Church to go forward with Boy Scouts

[AnnieCarvalho]

If your personal experience had not been so personally horrible you would have had no problem with your personal experience shot down by those that oppose you.  (Just like you had no problem shutting down JAG's personal experience as a Family Lawyer who deals with 100's of cases of family disintegration in favor of your personal experiences).  Just because a person's personal experience is horrible does not change how discussions go when we are trying to discuss issues.

 

I'm not sure I understand your post, but that's ok.

I'm not sure how I could have made my experience less horrible - it was what it was.

 

I don't remember shutting JAG down based on his personal experience.

I did address the fact that he was extremely rude and vicious.

 

I have pretty much said what I feel I need to say on the topic.

I feel we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[Guest]

I'm not sure I understand your post, but that's ok.

I'm not sure how I could have made my experience less horrible - it was what it was.

 

I don't remember shutting JAG down based on his personal experience.

I did address the fact that he was extremely rude and vicious.

 

I have pretty much said what I feel I need to say on the topic.

I feel we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Yjacket was the one you called out as rude and vicious.  JAG (Just A Guy), our resident Utah state family lawyer, is the one that posted in defense of the traditional family structure that you tongue-in-cheek said should be the ones we need to worry about.

 

I'm just curious... do you feel that it is not necessary to have separate Male and Female restrooms, locker rooms, tents, etc.?

[AnnieCarvalho]

Yjacket was the one you called out as rude and vicious.  JAG (Just A Guy), our resident Utah state family lawyer, is the one that posted in defense of the traditional family structure that you tongue-in-cheek said should be the ones we need to worry about.

 

I'm just curious... do you feel that it is not necessary to have separate Male and Female restrooms, locker rooms, tents, etc.?

 

I said that?

 I guess I'm confused about who said what.

I'll go back and read the thread again.

 

Re: your question, I prefer separate restrooms, locker rooms, tents, etc.

Not sure why you're asking.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[estradling75]

Yjacket was the one you called out as rude and vicious.  JAG (Just A Guy), our resident Utah state family lawyer, is the one that posted in defense of the traditional family structure that you tongue-in-cheek said should be the ones we need to worry about.

 

I'm just curious... do you feel that it is not necessary to have separate Male and Female restrooms, locker rooms, tents, etc.?

 

 

Indeed...  JAG (Just A Guy) not Yjacket...  And when it comes to personal opinions on what is happening in dysfunctional families I am thinking he simply has had more experience with a larger variety of them then anyone else here.  Therefore I would not dismiss his ideas so cavalierly.  I would also be very careful if I was complaining how my personal experiences where being treated, if I were to do so.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Indeed...  JAG (Just A Guy) not Yjacket...  And when it comes to personal opinions on what is happening in dysfunctional families I am thinking he simply has had more experience with a larger variety of them then anyone else here.  Therefore I would not dismiss his ideas so cavalierly.  I would also be very careful if I was complaining how my personal experiences where being treated, if I were to do so.

 

I didn't consider having a different opinion to be "shooting down" anyone.

I just disagreed.

 

I didn't tongue in cheek anything.

It was a serious question.

It was not meant to be cavalier - it was a serious question.

What is the difference between having grown gay men in charge of 17 year old boys, or grown gay women in charge of 17 year old girls? Is one ok and the other is not? And if so, why?

 

And I've already said you're right, estradling75, about not giving out personal experiences.

It's dangerous, in this company.

People don't like it.

 

My goodness, this is not a very discussion friendly environment, is it...

Feels like I'm in a chicken coop and I'm the one with a red spot between my eyes.

 

I'm not the enemy, at least I didn't think I was.

I thought I was having a discussion, not a war.

 

I know that a lot gets lost when you're posting online.

You can't see facial expressions, body language, etc.

But wow... 

I'm gobsmacked by the anger here.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[estradling75]

I didn't consider having a different opinion to be "shooting down" anyone.

I just disagreed.

 

I didn't tongue in cheek anything.

It was a serious question.

It was not meant to be cavalier - it was a serious question.

What is the difference between having grown gay men in charge of 17 year old boys, or grown gay women in charge of 17 year old girls? Is one ok and the other is not? And if so, why?

