I will keep this in mind when you are moderating a thread, but we must also keep in mind that not all mods are so reasonable, clear, or consistent. When you say "in the past" I'm not sure how far back you are going... Anyway, some will aggressively moderate opinions without warning, and it has a kind of chilling effect on posting in my opinion, I myself have stifled my honest opinion in discussions, because half the time I have no idea if an opinion is acceptable or not, since it depends largely on the mod or mood or whatever.
|
Since 100% of reported rape cases are committed by humans, the only logical conclusion is to ban humans from BSA in its entirety. As replacement I suggest gender-changing frogs, as their sexual amorphism will ensure an environment free of discrimination and bigotry.
Furthermore, humans should just be banned from sexual intercourse period, since for not apparent fucking reason we make it an utterly disproportionate concern when evaluating the suitability of an individual for any number of tasks or positions. And since humans evidently can't keep their minds off of what other people are doing in their bedrooms, whether if effects them or not, we are clearly not mature or intelligent enough to handle the intricate complexities of sexual reproduction just yet.
|
As an Eagle Scout, I'm wondering if I should still feel that it's an accomplishment I should be proud of. My troop had absolutely no religious connotations to it and was just a bunch of guys that went hiking and skiing and learned useful skills. But the national organization seems to be doing their best to make the whole thing seem like a bunch of religious bigots.
|
On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote:This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids. Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I don't even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are... When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists...
I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
|
On October 09 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote:This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids. On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I don't even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are... When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists... I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women.
It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
|
On October 09 2012 06:39 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote:This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids. On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I don't even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are... When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists... I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women. It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion.
A straight man is more likely to be a straight pedophile, and a gay man is more likely to be a gay pedophile. Again, I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward correlation. This is not to imply that either straight men nor gay men are inherently pedophiles by virtue of their sexual orientation.
|
It's a Christian organization... should we force churches to marry homosexuals where homosexual marriage is legal? I think that's stupid. It's explicitly based on Christian morals.
Although I'd say at the same time it's a stupid fucking cop out. I highly doubt they'd deny membership to someone who partakes in premarital sex, but who knows. I think the anti-homosexual view by them is utterly stupid, but I think they should have the right to have it.
|
On October 09 2012 06:43 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On October 09 2012 06:39 Klondikebar wrote:On October 09 2012 06:23 jdseemoreglass wrote:On October 09 2012 05:56 Epishade wrote:This thread sure brings out the stupidity of some people, arguing that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles... We should just ban all catholic clergymen from becoming leaders as well. Lord knows they love molestin' kids. On October 09 2012 03:15 qrs wrote:On October 09 2012 03:08 micronesia wrote:
There are female leaders in the BSA, and the majority of females are heterosexual, so just stop with the whole discussion on whether or not gay male leaders are more likely to molest scouts. And most rapes are committed by males, so stop trying to impose your own views on the discussion. I don't even know how to respond to this. What a ridiculous comment. "Most rapes are committed by males" implies that we should not allow any male leaders in BSA because they are more likely to rape the kids than female leaders are... When did people start thinking that the actions of 1 or 2 people started characterizing the whole group of people that they were a part of? It's like saying Islam is a violent religion because of all the Muslim terrorists... I think you are extrapolating too much here. People are pointing out a very basic correlation. To put it another way, who is more likely to rape a woman, a straight man or a gay man? To ask this question is not to assume that all straight men are rapists, nor that all men are rapists. It's only to acknowledge the obvious fact that statistically you will have more rapes of women by straight males than by gay males or straight women or gay women. It is absolutely not a "very basic correlation." The very obvious implication of that statement is that gay men are more likely to rape young boys. It is false and idiotic. Pedophiles are more likely to rape young boys. Gay men are not pedophiles. If that silly association between homosexuality and pedophilia is still stuck in your mind you have absolutely nothing to contribute to this discussion. A straight man is more likely to be a straight pedophile, and a gay man is more likely to be a gay pedophile. Again, I think this is fairly obvious and straight forward correlation. This is not to imply that either straight men nor gay men are inherently pedophiles by virtue of their sexual orientation.
We may have conflicting sources but my understanding is that pedophilia has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Pedophiles are just as likely to rape girls as boys regardless of their orientation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
