DanKroh

Wow. I've been trying to think of a way to respond to some of the...uh...stuff being said here, especially as a member of several of those groups that Nessmuk labeled as "cesspools of socialism and humanism besides being a bunch of handwringers". "To assert homosexuals are not deviants (and are merely differently wired versions of heterosexuals) simply ignores the extreme lifestyle of perversion and promiscuity of homosexuals." As opposed to the perversion and promiscuity of some heterosexuals. I'm curious what this extreme lifestyle entails. Here's the "homosexual lifestyle" I see in the vast majority of the homosexuals I know; maintaining a home, loving a partner or spouse, raising a family, supporting their community (which includes a church for many of them), and most of the other mundania that heterosexuals deal with. "Ever see the pain on a liberal's face when they listen to a gay that goes back straight and evangelizes about it like being dead and coming back from hell." Nessmuk, that pained look comes from the recognition of the amount of self-loathing and self-denial that a homosexual person has to possess in order to denounce themselves and "go back straight", not to mention the future damage to their psyche that such prolonged denial causes. And that sad little head shake comes from the knowledge, supported by research and statistics, that such denial will eventual crash in on them. And Pappy, I gotta ask, what exactly are "transgender relations", and what makes you think they aren't already considered "normal"? Many, many couples involving transgendered people look absolutely no different from cis-gendered heterosexual couples, short of a very personal medical exam. The constant dropping of the transgender label is getting tiresome, especially when you seem to have very little knowledge about the subject.

Bravo, Scoutmomma Pappy says: "The homosexual men I have met over the years typically preferred young high school aged boys. Young sailors were especially popular trolling grounds." Well, to get technical, that would be an ephebophile. Again, Pappy, like Nessmuk, you are only relaying anecdotal evidence, and seem to have chosen to ignore the research that Scoutmomma linked to. Well, if you want to rely on anedoctal evidence, I can guarantee that my anecdotal evidence trumps yours, at least by sheer volume. Current theories on pedophilia is that it is a separate and distinct orientation, that also happens to be a mental illness. To say that a pedophile is heterosexual or homosexual is technically incorrect. They are actually unable to have satisfying relationships with adults of any gender. And if I need to, I can get technical about what classifies something as a mental illness or not, but Scoutmomma is quite correct; homosexuality is not a mental illness, it does not display "disordered thinking" or any other characteristic of a mental illness. Homosexuals are NOT "tempted" by young boys. Heterosexuals are NOT "tempted" by young girls. And of course, the notion that homosexuals are more susceptible to this non-existant temptation than heterosexuals is just pure and simple ignorance and/or bias.

"I give you a list of not only my favorite women but some of my favorite people. They are all women I listen to. They all love and champion strong men. They are all hot. They are all strong and intelligent, and they all could probably kick your rear: All qualities I admire and in a good woman. [snip] Ann Coulter Laura Ingraham Peggy Noonan" Wow, that explains a lot....

"Men also mine, fish, hunt, fight battles, make art, build dams, power plants, and cities. We need to do more to emphasize those manly arts - because the boys are not getting them in schools and more and more dads are getting less and less handy." Well, I was going to make a comment, but I seem to have misplaced my machette for hacking through the sexism first. Guess I'm not "manly" enough.

Pappy wrote: "By your trivializing of belief what do you offer the scout in its stead? If you put the Judeo Christian religion on the par of Wickans and the tooth fairy, then you are arguing for relativism that undermines not only Boy Scouting, but the underpinnings of our civilization." First of all, it's Wiccan, not Wickan... And second, what was that about "Treating other peoples beliefs in a creator as silly or stupid or worthy of ridicule is not scout-like no matter how you cut it."? Way to trivialize my beliefs, dude. Or does that famous courtesy toward others' beliefs only apply to the Judeo-Christian beliefs? All others need not apply?