 

And I've already said you're right, estradling75, about not giving out personal experiences.

It's dangerous, in this company.

People don't like it.

 

My goodness, this is not a very discussion friendly environment, is it...

Feels like I'm in a chicken coop and I'm the one with a red spot between my eyes.

 

I'm not the enemy, at least I didn't think I was.

I thought I was having a discussion, not a war.

 

I know that a lot gets lost when you're posting online.

You can't see facial expressions, body language, etc.

But wow... 

I'm gobsmacked by the anger here.

 

If you see any anger in my posts it is because you put it there.

 

You say you want a discussion... But you don't discuss the points JAG made you dismissed it.  When people discuss why your personal experience not necessary indicative of the majority of cases you get all hurt and offended.

 

As to the main point.  Scouting is ages 12 and up in the church... Using the term pedophile seems to be a bit of a misnomer because pedophile is generally thought of someone that preys on much younger children (ok 12 is still kind of young but it is not like 3 years of age)

 

The problem is putting people who are sexual attracted/interested in conditions were they are alone (or potently alone) with people who are not children, but not yet fully adult.  Biology doesn't care about age, but it can care about appearances, and some young people can seem mature for their age. 

 

Putting a gay guy over scouts seems to be about as wise as putting a straight man over young women, and it is for exactly the same reason.

[Guest]

Annie,

 

Most of the people aren't angry with you here.  Yjacket was an exception.  That's why I called him out on it.

 

Estradling seems to be trying to help you temper your comments to help you blend in.  You are resisting it.  Wherefore?  I know not.

 

Vort... Well.  He's Vort.  He usually says things that make sense.  But he detests political correctness.  So he speaks directly.  That may seem confrontational to you.  And I won't put up much of a fight against that opinion.  But give him a chance.  Indeed, give us all a chance.

 

At the same time, the more firm you take a stance, the more you need to be prepared for opposing voices to disagree as well.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

I said that?

 I guess I'm confused about who said what.

I'll go back and read the thread again.

 

Re: your question, I prefer separate restrooms, locker rooms, tents, etc.

Not sure why you're asking.

 

Yes, you said it in your first post (the one yjacket responded to) towards the end - where you said statistically there are more incidences of pedophilia on family members, so we should not allow uncles, cousins, etc. to be alone with children.  JAG responded to that one after yjacket's post.  So yeah, just go back and re-read that section to see what I mean in better context.

 

I'm asking about the separate restrooms because the reason why you prefer separate restrooms, locker rooms, tents, etc. between genders is the exact same reason why we prefer girls not be in boy scout camps and the same reason why we prefer homosexuals not be in boys scout camps.

 

We don't prefer separate locker rooms because we think all Men (or all Women for that matter) are sexual predators.  We simply want to avoid sexual temptations.

 

Make sense?

[AnnieCarvalho]

If you see any anger in my posts it is because you put it there.

 

You say you want a discussion... But you don't discuss the points JAG made you dismissed it.  When people discuss why your personal experience not necessary indicative of the majority of cases you get all hurt and offended.

 

 

I'm sorry you are feeling angry.

It was not my intention.

 

I don't agree with your accusations, because you are telling me what I want and how I"m feeling, and you're incorrect.

Peace.

[estradling75]

I'm sorry you are feeling angry.

It was not my intention.

 

I don't agree with your accusations, because you are telling me what I want and how I"m feeling, and you're incorrect.

Peace.

 

 

Please... please.. .  I am not angry.... If you sense anger in any of my post it is because you are reading into it and assuming it belongs.  (aka you put it there when you read it)  Or in other words if you have sense any anger from any of my post it is all in your head.  Not mine. 

[AnnieCarvalho]

Yes, you said it in your first post (the one yjacket responded to) towards the end - where you said statistically there are more incidences of pedophilia on family members, so we should not allow uncles, cousins, etc. to be alone with children.  JAG responded to that one after yjacket's post.  So yeah, just go back and re-read that section to see what I mean in better context.

 

I'm asking about the separate restrooms because the reason why you prefer separate restrooms, locker rooms, tents, etc. between genders is the exact same reason why we prefer girls not be in boy scout camps and the same reason why we prefer homosexuals not be in boys scout camps.

