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.
Or they could find a less hateful organization to join to find a life changing experience.
On October 09 2012 06:13 jdseemoreglass wrote: 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.
You can always check the ABL topic in the closed forum to see who banned for what. Micronesia is engaging in this topic as a regular poster and, as far as I know, hasn't banned anyone in it. Likewise I came into this topic as a banling and saw someone with a long history of awful posting imply that those fairies are out to molest children and handed out a ban. TL staff are generally unpaid community members but where the roles may overlap I believe we have a good track record of maintaining a responsible distinction of roles. If you would like to discuss this further then take it to website feedback.
On October 09 2012 06:45 FabledIntegral wrote: 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.
Then why is it okay for them to get official government support?
On October 09 2012 06:45 FabledIntegral wrote: 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.
Then why is it okay for them to get official government support?
Yeah I'm retarded *whoops*. I even knew they did, I just needed a refresher.
Hello! I am a First Class scout (practically a star just need to do a board of review) and i am appalled how the BSA has continued to act negatively to the gay community in not allowing gay eagle scouts. While i am straight, i am a firm believer of gay rights. Being an eagle scout is incredibly hard (in fact only around 3% of boy scouts achieve it) and not being recognized for this achievement is incredibly disappointing. Even though he is turning 18 on Monday, i hope that the BSA still awards him for his accomplishments. 2 things that people often get confused is that when they think of boy scouts they think of 7 and 9 year olds while boy scouts is 10-18. (or grade level Below boy scouts is cub scouts. The BSA thinks that if they do not allow gays in their troops, child abuse/molestation will go down. While this may seem like a good idea to some, it is practically the same as banning middle eastern people from entering the United States to decrease the likelihood of terrorist attacks. Another view is that gays are some how "abominations of god" or something or another when that is simply not the case. I hope that the BSA changes these acts of bigotry and welcomes gays in Boy Scouts by not only giving this scout his eagle, but by also welcoming other gays in troops. In addition, the BSA tried to justify their acts by also saying that the scout did not believe in god. While boy scouts are firm believers in their "Duty to God" and such, believing in a higher being and believing in god are the exact same thing[b][/b] If the BSA only allowed Christians, what culture diversity would there be? Where would the freedom of religion have gone? I believe if any changes are to come to the BSA, they must first happen in states i.e. gay rights. Once Amurrica (ahem America) has allowed more gay rights i think the BSA will be put in a very precarious position and be semi forced to allow gays in boy scouts. GL HF BSA! hopefully we will get a gg soon.
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.
Klondikebar has it nailed on the bar. The majority of pedophiles have victims of both sexes regardless of their sexual orientation. However, we shouldn't even be using the term pedophile to discuss the issue here. Pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children, often those under 11 (as this is when puberty overwhelmingly begins); an age group that is barely within the confines of the BSA (roughly 11-18, around 5th/6th grade). If you want to talk about pedophilia and high profile cases, just look at the John Geoghan and the Boston archdiocese. If people actually want to be correct with their terminology, then what we should be discussing are child molesters. Pedophilia is when a person has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children whereas a child molester is not driven by intense sexual urges. In fact, many pedophiles STOP sexually abusing a child once he or she hits puberty..See Sandusky for instance. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and neither are all pedophiles child molesters.
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.
Klondikebar has it nailed on the bar. The majority of pedophiles have victims of both sexes regardless of their sexual orientation. However, we shouldn't even be using the term pedophile to discuss the issue here. Pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children, often those under 11 (as this is when puberty overwhelmingly begins); an age group that is barely within the confines of the BSA (roughly 11-18, around 5th/6th grade). If you want to talk about pedophilia and high profile cases, just look at the John Geoghan and the Boston archdiocese. If people actually want to be correct with their terminology, then what we should be discussing are child molesters. Pedophilia is when a person has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children whereas a child molester is not driven by intense sexual urges. In fact, many pedophiles STOP sexually abusing a child once he or she hits puberty..See Sandusky for instance. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and neither are all pedophiles child molesters.
