Petition to the BSA

[PeterVenkman]

A scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

[MarginOfError]

Is there a petition one may sign in support of the BSA's decision? After all, the Boy Scout oath specifies that Scouts should be "morally straight," and if one cannot abide by this oath, one has no business in the organization. This is especially true for the leaders, and more especially if it is the case that homosexuals are responsible for a disproportionately high number of child sexual abuse cases.

I already posted a link here

The direct link is Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

It provides a pretty thorough thrashing of the FRC article. It even includes a letter from one of the authors cited by the FRC. In the letter, the author states that the FRC has contorted his results and conclusion beyond recognition and he objects to being used in support of their conclusions.

In my line of work, we call things like the FRC article a steaming pile of crap.

[Soulsearcher]

As I said, "if." If you happen to know of any specific error in the link, please feel free to demonstrate it - otherwise, as they say, talk is cheap, and mocking laughter cheaper still.

Family Research Council | Southern Poverty Law Center

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked | Southern Poverty Law Center

Sexual orientation, homosexuality and bisexuality

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Playing the Pedophilia Card

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

we'll start with these

and it wasn't mocking laughter, just me laughing at the futility of the gay guy trying to combat the link

[log2]

Actually, I am laughing at your links. The definitional legerdemain and tortured reasoning is really quite entertaining.

For example, shall we debate whether same-sex behavior, between participants of whatever age they happen to be, is, by definition, homosexual behavior?

Shall we debate further whether pederasty is, or should be, classed as a form of child sexual abuse?

Shall we debate whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, given the fact that homosexuals, per se, suffer more mental problems than heterosexuals, including depression and suicide, even in the most homophiliac of countries (Netherlands, New Zealand)?

The list goes on.

Also, just FYI - SPLC has negative credibility with me. I'm inclined to believe something is true just by virtue of the SPLC claiming it's false.

Edited May 2, 2012 by log2

[Soulsearcher]

Actually, I am laughing at your links. The definitional legerdemain and tortured reasoning is really quite entertaining.

For example, shall we debate whether same-sex behavior, between participants of whatever age they happen to be, is, by definition, homosexual behavior?

Shall we debate further whether pederasty is, or should be, classed as a form of child sexual abuse?

The list goes on.

Also, just FYI - SPLC has negative credibility with me. I'm inclined to believe something is true just by virtue of the SPLC claiming it's false.

actually if you do read the links fully they explain that there is a difference between acts between same sex and actual homosexuality as well as the fact that while they might commit abuse with the same sex they identify as heterosexual and usually are involved in heterosexual relationships. Most homosexuals aren't involved in heterosexual relationships so there would be a clear difference there. Also it was said in one of them that they will also abuse kids of both genders so again, not so much a homosexual committing the crime. I know it seems like petty bickering but it is a much larger difference. Also being reading Stats is kinda what MOE does for a living i might take him at his word a bit more.

[Soulsearcher]

Shall we debate whether homosexuality is a mental disorder, given the fact that homosexuals, per se, suffer more mental problems than heterosexuals, including depression and suicide, even in the most homophiliac of countries (Netherlands, New Zealand)?

I can address some of that. No matter what a country's reputation may be it doesn't depend on the country, it depends on each individuals support system. I mean look at california, supposedly one of the bastions of gay life in the US and yet look at prop 8. There can be a large amount of support but that doesn't mean that's all an individual might get, and it also doesn't mean they've had support from day 1. The first few years(if they make it that long) as they start to figure things out tends to set the tone, so if parents or family or friends react badly from the start, it doesn't matter how much support they find in their fellow country men, they've already started feel a negative impact. I mean aside from no one of any real impact agreeing with you, not even church leaders from what i can see in any current statement, there's no real support for your stance aside from personal view.

[log2]

actually if you do read the links fully they explain that there is a difference between acts between same sex and actual homosexuality as well as the fact that while they might commit abuse with the same sex they identify as heterosexual and usually are involved in heterosexual relationships.

That is an issue of definitions. For example, same-sex sexual relations are, by definition, homosexual sexual relations. Homo = same, sexual = sex, hence, homosexual = same-sex.

One who engages in homosexual behavior - possibly including, and possibly not, the behavior of self-identification as homosexual - is, at a minimum, bisexual, and at a maximum homosexual. Actions speak louder than words, you see.

And I would support the BSA in excluding any of them if it is indeed the case that they are a disproportionately higher risk towards the children and teens which make up the Scouting population. I would also support the BSA in excluding them from the organization based upon their failure to uphold the Scout Oath.

Also being reading Stats is kinda what MOE does for a living i might take him at his word a bit more.