 

We don't prefer separate locker rooms because we think all Men (or all Women for that matter) are sexual predators.  We simply want to avoid sexual temptations.

 

Make sense?

 

When you say "we" you are not including "me" - I've been a member for probably longer than you've been alive.

At least from your photo, you look young  :)

 

I know what "we" want to avoid.

 

I would like to leave the conversation between JAG and I to that: between JAG and I.

I've explained my question already - no need to do it again.

Edited November 3, 2015 by AnnieCarvalho

[AnnieCarvalho]

If you see any anger in my posts it is because you put it there.

 

You say you want a discussion... But you don't discuss the points JAG made you dismissed it.  When people discuss why your personal experience not necessary indicative of the majority of cases you get all hurt and offended.

 

Like I've said, if JAG wants to discuss it, I will. 

 

I'm not "all hurt and offended" because people are saying my experience is not indicative.

I'm "all hurt and offended" by the hatefulness of their responses.

 

As to the main point.  Scouting is ages 12 and up in the church... Using the term pedophile seems to be a bit of a misnomer because pedophile is generally thought of someone that preys on much younger children (ok 12 is still kind of young but it is not like 3 years of age)

 

Yes, I agree with the definition, though a 50 year old man going after a 14 year old girl will get him put in jail. So go figure. 

 

The problem is putting people who are sexual attracted/interested in conditions were they are alone (or potently alone) with people who are not children, but not yet fully adult.  Biology doesn't care about age, but it can care about appearances, and some young people can seem mature for their age. 

Yes, I agree 

 

 

Putting a gay guy over scouts seems to be about as wise as putting a straight man over young women, and it is for exactly the same reason.

 

Yes, I agree - but I also wonder if putting a gay woman over young women (scouts maybe?) isn't also a problem?

 

Look - I AGREE with the decision of the General Authorities.

That got my tail in a wringer here - and it's mind-blowing - but I AGREE with their decision.

 

In the end, I think the Church is more likely to start their own Scout-like club than to change an international club.

But that's just my opinion.

[Guest]

When you say "we" you are not including "me" - I've been a member for probably longer than you've been alive.

At least from your photo, you look young  :)

 

I know what "we" want to avoid.

 

I would like to leave the conversation between JAG and I to that: between JAG and I.

I've explained my question already - no need to do it again.

 

Uhm, that's not my photo. 

 

And "we" is Mankind in general.  So that includes you, unless you're Martian  .  Separate restrooms/lockers/etc. is not just a Mormon thing.  It's not even just an American thing.  I guess it would have been better if I asked you why you prefer separate restrooms/lockers/etc.

 

 

 

As far as JAG, I was just trying to help you understand what Estradling was alluding to.  I'm not putting myself in-between your discussion.

[estradling75]

Yes, I agree - but I also wonder if putting a gay woman over young women (scouts maybe?) isn't also a problem?

 

 

Look - I AGREE with the decision of the General Authorities.

That got my tail in a wringer here - and it's mind-blowing - but I AGREE with their decision.

 

In the end, I think the Church is more likely to start their own Scout-like club than to change an international club.

But that's just my opinion.

 

In theory it would seem both genders would need the same restriction/safety net.

 

To have a difference you would need to show that one gender was more likely to be a sexual predator then another.  (Which I think the numbers do back up)

 

Ideally both genders should be treated the same, but if you have limited resources then you have to make a hard call and try to protect as many as you can.  Which is why I expect that it fall more heavy on males then females.

 

This is why the point JAG made was so important.  For sexual abuse in the home, we have limited resources to tackle that (just like we have limited resources to tackle any problem) so if we want to make the most impact we need to focus on what the numbers say is the biggest indicator.  Apparently the odds are greater for sexual abuse of children in the home when there are non biologically related males in the same house.  Therefore that would seem like a good place to start.

 

Of course this doesn't mean that biologically related males never sexually abuse kids or that female are never sexual predators... which is why it is a hard call.

[Just_A_Guy]

Like I've said, if JAG wants to discuss it, I will. 

