DanKroh

Well, Brent, then all of your "benefits" to society of supressing homosexual behavior can also be applied to heterosexual behavior. Additionally, I can rattle off an equally ridiculous list of "benefits" to society of supressing heterosexual behavior. That's it. Let's suppress heterosexuality for the benefit of society. Are you going to be the first to seek treatment and conversion?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Brent, The religion that honors Thor is called Asatru, also known as Norse Reconstruction Paganism. To the ones I've talked to on the interfaith discussion group I belong to, Thor is a very real god. You can read about Asatru (and many other religions) at: http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm

Actually, Brent, I never said you had to accept homosexuality as a "valid" lifestyle, only that you really should learn more about what the lifestyle of the average homosexual really is. You have presented homosexuals as bar-hopping, bed-hopping, promiscuous, anti-family, with freakish behaviors and (in another thread) implied tendencies toward pedophilia and child-molestation. Oh yeah, and they invite people to bash them and like to engage in frivilous litigation. Those must be some very strange gay relatives and colleagues you have if you think the above description represents the "average" homosexual. The "average" homosexual is as monogamous, Church-going, family-oriented, moral, ethical, civic-minded, and responsible as the average heterosexual. Actually, that statement may be a slight to the average homosexual. It is one thing to be ignorant because you don't know any better. But when the response to the suggestion that a view may not be representative of reality is, "Well, too bad, it's my view, and I'm sticking with it," well, I guess that is the sign of a truly closed mind.

Ed, Bible stories are not fact, they are faith. If they were fact, they could be corroborated by other period sources. I've studied a little bit of ancient history, and I've never come across any source that corroborates the stories in the Bible, nor any actual, verified evidence to support any of the events listed in the Bible. If you have any sources or evidence, I will be happy to look at any references you would like to list here.

Well, Brent, I'm not going to respond to each item individually, because I think the responses of others before me have shown that they can all be covered by a blanket statement: All of your "benefits" really show a great deal of ignorance about the lifestyle led by the average homosexual, the actual lifestyle of the average heterosexual, the behavior of "fringe" elements in any group, and the hateful things that many people will do in the name of "morality". So really, you have two choices. You can continue in willful ignorance, which I find is generally at the root of most homophobia, since it is easier to demonize a group that you don't really know anything about, or you can educate yourself about what the average homosexual is really like, instead of the caricature you have presented.

Good luck with the Page position. What an exciting adventure you have ahead of you. Have fun with it!

Fgoodwin, Parkinson's disease: concordance in twin studies is 15.5% for MZ, 11.1% for DZ. The gene for Familial Parkinson's disease is located on Chromosome 4, according to the Human Genome Project. Adam, I do think you are right that there are many, many factors ex-utero that affect gene expression. Thanks for adding your explanation.

For a serious question, I will happily give you a serious answer. Current thinking is that child-molesters may indeed be programmed that way at birth, either by genetics or in-utero influences. However, so are a lot of other mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, depression, OCD that are "inborn" as well. So are a lot of learning disabilities like ADHD, dyslexia. So are a lot of somatic disorders like diabetes. Homosexuality was removed from the DSM-MD in 1975. The APA does not consider homosexuality a mental illness or emotional problem. They consider therapy to "convert" homosexuals or attempts to repress their homosexual orientation to be potentially very harmful to a person's well being. Yes, we all have desires that we suppress because suppressing them benefits society, or benefits us in some tangible way. We police rapists and child-molesters because they cause harm to others; preventing that harm is a benefit to society. In what way does suppressing homosexuality benefit society or the individual, other than to satisfy a moral code of a certain segment of the religious community? edited for clarity(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

The other thing that fgoodwin's analysis of "twin studies" fails to mention is that homosexuals can be "born that way" without it being purely genetic, or even genetic at all. Current theory on the genesis of homosexuality has to do with hormone-exposure in-utero. That means that if we follow the position that homosexuality is in no way genetic, homosexuals still come out of the womb "programmed" to be homosexual. It is still "determined at birth". Fgoodwin, you said "And until "gayness" is found to be determined at birth and therefore not changeable, I think drawing comparisons between the way BSA (or even society at large) deals with sexual orientation vs. race is premature." I think those comparisions are no longer premature. They seem to have come to full term.

