vol_scouter

Unless male homosexuals volunteer at a much higher rate than represented in the population, then the BSA is only excluding 1.9% of the population. The incidence of pedophiles is thankfully less than that. So the number of people excluded is small and therefore not much of an issue from a logistics point of view.

Lisabob, First, the initiator could be male (more probable) or female. If it doesn't happen in your area, then someone needs to look into the environment for something that affects the normal hormones of teenagers. The same logic holds true for homosexual youth. To think otherwise is to have magical thinking not grounded in reality. The current membership requirements would seem to provide better protection for the youth in our charge.

Scoutfish, Youth can certainly be sexually active without being openly homosexual or heterosexual. If you place a male and a female together and one of the two is attracted to the other, there is the possibility of sexual activity. The same thing can happen with homosexuals. Your idea is naive and not workable in a time where councils have problems with sexual abuse. Children who have not expressed their sexually are not asexual. Statistically, they are heterosexual since less than 2% will become homosexual. The current policies seem to offer the best protection for the youth that is served and should remain in place. The UK or anywhere else can do what they wish, it should make no difference to the USA scouting movement.

Scoutfish, The problem then becomes how do you know who is what to do the separations? Seems like one man tents are the only solution unless one plans to ask questions about very personal matter and for this age group ask potentially confused teens about their current sexual orientation. Seems to be a problem. Councils have far too frequent assaults and batteries of a sexual nature, usually of the same sex. So there are risks. These are thorny issues without simple solutions.

The demographics of the USA are clearly considerably different than the UK. The CDC has published several times that the long term incidence of homosexuality in the USA is 1.9%. So here, it is more like 2 boys out of 100 will become long homosexual adults. The percentage having homosexual experiences is larger as would be expected. Late teens and young adults often experiment with drugs and sex but not all will continue in those lifestyles. Next, pedophiles by definition have sex with prepubertal children (most often heterosexual). If the child has developed secondary sex characteristics, then they are ephebophiles. If the adult prefers a same sex post-pubescent child as a sexual partner (to discriminate from crimes of power), then they are homosexual.

All of us on this Forum should inundate the National Office and the Scouting Museum with complaints until it is corrected.

Thank goodness that the court decided correctly.

Just because the Brits do something or anyone else for the matter does not mean that it is the correct policy for the youth in the USA.

Eagledad, I couldn't agree more having observed the same things. CCbytrickery, Clearly, you did the right thing and all of us are judged individually so that is not an issue. Fortunately, most women are not abused. Most marriages break up over money. However, from 25 years making rounds in the hospital and in my office, the story that I have most frequently heard is that one or both of the partners are simply unhappy. Even great marriages have periods where the happiness wanes. It is not a good reason to divorce. When children are involved, it is selfish to dissolve a marriage simply because one is no longer in the infatuation phase.

Beavah, I think that your definition of neocon is rather off the mark. I live in the Second Congressional District of Tennessee which has been continuously Republican since the Civil War (I have been told that no other congressional district holds that distinction but that might be a little chest thumping. Unlike many areas of the country, FDR was seen in a negative light because he confiscated land by Imminent Domain for TVA, the Great Smoky Mountain National Park, and later the Oak Ridge complex (X-10, Y-12, and K-25). The people here felt like they were no appropriately compensated and we treated badly by outsiders who acted in a superior manner. The first is debatable but the second was absolutely true and well documented. My family has supported conservative Republicans for generations. Most folks in this district are also socially conservative as well dating back many decades. We are certainly not neocons but conservatives.

Pack, Sorry, I am unsure where certain lines are and therefore I will say no more.

Packsaddle, Carter went to North Korea during the Clinton administration 'without official authorization' and brokered a deal in which North Korea agreed to stop their nuclear weapons program in exchange for two LWRs. That is part of the reason for KEDO. If one compares the effort at Hanford to the capabilities in North Korea prior to the LWRs, you can connect the dots.