A 1995 Suzuki 550GS. This is my first bike; I've only been riding for about 6 years now, so it's time to start looking. I just decide at this point if I want to stick with a sport bike and get a Katana, or go with a cruiser and get a Boulevard. The guy I ride with has a Marauder (precursor to the Boulevard), and I must say, it does look comfy for long rides (sorry Gern). But I think I'll stick definitely stick with a Suzuki. I don't generally ride to scouting events, since I've always got a 8 year old in tow, and I'm still a bit nervous about even trying to carry him as a passenger.

I tried to do a search on this, but either this isn't anything or (more likely) I can't quite get the hang of the search on this site. Our pack is doing a "Freeze Out" family camping trip, in heated cabins, the first weekend in March. This is basically a Saturday morning until late Sunday morning trip. I'm looking for ideas of winter outdoor activities to keep the boys busy. It's New England in early March, so the chances of snow still being on the ground are pretty good as long as we don't get another warm spell. Possibly activities we have thought of so far: snowshoeing (possibly starting with making snowshoes out of thin boards) sledding (lots of hills at the camp) snowman making contest dogsled race, with boys making their own "dogsleds" out of cardboard boxes and of course, we will be doing lots of cooking outdoors (meal suggestions also welcomed), and a campfire program at night. Some suggestions for backup activities in case of no snow, or rain would be greatly welcome, too. These would be cubs of all levels (Tigers through Webelos), about 15-20 boys (plus parents and some sibs). Thanks in advance!

Our pack meetings are one Friday night a month, from 7:00 until about 8:30. We follow the national theme about 80% of the time; sometimes we move the themes around (f'ex: our Jan pack meeting used the "Cub Express" theme, although that was September's theme) One of my Woodbadge ticket items has been to increase the amount of participation from the dens during our meetings. So we generally have *at least* a skit and song at each meeting led by the boys. Some meetings, all the dens are doing skits and/or songs. If they can make it relate to the montly theme, fantastic, but if not, that's ok, too. The important thing is that they participate. But we also try to include some sort of fun program related to the theme, as well. Sometimes they will include Guest Presenters (about 2x/year). For instance, our January meeting was all about trains. We had a model train club come in with a modular layout, we also had another layout provided by a parent. That same parent also had a slide show of real trains. We set those up as three "stations" and rotated the boys between them every 10-15 minutes. That way, everyone had a chance to try things in a smaller group, and the attention span wasn't too taxing for them. At the same meeting, all the dens did a short skit. Throw in time for advancements, and it was a full meeting! We don't generally provide refreshments unless it is part of the meeting program (like when we did a "Cub Cafe" and each of the dens prepared a specific food, or when we did our "culture" night, and each den prepared a food from a different culture). Some meetings, the boys will make something to take home. In November, we did "Indian Nations", and the boys made headbands and necklaces (with fake eagle claws) as part of the ingathering. Last September, they made "straw rockets" and then went outside to test them. In the past, they've made mini first aid kits out of old film canisters. Some sort of ingathering activity is a good idea, because it keeps the boys who get there early busy with something other than running around, and also encourages promptness so that they get to do the activity before the meeting begins. But it doesn't have to be a craft; it can also be a word puzzle, or a building game; anything that a boy can join in and do in 5-10 minutes is great. Also, we like to have meetings outdoors whenever possible (or at least outdoor activities). In October, we visited a local farm. Last January, the boys made "dog sleds" and raced them against each other in the snow outside. In the spring, we have a campfire graduation program (which we invite the local Boy Scout troops to help with). Oh yes, and the boys do the opening and closing. Usually open with the Pledge and close with the Cub Promise (as well as posting and retiring the flags). The den leaders know ahead of time which dens will be doing opening and closing. Another great thing about pack meetings; create traditions, but don't be a slave to them. A couple of years ago, our pack planted four trees (one for each rank) at the local school, and each May, we go and take care of them as a pack meeting. It involves weeding, mulching, and watering, but we make a game out of it and the boys have a lot of fun. When the first den that helped plant the trees crossed over, they presented the new Tiger den with a "Golden Trough" as a symbol that they were taking over responsibility for that tree. It's become a tradition now to take pictures every year of each den next to it's tree, to see how both the trees and the boys have grown through the years. But each Webelos den now looks forward to presenting the Golden Trough to the new den. Well, I could go on and on, as a proud Cubmaster; I think our boys to a great job at pack meetings. But definitely get them participating, I think it really keeps them interested.