I understand all of this. I've given up trying to explain this distinction to people and simply use the term pedophile out of laziness. In either case the suggestion that these individuals have absolutely no sexual preference strikes me as rather absurd.
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.
Or they could find a less hateful organization to join to find a life changing experience.
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.
Klondikebar has it nailed on the bar. The majority of pedophiles have victims of both sexes regardless of their sexual orientation. However, we shouldn't even be using the term pedophile to discuss the issue here. Pedophiles are interested in pre-pubescent children, often those under 11 (as this is when puberty overwhelmingly begins); an age group that is barely within the confines of the BSA (roughly 11-18, around 5th/6th grade). If you want to talk about pedophilia and high profile cases, just look at the John Geoghan and the Boston archdiocese. If people actually want to be correct with their terminology, then what we should be discussing are child molesters. Pedophilia is when a person has a conscious sexual interest in prepubertal children whereas a child molester is not driven by intense sexual urges. In fact, many pedophiles STOP sexually abusing a child once he or she hits puberty..See Sandusky for instance. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and neither are all pedophiles child molesters.
I understand all of this. I've given up trying to explain this distinction to people and simply use the term pedophile out of laziness. In either case the suggestion that these individuals have absolutely no sexual preference strikes me as rather absurd.
It's not that they absolutely do not have any sexual preference. Like with anything, there are typologies of the pedophile and child molester. The two most widely used are the FBI typology and the MTC:CM3 that attempts to classify offenders on a few different levels. The MTC:CM3 is more commonly used, moreso by researchers, and finds that the majority of those in the high fixation-low social competence preferred males (of these, the majority have been victimized themselves by a male as a child and it is believed that this is a highly important causal factor. For others, it may be biological or some other event may have happened and there was a connection made between the sexuality of children). The reason why they do not prefer a gender is mostly due to their failure of either finding or developing an age appropriate partner. As such, when looking for children to victimize, they often choose whoever is available to them based upon a variety of factors through the grooming process.
On October 09 2012 00:47 neversummer wrote: Secondly I applaud them for maintaining their position in the midst of criticism from the community.
I second this. I believe that individuals (which includes organizations of individuals) should be free to make their own choices.
Isn't the BSA still partially funded by the government?
Are they? I'm no expert, but Wikipedia says "The National Council [of the BSA] is incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is funded from private donations, membership dues, corporate sponsors, and special events".
As far as I can tell from what I've just read (bear in mind, some of it comes from such dubious sources as Fox news and wikipedia :p ), it doesn't specifically get funding, but it does have some unique benefits. Basically, they're allowed access to and use of government facilities, military training areas and suchlike, essentially for free. This blurs the line between private and public somewhat in my opinion.
If that's true, I don't see how the government can justify giving the boy scouts these benefits if they don't also provide them to other organizations like camp quest. Does anybody know if they do?
The reason this is so startling is that so many people have bought into the conservative narrative that even though the rules we encounter in life are not equal in regards to sexuality, the actual practice is. Sure the BSA can string you along for years and then deny you the reward for your hard work based on sexuality but it does not happen. Sure in 36 states you can be fired from your job at any time for no other reason than sexuality but it doesnt happen. Well welcome to reality.
This is why, even if you personally do not see the effects, it is important to change the rules to reflect the evolving moral standard and the gay movement is very far from this (I doubt I will see this in my lifetime). The civil rights act forced troop integration across racial lines in opposition to the "core moral values" many leaders of the day had and we need a similar policy today.
Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts.
On October 09 2012 08:39 KookyMonster wrote: Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts.
So if the grassroots is so against it, how can the leadership get away with such policy?
And that doesn't change the reality that it takes one person that doesn't overly like you to find out you are gay and/or atheist to get you kicked out of the boy scouts in the United States. If the scouts are so accepting, how can that be? And what is the grassroots concretely doing to change that?