I take no man at his word for anything until and unless he shows, and not just claims, that he hasn't got a stake in the outcome of the argument. Since the stats and their interpretation also rise or fall on tendentious definitional games, I'm disinclined to pursue the never-ending debate on who's experts trounce whose.

I mean aside from no one of any real impact agreeing with you, not even church leaders from what i can see in any current statement, there's no real support for your stance aside from personal view.

The stats support my view that even in the most homophiliac of nations - the Netherlands, and New Zealand - homosexuals per se suffer more mental illness than heterosexuals. I don't need you to agree with me, neither do I require Church leaders to agree with me. It's like gravity: an observational reality.

Edited May 2, 2012 by log2

[Soulsearcher]

The stats support my view that even in the most homophiliac of nations - the Netherlands, and New Zealand - homosexuals per se suffer more mental illness than heterosexuals. I don't need you to agree with me, neither do I require Church leaders to agree with me. It's like gravity: an observational reality.

Except your stats don't prove it it's self is a disorder. the stats show that they are more likely to suffer these things but you don't have any direct link to causation. Utah has one of the highest rate of anti depressant usage, so can i say it's due to the Church and it's high concentration in utah? As i said just because a larger population accept homosexuality in no way says what each individual goes through. i could be in the most accepting place ever, but if I'm only surrounded by the phelps clan most of the time I'm not going to feel all that accepted.Now to support your claims you'd have to prove that in these countries the majority of individuals had no other reason than being gay to have the issues they are having, otherwise you are making a guess that the only reason they have the issues they do is only because they are gay.

[Soulsearcher]

I take no man at his word for anything until and unless he shows, and not just claims, that he hasn't got a stake in the outcome of the argument. Since the stats and their interpretation also rise or fall on tendentious definitional games, I'm disinclined to pursue the never-ending debate on who's experts trounce whose.

Well then you can't quote the FRC because they have a very clear stake in making the claims they do. They have a political agenda. The reason i said to possibly take a moment to listen to MOE is he's LDS, shares many if not all of your views, but also makes a living understanding statistics and how they are to be properly applied. He knows the tricks and faults and how to sort those who are just playing games vs serious studies.

[log2]

the stats show that they are more likely to suffer these things but you don't have any direct link to causation.

What changed, one wonders, that the APA decided that homosexuality was no longer itself a disorder - reality did not change that day, did it? Was that action perhaps a political one, rather than a scientific one?

In any event, here's the fun bit - you're addressing a claim I never made.

[log2]

Well then you can't quote the FRC because they have a very clear stake in making the claims they do.

Interesting. If I don't take someone at their word for anything unless they have first demonstrated they have no stake in the matter, you say I cannot cite them at all.

That, you see, is a classic non-sequitur.

The reason i said to possibly take a moment to listen to MOE is he's LDS, shares many if not all of your views, but also makes a living understanding statistics and how they are to be properly applied. He knows the tricks and faults and how to sort those who are just playing games vs serious studies.

And yet, he cited the same definition-torturing site as you, which rather discredits him in my view as a reliable source for truth, whatever his claimed religious affiliation is.

[Soulsearcher]

What changed, one wonders, that the APA decided that homosexuality was no longer itself a disorder - reality did not change that day, did it? Was that action perhaps a political one, rather than a scientific one?

In any event, here's the fun bit - you're addressing a claim I never made.

lol you did suggest the debate on it.

One can guess if it was scientific or political, but again, being there's such a low rate at "curing it" and members from many of the groups who support curing have come out against it, more and more it looks like scientific as much as many want to believe it was political. also if we look at the number of medical realities that have changed over time one can only wonder if this was yet another one in a long line.

[Wingnut]

I take no man at his word for anything until and unless he shows, and not just claims, that he hasn't got a stake in the outcome of the argument. Since the stats and their interpretation also rise or fall on tendentious definitional games, I'm disinclined to pursue the never-ending debate on who's experts trounce whose.

So basically, if you don't like it, you don't have to acknowledge it. That's about what this sounds like...a temper tantrum.

What changed, one wonders, that the APA decided that homosexuality was no longer itself a disorder - reality did not change that day, did it?

Reality? What do you mean by that? Whose idea was it in the first place for the APA to declare homosexuality a disorder? Whose to say that decision wasn't wrong to being with?

Talk about a non sequitur. Sheesh.

[Soulsearcher]

Wing sorry to go off topic but i just finished watching the series again and thought of you at some of the more classic moments. so glad to have you back, we needed another wingnut here.

[log2]

So basically, if you don't like it, you don't have to acknowledge it. That's about what this sounds like...a temper tantrum.