Well, most of my jokes are about doctors, but here is one that overlaps. Why are lawyers the favorite patients of cardiologists? It's a trick question, as everyone knows that lawyers have no heart.

At our family camp outings, our pack always includes a short hike for the boys. This past year, the destination of the hike was a small lake, where we knew many animals came to drink. We took along plaster and water and made casts of moose tracks that we found on the shore of the lake. That was a huge hit with the boys. Another thing we always try to do is some sort of conservation/clean-up project to benefit the area where we are staying. In fact, two years ago, the state park allowed us to stay for free in exchange for doing a clean-up project. Also, try to plan to have a campfire program heavy on boy participation. Have each den do skit/song/stunts/run-ons/jokes/whatever; we like the "audience participation" skits as well to try to get everyone involved. End with quieter songs and reflection to get the boys ready for bedtime more easily.

"Calico, you forgot to list the sources for your statistics." I believe he was using the same document as the author of the original opinion piece, the "American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics", which can be found here: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

"Somebody once worshipped the moon, asking it to provide big harvests" "Once"? Try "are now". I've got it, let's just put a Goddess stone next to the God stone. After all, she was the one who really birthed the universe....

OGE, My father and sister live just outside of Harrisburg, and we may pop over to Philly to visit the in-laws, although we saw them fairly recently for Hannukah. What is your neck of the woods?

Merry Yule, everyone! (OK, so Yule isn't actually until Saturday, but I'll be on the road to PA by then....)

Contact your local chapter of the Society for Creative Anachronism, and ask if they'll come out and do a demo for you. You can find your local chapter through the national website: http://sca.org/ click on "SCA Groups"

"Can you imagine how popular scouting might be if no one looked beyond their little fiefdom and we were still wearing wool tunics and jodhpurs?" Excuse me, but some of us are still wearing tunics (at least on the occasional weekend), and while I haven't donned any jodhpurs (but I know people who do), I have been seen in tights. (Sorry, Lisabob, here's your bottle of mental chlorox.)

hmmm... is there an echo in here? The Inclusive Scouting Award is *now* available through ScoutPride, now that the Coalition for Inclusive Scouting is defunct: http://scoutpride.interstateq.com/inclusive-scouting-award/

Cool, a new source for the patches. I was fairly bummed when I tried to get one from the New England Coalition for Inclusive Scouting only to find out that they were defunct. Thanks, Eric!

"So I'm not sure what your point is in tryin' to hold Biblical religions up to a different standard than the rest of human endeavor." Because if the morality of homosexuality is open to interpretation, then that means that the Biblical support of it is not conclusive. Which means that it is open to doubt and questioning, and not some "moral absolute" that others would like to portray it as. "But because you're not a practicin' Christian or at least are fairly far removed from anyone teachin' yeh how it works, you're introducing a lot of your own personal prejudice. Christianity at least, and probably many of the others, believes exactly what you describe:" I will happily grant you that I don't fully understand the Christian concept of "sin". I've always been much more interested in practical matters like harm. You claim that homosexuality IS harmful, but I have to tell you, in all my years of experience dealing day in and day out with the LGBT community, I have yet to see it. I've seen plenty of evidence of the harmfulness of the prejudice of society, but no harm in being homosexual. Your circular logic of "it's harmful to their soul because it's a sin" just doesn't work for me, either. "In fact, if yeh look at the data carefully, the only culture that is wafflin' at all on homosexuality is America and some of western Europe. The rest of the Anglican world is up in arms against the "renegade" American Episcopal church. So from da evidence, it suggests that it is most likely that embracin' homosexuality as acceptable is a strange cultural phenomenon of America. Part and parcel with America's sexually promiscuous culture in other ways... and a very, very short-term and recent phenomenon to boot." Um, no, it's not. Trev probably has more data on this than I do, but there are other cultures from other times in history that have had no problem whatsoever with homosexuality. Perhaps that is your ethnocentric prejudice showing Brent, perhaps I was taken in by the UMC's latest PR campaign, trying to reform their image to be more gay-friendly. They are willing to accept only gays who are celebate, I now see. But there are other Christian denominations that embrace non-celebate homosexuals, even as clergy. I'm afraid I'm still left trying to understand how they justify it.

