Is the tide turning?

[Rooster7]

Jbroganjr,

 

Allow me to address each point of concern, one by one:

 

1) I am against the homosexual agenda in general and specific to BSA. That fact does not mean I am on a witch-hunt, nor does it mean I hate any group or individual. None of my posts, or any of the others I have read, indicate that the homosexual community should be subject to hate. This is was your conjecture.

 

2) I have known and had friends who were homosexuals. However, I reserve the right to disapprove of their behavior. The fact that I do not approve of the behavior, does not mean I do not understand or care for them. Again, this is your conjecture.

 

3) For starters, read 1 Corinthians 6, verses 9 & 10 (Yes, its in the New Testament). Of course the same verse condemns other sins, but I never claimed homosexuality to be the only sin. My contention is that we should not try to normalize what is easily identifiable as wrong. This does not mean we don't love homosexuals, but we should not turn our backs on sin either. Did Ruth endorse prostitution? We love the sinner, not the sin. Also, look up Romans 1.

 

4) One's religious beliefs, race, or nationality are not behavior choices. And again, no one has said that the homosexual should be hated. Once again, this is your conjecture.

 

In regard to your statement, "It is sad that you need hate and discrimination to foster your own beliefs and give you the false sense of moral strength" I find this most offensive. It is sadder still when one feels compelled to twist facts and other people's thoughts to counter an argument that no one ever made. If you disagree, fine. But don't tell me or anyone else that we are promoting hate. This is the biggest lie of all.

 

Mr. Eisely, I can't provide a source for my claim at this time. I did read it somewhere, but my memory is not as good as it use to be. I will research it and get back to you.

 

Thanks.

 

[Rooster7]

Gay advocates correctly state that most child molesters are heterosexual males. But this is a misleading statement. In proportion to their numbers (about 1 out of 36 men), homosexual males are more likely to engage in sex with minors: in fact, they appear to be three times more likely than straight men to engage in adult-child sexual relations (1). And this does not take into account the cases of homosexual child abuse, which are unreported. NARTH's Executive Director Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, for example, says that about one third of his 400 adult homosexual clients said they had experienced some form of homosexual abuse before the age of consent, but only two of those cases had been reported.

 

While no more than 2% of male adults are homosexual, some studies indicate that approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual (2). Further, since homosexual pedophiles victimize far more children than do heterosexual pedophiles (3), it is estimated that approximately 80% of pedophilic victims are boys who have been molested by adult males (4).

 

Popular gay and lesbian fiction often portrays adult-child sexual relationships as fondly remembered, tender "coming-of-age" stories. Much of this fiction is pornographic - aimed specifically at teenagers - and is recommended to them on reading lists distributed by gay-advocacy groups such as P-FLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) (5), or offered to them in public-school libraries (6).

 

Tragically, the abused child is then more likely to become an abuser in adulthood (7). Thus, it is not surprising that we see more pedophilia among homosexual men: since they are more likely to have been victims of abuse, they are also more likely to initiate a repetition of that abuse with a same-sex child.

 

In 1990, the highly respected Journal of Homosexuality produced a special double issue devoted to adult-child sex, which was entitled "Male Intergenerational Intimacy" (1). One article said many pedophiles believe they are "born that way and cannot change" (p.133). Another writer said a man who counseled troubled teenage boys could achieve "miracles ... not by preaching to them, but by sleeping with them." The loving pedophile can offer a "companionship, security and protection" which neither peers nor parents can provide (p. 162). Parents should look upon the pedophile who loves their son "not as a rival or competitor, not as a thief of their property, but as a partner in the boy's upbringing, someone to be welcomed into their home..." (p. 164)

 

Psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover reflects on the Journal of Homosexuality's "Male Intergenerational Intimacy":

 

"This special issue reflects the substantial, influential, and growing segment of the homosexual community that neither hides nor condemns pedophilia. Rather they argue that pedophilia is an acceptable aspect of sexuality, especially of homosexuality. Indeed, the San Francisco Sentinel, a Bay Area gay-activist newspaper, published a piece arguing that pedophilia is central to male homosexual life" (8).