 

Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth all the brouhaha it's generated; and it's something of a tangent to the greater issue in this thread.  My point was simply that (with all due respect to your own, truly unfortunate experience; and I hope I don't come off as unduly dismissive of that), biological fathers/brothers are not the primary threat to little girls, statistically speaking.  It's their stepfathers/step-brothers who are the primary threat, and the fact that these stepfathers/step-brothers are in the home at all is directly attributable to the rise in unwed parenthood and divorce--in other words, the sexual revolution and the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family.

 

It's a pet peeve of mine when progressives take a problem that, in large part, they themselves have created (or, in this case, exacerbated), and use the existence of that problem to justify the adoption of additional social policies of dubious efficacy; and that sort of seemed to be what you were doing--"well, a teenager isn't safe in his/her own home anyways, so why not send him/her off on an overnight campout with adults who are sexually attracted to him/her? 

 

And, again--I'm not saying that blended families are the milieu in which all sexual abuse of children occurs--but they sure as heck don't help.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[AnnieCarvalho]

Honestly, I'm not sure it's worth all the brouhaha it's generated; and it's something of a tangent to the greater issue in this thread. 

 

Brother, we agree on this point!

 

My point was simply that (your own, truly unfortunate experience aside), biological fathers/brothers are not the primary threat to little girls, statistically speaking.  It's their step-fathers/brothers who are the primary threat, and the fact that these stepfathers/brothers are in the home at all is directly attributable to the rise in unwed parenthood and divorce--in other words, the sexual revolution and the breakdown of the traditional nuclear family.  I think I agree here about stepfathers/brothers statistically, though I'm not sure of your definition of "the sexual revolution" as I saw (and had) problems long before the 60's (assuming those are the years you are referring to). 

 

It's a pet peeve of mine when progressives take a problem that, in large part, they themselves have created (or, in this case, exacerbated), and use the existence of that problem to justify the adoption of additional social policies of dubious efficacy; and that sort of seemed to be what you were doing--"well, a teenager isn't safe in his/her own home, so why not send him/her off on an overnight campout with adults who are sexually attracted to him/her?  That would irritate me too. Are they doing that?

 

And, again--I'm not saying that blended families are the milieu in which all sexual abuse of children occurs--but they sure as heck don't help.

Agreed, though in my case it was biological father. However, he did NOT live at home - my mother had divorced him when I was a baby.

[Vort]

Yes, I agree, a family member or someone close to the family.

 

i disagree that childhood sexual abuse is fallout from the sexual revolution.

It's been pretty well documented since long before that.

 

Annie, we all know that all these perversions have been around as long as mankind itself has existed. The point is not that the so-called Sexual Revolution caused these perversions. The point is that it made them much more common, by fragmenting the family, making unmarried parenthood a common reality, making divorced and "blended" families typical rather than atypical. If, as JAG has suggested, such "step" relations are more commonly the abusers, then increasing the number of such families inevitably increases that type of abuse.

 

If Agent X increases the prevalence of a certain disease that causes acne, then it is a fair statement that the increased use of Agent X is very likley to increase how much acne people have. That doesn't mean that Agent X invented acne, or even that Agent X itself necessarily causes acne. It's a simple recognition that one of the fallouts of using Agent X is that people will have more acne. Similarly, part of the fallout of the so-called "Sexual Revolution"  is the splintering of families and the concomitant rise in various forms of sexual abuse and perversion.

[Vort]

I would like to leave the conversation between JAG and I to that: between JAG and I.

 

Um...that is not the nature of a discussion list, Annie. If you want to have a private conversation with JAG, then you can boardmail him. If you post it in a public thread, then it's a public discussion.

[AnnieCarvalho]

Um...that is not the nature of a discussion list, Annie. If you want to have a private conversation with JAG, then you can boardmail him. If you post it in a public thread, then it's a public discussion.

 

We've discussed.

I'm done.

[yjacket]

"I am 63 years old. My father sexually abused me all of my childhood, until I was of an age to make him stop. Your comment is insulting, rude, and out of line. And if you ask a lot of sexually abused people, the rest of their life is defined by the years of abuse. So yes, he continues to abuse me in ways I cannot control. For instance the PTST that is the result."