fgoodwin, What you fail to mention in your citation of the twin studies of Bailey and Pillard is that if there is NO genetic component to homosexuality, there should be no different in the concordance of homosexuality between monozygotic twins and dizygotic twins. However, while there is only a 22% concordance among dizygotic twins, there is a 52% concordance among monozygotic twins. How do you explain that difference? Yes, monozygotic twins share the same genes, but once the zygote splits, there are many in-utero factors that affect the expression of those genes, factors which are not entirely understood by molecular biologists and geneticits even today. In 2004, the Americal Psychological Association published an article about twin studies, and said that while they are still relevant and an important tool in the study of genetics, they are also still considered controversial by many scientists. http://www.apa.org/monitor/apr04/second.html And yes, with degrees in biology and psychology, I do have a knowledge of genetics that goes "beyond mid-digital hair" and an outdated Mendalian interpretation of gene expression, especially when it comes to genetic influence on human behavior.(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

Well, Brent, since you seem to want to move this logical, rational discussion into the realm of hysterical, fear-based rantings, I don't find anything else to discuss with you. I guess according to you, Canada is going to be visited with fire and brimstone any day now for allowing gay marriage. I'll be standing by with my fire extinguisher. And my rationalizations about my membership in the BSA are between me and my deity. Not going to discuss it with you, as it is none of your business.

Yes, Brent, I am fully trained as a CUB scout leader. I know all the policies of Youth Protection as they pertain to CUB scouts. I have not been trained on the policies of the Venture program because I am not a leader in that program. The YPT I received did not include female youth members. I know about the policies in the Boy Scouts because I've been on a few campouts with my older son as a parent, but not as a Boy Scout leader. You want a wording to prevent gay Boy Scouts from tenting together? Actually, it is unnecessary if you have a policy that is strictly enforced that no scouts shall engage in sexual behavior or overtly affectionate conduct at scouting functions. What is the policy that prevents the two opposite-sex Venture Scouts from making out around the campfire? Same thing could by applied to two same-sex scouts. If that is not good enough for you, well, sometimes leaders have to make judgement calls that are not covered by policies. You don't need a policy to prevent tenting together, you need a leader with good judgement and youth who are willing to be honest and open about their relationship. Also, I finally have to ask, what IS your obsession with NAMBLA all about? You think there haven't sexual predators in the BSA in the past who were NOT NAMBLA members? The BSA will always be attractive to sexual predators, regardless of the predator's affiliations with any other organization, and regardless of their sexual orientation. Do you think most molesters of boys are "avowed homosexuals"? Statistics say quite the opposite. The vast majority of child-molesters are self-avowed heterosexuals, quite often married with children of their own. From the BSA's own past and statistical data, heterosexual men represent a far greater threat to the youth members of the BSA than any homosexuals ever would. The YP argument against homosexuals in the BSA has been debunked and disproven over and over again by the BSA's own past and by statistical and psychological evidence about child-molesters. Time to get a new argument. My religion says that homosexuals are God's creations, too, and to be intolerant of them is a sin. So your religion card also falls flat. Why did a question about an Eagle project benefitting the LGBT community get turned into yet another argument about gays in scouting?

Exactly, Ed. The SCOTUS ruled that the BSA has the right to set it's own membership standards. They did NOT rule that other organizations have to ignore THEIR OWN standards to accomodate the BSA. To quote you from another thread, "You don't have the right to not be offended." Why should Berkeley change their standards to accomodate a minority (the BSA)? As you are often touting, minorities should not expect accomodations from the majority, and should not be offended when the don't get them. I'm not saying that what Berkeley did was "right" or that I support their decision; I have mixed feelings about all these types of cases. But what they did was legal and constitutional. The burden is on the BSA to either accept the legal consequences of their membership policies, or change those membership policies.