CalicoPenn, What you say about SIBC being a holding company is true. However, SIBC acted and advertised like a bank. The depositors who had checking and savings accounts as well as retirement accounts there, thought that it was a bank. Unless you were also living in Knoxville in the 1980's as I was, you could not be expected to understand that. Certainly, a very careful person would have easily discovered that. However, many formerly well to do folks lost nearly everything after a lifetime of business investments. Bert Lance was involved with the whole banking scandal and through apparently so was Carter. Although, to my knowledge no smoking gun was discovered except for eyewitnesses seeing him in Knoxville, in my book he is a crook as well. Pack, I do not believe that Carter intentionally gave North Korea reactors to obtain material for their bombs. That is a sad statement as he held himself out to be an expert and demonstrated himself only to be a fool. Those reactors are being used to produce bomb material. Some of that information is in open sources.

Packsaddle, The news media talked about Carter helping to ensure peace on the Korean peninsula by promising new reactors as well as the camp David Accords. I, foolishly, trusted the media to be providing the correct reasons for the awarding of the Nobel peace prize. I have never looked it up so that appears to be incorrect. As to providing LWRs, it is in the article that you cited: "...in exchange for construction of two LWRs by 1000 PWe each at Kumho again...". The US and several other nations formed KEDO which supplied the reactors. They came from the US. See for example: http://www.nautilus.org/publications/books/dprkbb/agreedFramework/kedo.pdf So I was correct in the attribution of the Nobel award according to the media and about the reactors.

Unfortunately, our children look at the president as a role model. The incidence of cigar smoking and oral sex among teenagers was reported to have risen during the Clinton years. He was seen often smoking a cigar and according to him, having oral sex with Monica Lewinsky was not having sex. {Check that out with your spouse and I imagine that they will not see things that way.} The president sets a tone and represents all of us to the rest of the world. His personal standards do mean something. While that should not be the most important factor in the voting booth, it is nonetheless important. Also, when people have affairs (especially men), they usually want to impress the partner in adultery. Monica revealed that Bill told her some things that were of a sensitive nature. That is a security concern. If the partner is working for a foreign government, they could get information that could harm the US. While I do not think that a president having an affair should in and of itself lead to impeachment and removal from office, it should not be taken lightly. I do not know about the standards to which others are held, but in all of my professional jobs behavior that reflects poorly on the employer is a reason for termination. Usually that means that most legal behaviors are tolerated as long as are kept private. Once they become public, people lose their jobs. I remember a Supreme Court ruling in the 1970's which upheld the employer's right to fire employees whose behavior could reflect badly on the company. Lastly, if my boss was very immoral and/or corrupt, I would leave. I have done that before and will do so again if faced with similar circumstances. As a physician you learn that your most important possession in a business sense is your reputation. Working for or with people of poor standards can destroy a reputation that takes a lifetime to build. So, yes, the president's moral character is important. If he or she is corrupt then the whole administration will be corrupt. While have high values does not guarantee an honest executive branch, it will make it mores. Just my two cents worth.

Pack, When first running for president, Carter claimed to be a Nuclear Physicist only to be corrected, then he claimed to be a Nuclear Engineer only to corrected, and finally he admitted that he was a nuclear technician. Those were lies. His policies on nuclear energy showed that he knew nothing about reactors. Carter was associated financially with his OMB director, Bert Lance, who had to leave office because of his shady dealings. In the 1980's, the Butcher brothers banking empire was about to be investigated by the FDIC. A helicopter landed on top of Jake Butcher's bank in Knoxville where it was reported that Carter was seen coming and later leaving. Many documents were shredded that evening before the FDIC came a day or so later. The demise of Southern Industrial Banking of the Butcher's destroyed many lives because it was no insured though signs seemed to imply that it was. Many people lost their life's savings and retirement. In my book, Carter is a crook. Carter gave North Korea the reactor technology to allow them to make atomic weapons. For that he got the Nobel Peace prize - that speaks poorly of both. From my vantage point of knowing people ruined by Carter's cronies and seeing his nuclear idiocy, he is neither smart nor a good man. In my book, he was, without a doubt, the worst president in my lifetime (Eisenhower on) until Obama made him look relatively good.