 

Alright, let's try this again. This comment right here is what is really frustrating about modern society.  Regardless of what you claim "he continues to abuse me" that is absolute utter complete balderdash. Modern society is all about the "victim" instead of actually taking control of your life and using the cleaning power of the Atonement you are stuck in a mentality that "he continues to abuse you" when you are in fact 63 years old-the abuse happened more than 40+ years ago!!

 

And before you go ranting and raving that I'm so insensitive, my wife was emotionally abused by a mother who had been sexually abused by her father-so I think I know just a little bit about this. And yes, absolutely the sin of the father has been felt for 3 generations!! Why? Because the mother who was abused transmitted some of that abuse and upbringing to her children which in turn transmitted it to my children.

 

It is only after much recognition on my wife's part and her absolute desire to change herself-to understand that her upbringing was not her fault but that she has the power to change who she is through God's grace and to wipe away the pain and suffering that she went through that the vast majority of the effects of her hellish upbringing subsided. It was only after she began to realize that she is the master of her fate, the captain of her ship that no one else but her has the power to make her happy or sad that she is the responsible character for her life, regardless of the crap that has happened to her-it was only then that she became happy. It was when she stopped being a victim that things changed.

 

You are obviously still feeling the effects and treat yourself as a victim and have not fully resolved what happened to you as a child.  If you think that mentality had no effect on your children's life, then you are fooling yourself. 

 

I knew from the time it mattered. I didn't say from the time he was born. Did you know you were heterosexual the moment you were born? You are again being rude and obnoxious.

 

You made the claim he was born with it, yet the fact remain as you just proved that sexuality is not determined at birth. A child at birth has no concept of sexuality. It isn't being rude or obnoxious-it's just something you don't like to hear. It isn't until about the age of puberty that sexuality becomes an issue. 

 

So are you saying parents are at fault for having gay children?

 

Nope not at all.  The only person's who's fault is the individual. It's called being responsible and taking responsibility for your actions and feelings. Having said that experiences will shape how we feel and how we respond-but that is what separates man from beast-the ability to have experiences, feelings, etc. and then to take an active role in using them to shape who we want to become.

 

What a rude and disgusting thing to say.

 

I didn't provide any comment on it whether it was good or bad-what happened is a fact it is documented.  You seem to like labeling things that disagree with you as rude or disgusting and attaching those feelings to the person who stated the fact. Whether the study was right or wrong, it did prove one thing the homosexual man in the study could enjoy the company of a woman.

 

I really don't have anything else to say-you can blast me with all the ad hominem you'd like.

 

I am just so incredibly sick of having homosexuals, it's agenda, etc. blasted in my face and destroying institutions I love.

I grew up in scouts, Eagle Scout-multiple palms, National Jamboree, World Jamboree-etc.

 

The people who actually are apart of scouts-you know that actual dues paying members who put their blood sweat and volunteer time into to get told by the Nation and others (like yourself) who have absolutely 0 vested interest in the program; who probably couldn't even list the Ranks-who have absolutely 0 clue what it is like to be a Boy Scout.  But yet I and my children have to bow down to your emotional baggage claims about how I'm such a hateful person, no compassion, blah, blah, blah.

 

Frankly, I'm just sick and tired of it-there have been tons and tons of threads on this board about it and you who are new with (at the time) ~6 posts have to come and point out how wrong those who don't want homosexuals in BSA are-how hate filled we are, etc., etc.

 

Living in a society of "trigger warnings", "safe spaces", firings of CEOs for donating to heterosexual marriages, etc. just makes me sick.

 

Because it isn't compassion that you want-it is acceptance and the acceptance you want isn't to live your life as you see fit. I'm hard-core libertarian-I've got no problem with that.  No, what you want and the rest of homosexuals (and spare me the no-agenda, you don't come to a board you've never posted to before and only post about a hot-topic like homosexuality) want is for everyone else to say the being homosexual and acting as a homosexual is morally right.

 

For someone who is struggling with homosexual attraction, recognizes it's wrong and is honestly taking upon themselves the Atonement to rid themselves of it-to them I say welcome brother. We all have all challenges and we are all on the long road to perfection.