BrentAllen, the term you are looking for is not a phobia, but an "ism". Ageism. And there are heterosexual groups who also feel that the sexual age restrictions are unfair. But they don't get nearly as much bad press as NAMBLA. And frankly, I don't give a hoot if someone from NAMBLA thinks I'm ageist or any kind of "phobe"; I'm not obsessed with the members of that organization. I agree the CalicoPenn--well said, by the way. Sexual relations of any kind have no place in scouting. And, Brent, if you are not willing to help police the behavior of your scouts, either before OR after lights out, well, then lets just say I'm glad you are not MY son's scoutmaster. So what happens to a heterosexual couple who are both minors, who are romantically involved, and who both happen to be on the same Venture crew? Do they get to share a tent on campouts? Are they allowed to have public displays of affection at scouting events? I'm going to assume that the answer to both of those is no. So why would your standard of behavior be any different for a homosexual couple who are both minors and who are romantically involved? No PDA. No tenting together. As you say, Brent, this one is real simple. The same rules apply to all couples, no matter what their genders. And if those two guys or those two gals who are romanticallly involved weren't so worried about being kicked out of the BSA because of their relationship, they might even be willing to tell their adult leaders about the relationship, making it even simpler to "police their behavior". Finally, Brent, your dictionary definition of pedophile, while not completely wrong, is inaccurate. CalioPenn is again correct. The child must be "prepubescent". According to the DSM-IV for Mental Disorders, pedophilia is "characterized by either intense sexually arousing fantasies, urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (typically age 13 or younger)." So none of the scenarios you presented were actually "pedophilia".

BrentAllen, And what does any of that have to do with Gold Award/Eagle Projects? But sure, I'll play along for now. Not that it's any of your business, but, again, just to play along, yes, I am in favor of letting gays in the BSA. As far as your relationship scenarios, different states have different laws about what constitutes "adult" in terms of sexual relationships. IMHO, there should be two types of laws governing the sexual relationships of minors; statuatory rape and rape, depending on whether there was consent or not, regardless of the gender of the parties involved. If a consentual sexual relationship between an 18 yo boy and a 17 yo girl is legal (which I believe it would be in most states; isn't the cut off usually 16?), then a consentual relationship between a 17 yo and an 18 yo should be legal no matter what their genders. For that matter, shouldn't we be more worried about all those female leaders being around all those innocent young men, especially since we know that none of them are lesbians? The BSA has youth protection in place to protect the youth from ALL leaders, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. My personal feeling, though, is that sexual relationships between any two people who are not mature enough to handle them should be discouraged. Since we need something more definite for the law that "maturity", we base it on an arbitrary age cut-off. Personally, I wouldn't want my 17 yo son having sexual relations with ANYONE who was substantially older than him (i.e. more than a year or two), or AT ALL if he weren't mature enough to handle the issues associated with being sexually intimate. If you actually knew anything about NAMBLA, other than what their name stands for, you'd know that one of their positions is that the age limits for consentual same-sex relationships should be lowered. I disagree with that, because I think that age-limits for ANY consentual sexual relationship are necessary. Just for the record, before you start making assumptions about my stance on NAMBLA, I don't like the organization, mostly because they DO have a segment of their organization who prey on non-adult boys (i.e. commit pedophila), and they are unwilling to "police" their own organization. Again, what any of this has to do with the topic at hand, I don't know. Maybe you can explain that to me.

Thanks Scoutingagain and OldGreyEagle for the information about Eagle projects. It is something I will hopefully find out about in more detail as my boys get older. And BrentAllen, it is a sad, sad situation if you can't tell the difference between pedophilia and a loving relationship between two consenting adults. edited for clarity(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

You know, I started to write a snappy retort to Ed, but then decided it just wasn't worth my energy. Prairie_Scouter, So doing a project for our UU church would not be acceptable? Does an Eagle project have to by something physical, or could it be something similar along the lines of creating a community-wide LGBT outreach group? What about a project that involved helping an AIDS outreach program (granted, not specifically LGBT, but certainly would benefit a segment of the LGBT community)? And would approval be dependent on how "tolerant" the troop committee or the local council is; for example, would a project like this be more likely to be approved in "liberal Massachusetts" than the "conservative Bible-belt"?