Beavah said: "Yeh should not start, end, or draw from any neo-con or similar blog, website, or commentator. Begin with reputable outlets that have a stake in maintaining a reputation for accuracy, and then work back to original sources. To assist BS-87, you should please enlighten us just who these 'reputable' news outlets are. In areas that I am a subject matter expert, I have found that all news outlets are wrong. It goes from horribly wrong to dismal. So I can only imagine how poor the reporting is on other things. So please enlighten us as to where we can find fair, balanced, and reliable information.

After two successful treks with liquid fuel, I can recommend it. We had no problems with leaks or other problems noted in previous posts (not to say that they are never a problem just that we were careful and had none). Stoves were Coleman Peak 1's and they all functioned great without problems providing a hot meal quickly and reliably. The fuel containers get lighter with time and back country stores stock fuel. Plus, to be environmentally friendly, why use compressed gas canisters that end up in a land fill somewhere rather than reusable fuel bottles? Either way, you will have a great and life changing time!

Scoutfish, In reading the amendment rather quickly, it describes who are citizens who may vote for candidates for office and in the case of the president and vice president, electors. It does not address the requirements for natural born. For that, you muss go back to English common law where in this forum two contradictory interpretations have been presented. That is precisely why I believe that it should be clarified.

CalicoPenn, I have also talked with my attorney friends who say that in order to show standing, one has to be damaged. In the case of Obama being president, there is no clear casual damage. I have heard two explanations for the skittishness to hear this case. One is that it has little merit and it has considerable controversy. Some others have said that they believe that the founding fathers meant for 'natural born citizen' to mean that the persons parents were citizens. Then the issue would become a crisis with the courts being seen as effectively removing a sitting president. Such actions could easily result in riots and chaos. That is why I would like to see the standards better defined. Since Obama would not be affected, it should not be such an issue. However, a similar situation in the future could have very negative results.

Blancmange, Please look up reasonable and cogent. When you have done so, you will be able to discern that such comments are neither reasonable or cogent. Also, such references can be countered by innumerable examples of similar things on the left. That does not further rational discourse. Pack, I believe that we are discussing the merits of a constitutional amendment that clearly defines the requirements to be president.

acc40, Of course it is! I wrote that to show how silly the left is for assigning the idea of 'fear' when people present cogent and reasonable opposing views.

Once again, saying that people who disagree with the left 'fear' something is silly and insulting. I do not 'fear' people who would not meet those requirements. Until Obama ran for president, most people would have not believed that one could give up their US citizenship and never present evidence that they regained their citizenship could be elected president. I had read long before Obama was in any office that the founding fathers wrote 'natural born citizen' purposefully and that meant that the person should have parents who are both citizens. The requirements for the most important office in the country needs have such things clearly defined. I would much prefer that an amendment be made that codifies your position than continue to have disputes about qualifications. My proposal is most reasonable but one way or the other, the requirements need to be better defined.

Many posters to this site live in the south. Hopefully, all are alright (clearly those that lost homes or are injured will not be able to respond). My family and I are fine. Many tornadoes in the area though - East Tennessee. Best wishes to those that are suffering from these storms. May God Bless.

acc40, First, I agree with fowl being a meat. Second, I get so tired of the left accusing people who disagree with their ideas are 'afraid' of something. So why are you afraid of people who meet the standards that I outlined? Such an attitude is insulting and serves no useful purpose. So to address your query, the USA is a representative democracy and the President, Vice President and Speaker of the House of Representatives need to understand our system and be dedicated to making it better. The immediate past Speaker of the House of Representatives demonstrated recently why such a belief is necessary when she questioned why we should have elections since they can undo legislation - clearly not a belief in democracy. She is an example of someone being a citizen but not supporting the Constitution that she has sworn to protect on many occasions. Our representative democracy is fragile since we are such an amalgam of people who are only bound by our ideals. Our leaders need to be able to clearly enunciate those ideals.