 

To those who are homosexual and want me to "accept" them and tell them that it's okay. To them I say, I want no part of your "acceptance".

[AnnieCarvalho]

I pretty much disagree with everything you have said.

For the record, I had 3 sons in scouts, and I was a den mother, so your assumptions again are wrong.

 

And I, like you, am finished with this conversation.

[yjacket]

Yjacket, 

 

I may not agree with Annie's position, but some of the things you're saying here are downright hateful!  And you owe her an apology.

Insensitive-possibly; hateful-I don't think so. I was told I was being rude and obnoxious and that I have a lot of anger.

 

It's not anger-it is frustration. Unfortunately, most people simply do not understand nor comprehend how quickly and insidiously the homosexual agenda has infiltrated into and changed the entire fabric of society. And yes it was entirely orchestrated, planned, and carried out.

 

http://www.amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

http://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/14947-the-queering-of-america

 

(Just to give how much has changed the article above's title was written in 1998-when the title would not be seen as offensive).  If one will actually read the article-note it was written in 1998 and pretty much spelled out to a T what has occurred over the last 17 years.

 

Like I've said umpteen times, I'm hard-core libertarian-I don't believe the government should be involved in marriage or in a whole host of other things.

 

I'm just very, very tired of people telling me how hate-filled I am or any other person who simply states-homosexuality is wrong and there is something wrong with that individual. It doesn't mean God loves them any less (which is utter balderdash) or that they can't partake in the Atonement (more balderdash). It just means it's wrong. Mentioning that homosexuality was considered a mental illness brings comparison to menopause because I'm so completely unenlighted-even though I'm working on a PhD.  Even though medical science has found reasons for menopause while no one can find a gene for homosexuality-ergo. I'm the hate-filled person because I dare to say that simply accepting someone's perverted lifestyle is wrong.

[Guest]

yjacket,

 

It wasn't your statements on homosexuality that I found "hateful".  It was all the personal comments and assumptions you made about Annie--personal attacks.  Much of it seems to have come from the heart right to your mouth without a filter in the brain even processing it.  And you're continuing it here.

 

You and your PhD will have no success coaxing a person out of victimhood by yelling at them and calling them names.  Did your wife "snap out of it" by having you yell at her that you cant stand her "playing the victim" all the time?  Or was there gentle persuasion and long suffering and charity?

[The Folk Prophet]

Yjacket, 

 

I may not agree with Annie's position, but some of the things you're saying here are downright hateful!

 

Like? What was downright hateful?

[yjacket]

yjacket,

 

It wasn't your statements on homosexuality that I found "hateful".  It was all the personal comments and assumptions you made about Annie--personal attacks.  Much of it seems to have come from the heart right to your mouth without a filter in the brain even processing it.  And you're continuing it here.

 

You and your PhD will have no success coaxing a person out of victimhood by yelling at them and calling them names.  Did your wife "snap out of it" by having you yell at her that you cant stand her "playing the victim" all the time?  Or was there gentle persuasion and long suffering and charity?

Pot meet kettle. No worries though-I'm not offended.

 

For the PhD, it is simply a piece of paper no more no less-I used it to illustrate that one who plays very highly emotionally charged rhetoric can't stand the kitchen heat. Do I use sarcasm? I do. Personally attacking . . . if I did I do apologize.

 

Emotionally charged rhetoric was used to illustrate her point-I threw emotionally charged rhetoric right back at it.

Comparing homosexuality being removed from the DSM to menstruation being removed from the DSM is apples to oranges. One was done for scientific reasons-the other was not.

 

And yes, I do question the validity of someone's arguments when they make the claim that their father still abuses her-not that she has long-term effects from it but that in a very real sense her father still abuses her 40+ years later. Still abusing, when it's very likely the abuser is either dead or 80+ years old. Especially when that claim is used to support evidence to her entire argument.  That is emotionally charged rhetoric. And there is no doubt in my mind, that the effects of her horrific upbringing has had a massive affect on the children.

 

Someone who's father abused her (absolutely horrible), yet they then make the claim that they would be okay with adult men camping out overnight with young women.  That is not a logical argument.

 

As for my wife, nope she did it all by herself. Thanks to her fortitude, grit and the grace of God.