I think that's fantastic. I will admit that I don't know much about the criteria for Eagle projects, since I've only been a leader in Cub Scouts so far, and my older son is only a Tenderfoot. But would an Eagle project designed to benefit the LGBT community ever get approval, assuming it was an appropriate project if you substituted any other minority segment into the LGBT label?

May all those who knew Derrick be comforted by God and by their friends and community during this difficult time. What a terrible, terrible tragedy.

Right, the requirements say "The Archery belt loop and pin can only be awarded by a BSA range-trained shooting-sports director." However, one of the ways to become a BSA-trained archery director is to be NAA certified. So why can't a non-BSA NAA certified instructor at a non-BSA range sign off on the awarding of the archery beltloop and pin? And if you look closely at the requirements for the pin, you don't actually have to do any shooting to earn the pin, beyond what had to be done to earn the beltloop. You have to choose five from the list, which does include shooting for 3 hours, but there are enough non-shooting possibilities that you could fulfill the requirments without any additional shooting. The Boy Scouts do not have any such BSA-trained range director requirement for the archery merit badge. A merit badge councelor doesn't have to have any sort of instructor certification.

It is approximate, but: 12=32 14=34 16=36 It is a good starting point for having the young women try the pants on, since depending on how "hippy" they are, they may need a size bigger than what they would wear in a women's size. Edited to add: As far as the shirts go, generally a woman would take one size smaller in a men's (i.e., if she wears a medium misses, then she would probably wear a small mens) Good luck!(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

You know, CA_Scouter, I don't know of any Pagans who would have a problem with that "declaration of religious principle" thingy. Especially the part of it that says: "However, the BSA is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious development. Its policy is that the organization or institution with which youth members are connected shall give definite attention to their religious life." Perhaps I am less cynical than you, but I saw Trevorum's greeting as an acknowledgement to his fellow Pagans that our holiday was last night. It seems to be Ed and John who are trying to provoke a reaction (and have succeeded, to some degree, alas; I guess I should learn not to respond to someone obviously trolling in a thread). And did you ever think that the reason there aren't too many Pagans in Scouting is that attitudes like yours and Ed's and John's make them feel unwelcome?(This message has been edited by DanKroh)(This message has been edited by DanKroh)

You know Ed and John, do you see a lot of Pagans running into the threads titled "Merry Christmas" and bludgeoning people with "Happy Solstice" greetings? 'Nuff said. Trevorum, I hope your solstice celebration was as peaceful (exuberance of childen not withstanding) and meaningful as mine, and that you were surrounded by the love and blessings of your family. Here's to the rebirth of the sun and Earth in the coming year.

"But how bout other types of environments, like prisons, where men rape other men for reasons of power, or because there are no women around. Would that not be considered homosexual behavior and not orientation?" Ahh, I think I understand our disconnect now. You are talking about heterosexual men who engage in violent behavior that happens to be performed on another man. That is not homosexuality, that is rape. And yes, bisexuality is an orientation. Anyway, I'm not really trying to further fuel this discussion or turn it into a debate, just trying to clear up some misinformation. Good luck in your new job.

Ok, I have a question about policy here. I understand that the Cub Scout Archery beltloop and pin can only be earned at a district or council run Scout camp. So here's my question. Why can't these awards be earned at a NAA (National Archery Association) range? My younger son is part of a JOAD (Junior Olympic Archery Development) program at the shooting range down the street from us, where he shoots under the supervision of NAA certified instructors. Yet, because it is not a scout camp, he can't earn the archery beltloop or pin. Now, as I hope to be a NAA certified instructor myself someday, I'm all about safety with a bow. But in this case, safety is not an issue. Anyone have any ideas why the policy doesn't include non-scout NAA certified ranges?