"But your belief that the formal teaching of religious belief is negative judgment of individual persons is simply wrong." Again, Beavah, I have to sound the horseapple alert. How can you teach a negative judgement on an entire group without that judgement applying to the individual persons who make up that group? Well, I think homosexuality is immoral, but Adam and Steve over there aren't really immoral, because the Church didn't name them specifically.... And what do you consider "formal teaching"? I admit it has been a while since I've been involved with a church that actually has doctrine, so I'm not sure what qualifies as "formal". Is what the pastor preaches from the pulpit a "formal teaching"? For Catholics, is it formal if the Pope says it?

"The fact that a few "Christians" tried to justify slavery with biblical quotes doesn't change the fact that emancipation in da U.S. was accomplished only through the persistence and single-minded determination of the much larger Christian faithful who objected to slavery as a morally reprehensible act." Well, Beavah, don't you think the current situation with gays is completely analogous? There are an increasing number of Christians who believe (and the doctrine of their denominations is reflecting this more and more) that the "immorality" of gays is no worse or different than the "immorality" of the average sinner, so it is reprehensible to single them out for prejudice and discrimination. The United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church, and the Episcopal Church (well, at least part of it) are all using the same Bible as the evanglicals, but they are coming to a different conclusion on this issue, right? So does that mean that the prejudice against gays isn't really coming from the Bible, but from society (as Brent said about racism)? Doesn't that kind of cost them their entire "religious belief" defense?

"Am I the only one (through obviously biased prism) that thinks this thread stinks of double standard?" No, TJ, you aren't the only one.

Beavah, I agree that pedophilia is not a popular field among researchers. However, I disagree that funders for "objective research" cannot be found. Such funding may be small, but it is out there. I think objectivity is the purview of the researcher, not his/her funder. Yes, you can find all sorts of people willing to fund bad research when it advances their agenda. But you still need researchers willing to do that bad research. Whether the researchers are bad because they are biased toward a specific outcome or because they are trying to delve into fields where they are not qualified, doesn't really matter. There is certainly enough of both right now. Perhaps part of why the topic is unpopular is because the good researchers who present objective findings get labeled as a "pick-your-perjorative activist" when their results don't agree with some groups preconceived notions. BTW, I did do some research in the field of pedophilia as a postdoc fellow at a local psychiatric hospital. Can't say I ever felt pressured one way or another about what conclusions my data should or shouldn't support, as long as my methodology was solid and I didn't misrepresent my data.

"So, you are highly suspect of Baldwin because he is president of a conservative group, but not suspect of Herek, who is an advocate for homosexuality? Interesting..." Yes, I am suspect of Baldwin because his only "qualifications" to write on this subject are being the president of a conservative activist group and a politician who openly declares his anti-homosexual prejudice/agenda in the opening paragraphs of his review. Whereas Dr. Herek is someone who speaks against sexual prejudice in many venues because he is considered an expert by his colleagues, as a result of years of study and research in his field. But you seem ready to dismiss all of Dr. Herek's academic qualifications by labeling him an "advocate for homosexuality". Interesting, indeed.

"And so the apologists come out again, calling their opposers poor researchers or inadequate because they question similarly questionable studies on the other side." Well, assuming by "apologist", you mean me, I am not calling Mr. Baldwin a poor researcher because his opinion is contrary to mine. I'm calling him a poor researcher because he is passing off his unqualified opinion as fact by standing on the work of others that he has twisted and misrepresented beyond recognition. If someone wants to present an *actual* scientific study with clearly outlined methodology and presentation of raw data, I'll be more than happy to read it.