The fact that not every member of the BSA is homophobic and anti-atheist doesn't mean that the organization as a whole isn't. It clearly is.
On October 09 2012 08:39 KookyMonster wrote: Leadership is not always a reflection of the grassroots level of the organization. The BSA have done some really wonderful things for society, so don't let this one incident ruin their reputation forever. I understand the anger felt (as I felt it too), but we have to keep it in mind that the issue is with the leaders at the national level, probably not your local boy scouts.
This isn't just one incident, this has been going on for years.
The worst part is his last project before he was to become an eagle scout was a "tolerance wall". Seriously, fuck them. On another note, is the petition site linked in the site the OP linked a reputable site? I want to sign the petition, but when they ask for my name, address, zip code and other stuff I get kinda nervous.
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.
Well:just for the sake of argument. Gay man are more likely to rape young boys then straight man are. It would be difficult to argue otherwise,straight man would rape young girls maybe, but not boys. Both the changes are extremely slim off course, and the change that a straight man rapes a young girl is probably bigger then the change a gay man rapes a young boy but the correlation mentioned is indeed a verry basic correlation Its also verry irrelevant, both changes as extremely small. People who are against gay scouts should realy look for better arguments , as this one is just appaling.
I am not sure how much people here know about the history of boy scouting and the person who founded the scouts, Baden powel. Its quiet interesting and this is not the first controversy regarding scouting,its ideological backgrounds are somewhat obscure to say the least, and could be a reason to not wanting to be part of scouting at all. Modern scouting has evolved away from its ideological roots (luckily i might add) and it now is an awesome experience for manny young people, some of the ideological roots are still there though. Maybe this is why the top of the scouting seems to be alot more conservative then the normal members. Its sad though that young people cant have an organisation for themselves free from this ideolocal weight they have to carry with it, I am sure noone is waiting for that but it just comes with the package.
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.
Well:just for the sake of argument. Gay man are more likely to rape young boys then straight man are. It would be difficult to argue otherwise,straight man would rape young girls maybe, but not boys. Both the changes are extremely slim off course, and the change that a straight man rapes a young girl is probably bigger then the change a gay man rapes a young boy but the correlation mentioned is indeed a verry basic correlation Its also verry irrelevant, both changes as extremely small. People who are against gay scouts should realy look for better arguments , as this one is just appaling.
I am not sure how much people here know about the history of boy scouting and the person who founded the scouts, Baden powel. Its quiet interesting and this is not the first controversy regarding scouting,its ideological backgrounds are somewhat obscure to say the least, and could be a reason to not wanting to be part of scouting at all. Modern scouting has evolved away from its ideological roots (luckily i might add) and it now is an awesome experience for manny young people, some of the idelogical roots are still there though. Maybe this is why the top of the scouting seems to be alot more conservative then the normal members. Its sad though that young people cant have an organisation for themselves free from this ideolocal weight they have to carry with it, I am sure noone is waiting for that but it just comes with the package.
People who are against gay scouts should realy look for better arguments , as this one is just appaling.
I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
On October 09 2012 10:35 GhostTK wrote: I'm against gays. I don't believe you are born with a sexual orientation. it is a learned behavior. Im not a homophobe by any means. I have a gay friend and several gay girl friends. I just don't think it is right. i think there is a reason there is man and woman. you don't see gays in animals. maybe occasional but if animals were gay they would all go extinct. theres a reason gays cant' reproduce. it wasn't intended. Therefore it is wrong.
Homosexual tendencies have been observed in nature. Species don't go extinct because while some specimens may have same sex attraction it's never something that "spreed" to the entire specie.
There is a reason there is a "man" and a "woman". It's because the species needs people to reproduce. It, however, does not need every member of the specie to reproduce.
Yes, gays can't reproduce. Because they aren't having reproductive sex.
Humans living in homes, driving cars, eating processed food, using the Internet or playing StarCraft aren't "intended". So you think those things are wrong, too?
EPT