LOL! I don't find it pleasurable combing through a tendentious morass of tortured definitions made to fit a polemical bed of Procrustes to justify a game of statistical fallacies. It takes far more time and effort to correct that crap than it did to write it in the first place. Frankly, I find other pursuits more pleasurable.

And I find your condescension rather entertaining.

Talk about a non sequitur. Sheesh.

You seem to like using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[carlimac]

Log2 I recommend some reading on the NARTH web site. Very enlightening. Members of the APA have come out and admitted that the decision was political. (Brace yourself for Soul and others to bash this organization. Here it comes...)

[MarginOfError]

Well, it's good to know, log2, that anyone who has differing viewpoints than yourself is clearly biased and torturing the data and the definitions. Thanks, also, for questioning my professional credibility.

I guess this means I'll be adopting your line of logic.

1) the majority of men who abuse boys claim to be heterosexual

2) men who abuse boys are obviously homosexual

3) Therefore, if we deny positions of leadership to self-claimed homosexuals, our children will be more safe

Nope--no flaws there.

[MarginOfError]

Log2 I recommend some reading on the NARTH web site. Very enlightening. Members of the APA have come out and admitted that the decision was political. (Brace yourself for Soul and others to bash this organization. Here it comes...)

That a handful of members of the APA feel that it was a political move (as opposed to evidence-based) does not automatically establish an error. If you're going to read NARTH's claims, be sure to also read the criticisms against them.

[Soulsearcher]

That a handful of members of the APA feel that it was a political move (as opposed to evidence-based) does not automatically establish an error. If you're going to read NARTH's claims, be sure to also read the criticisms against them.

criticisms against NARTH? There's no such thing MOE. We all know they are the most unbiased source with no debunked facts. they haven't had any defectors or scandals or had scientists request they stop misusing their work at all. Shame Moe for suggesting there be criticisms against such a fine upstanding unbiased source!!!

[Guest]

Hey, hey, hey...

This is the BSA thread... the "It Gets Better" thread is probably the better thread to discuss the effects of homosexuality on the society.

This thread is supposed to be just that BSA do not consider active homosexual lifestyle "morally straight" so they don't allow scout leaders who are actively engaged in homosexual sex.

And c'mon, please. BSA has never, ever, ever said "we don't consider homosexual sex morally straight because lots of homosexuals are child abusers". C'mon. That has no place in this thread. It's just stupid and silly. There are just as many heterosexual child abusers on this planet yet the BSA still continue to employ leaders who are actively engaged in heterosexual sex.

Oh, and by the way, LDS are non-Christians too. It really gets tiresome having to defend these claims that are just... I don't know... based on people who refuse to see the forest for the trees.

Fact: There is no reason to paint homosexuals as evil people to justify God's law that homosexual sex is against the Law of Chastity. NONE. Just like there is no reason to bend over backwards to debate the effects of caffeine to justify God's law to abstain from coffee.

Edited May 2, 2012 by anatess

[Wingnut]

You seem to like using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Okay, well, I don't actually like to use that phrase. I believe that may be the first time I've used the phrase on this board in the 3.5 years since I joined. I to double check that I knew what I was talking about, I actually visited the link you so condescendingly provided for me prior to posting. And I do believe that I used it correctly. That you don't like being called out is not my problem.

Oh, and by the way, LDS are non-Christians too.

Huh?

[Guest]

Huh?

I was trying to juxtapose how it gets so tiresome to defend a position against mis-information.

[carlimac]

criticisms against NARTH? There's no such thing MOE. We all know they are the most unbiased source with no debunked facts. they haven't had any defectors or scandals or had scientists request they stop misusing their work at all. Shame Moe for suggesting there be criticisms against such a fine upstanding unbiased source!!!

See, it really gets under your skin.

So, one question...what would motivate any APA member to say it was a political move if it wasn't? Do you think NARTH is paying them?

[Dravin]

So, one question...what would motivate any APA member to say it was a political move if it wasn't?

Because they think it is and are mistaken? Much like a Baptist can think Mormons aren't Christians without being paid off by Ed Decker? Or any other situation where people have differing conclusions without being paid to have them?

[MarginOfError]

See, it really gets under your skin.

So, one question...what would motivate any APA member to say it was a political move if it wasn't? Do you think NARTH is paying them?

Not likely.

Their oppositions are most likely related to either

a) believing the data are insufficient to warrant the change

b) an unwillingness to change predetermined conclusions based on new data

As more data become available, the APA has made no move toward reversing their position. Evidence based based practice seems to have persuaded the majority of APA members that the decision was correct; I'm not sure why the crying of few justifies reverting.