 

(1) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.

 

(2) K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.

 

(3) Freund, K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.

 

(4) Schmidt, Thomas (1995). Straight and Narrow? Compassion and Clarity in the Homosexuality Debate. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, p. 114.

 

(5) "Be Yourself: Questions and Answers for Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Youth," published by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, 1101 14th Street, N.W., Suite 1030, Washington, DC 20005.

 

(6) "Action Group Forms in Seattle," by Eleanor Durham, Parents and Teachers for Responsible Schools, P.O. Box 28519, Seattle, Washington 98118-8 519, from the NARTH Bulletin, April 1998, p. 11.

 

(7) Siegel, J., Sorenson, S., Golding, J., Burnam, J., Stein, J., The prevalence of childhood sexual assault: the Los Angeles epidemiological catchment area project. American Journal of Epidemiology 126, 6:1141.

 

(8) Satinover, Jeffrey (1996). Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, p. 63.

 

[eisely]

Now that is an impressive post. With footnotes no less. Thanks for the info.

[jmcquillan]

This story was published on June 12, 2001 by the Rochester Democrat in Rochester, New York.

HEADLINE: Local Scouts avoid ban on gays - Otetiana Council

-----------------------------------------------------------

focuses on behavior rather than sexuality

-----------------------------------------

Homosexuals may be able to serve as Boy Scout leaders in the Rochester area as long as they don't engage in publicly inappropriate behavior, according to a new Otetiana Council, Inc. membership standards statement.

The statement says the council will not inquire about the sexual orientation of current or prospective members, but "will exclude a scoutmaster or member if his or her sexuality or behavior becomes publicly inappropriate as judged by the Otetiana Council."

The position statement does not specifically defy or oppose the national Boy Scouts of America's stance against "avowed homosexuals." However, it does shift the membership criteria from sexual orientation to public behavior -- effectively giving organizations that sponsor troops greater leeway in selecting leaders.

 

The Otetiana Council has more than 5,000 adult volunteers in the Monroe County area and serves more than 13,000 youths.

 

This is only part of the story, for the rest see:

http://www.rochesternews.com/0612story1.html

 

END.

 

While on the surface it may seem that this is counter to BSA policy, and flies in the face of what the policy tries to achieve, the fact is that as long as the "Don't ask, don't tell" way of doing things is around, those gays who choose to keep their preferences to themselves can quite successfully participate in Scouting, and who's to know? I would not want to think of the alternative, that being a requirement of the BSA that all adult leaders, or prospective leaders, state their sexual preference up front in the process of volunteering.

 

[Rooster7]

I have no problem with BSA stating, "No homosexuals allowed". I agree that BSA should not have to ask about "sexual preference", but not for the same reason. They should not have to ask, because the natural order dictates that one should be heterosexual. Biologically, homosexuality makes not sense. It is a perversion. BSA should not have to ask for the same reason one does not ask another person if he is something other than male or female. If it comes to light that a Scout or Scouter is a homosexual (even if it is not through some overt action made by that person), BSA should refuse membership. Homosexuality is immoral. This is the stance of BSA. Why would the organization tell potential members, we feel it's immoral, but only if you tell us about it? That's ridiculous. I'm fairly confident that national will see it that way and step in to change that policy within the Otetiana Council.

[eisely]

The apparent action by the council in Rochester, New York sounds similar to something the San Francisco Bay Area Council did a few years ago. As far as I know this West Coast council was the first to have a "don't ask - don't tell" variation of the national policy. The idea of letting the chartered organization establish a policy also deserves more exploration. Since so many units are chartered to churches, this would effectively shift the burden back to those who object most strenuously to homosexuality.

 

In a different thread a few months ago, there were heated exchanges about public schools being chartered organizations. The issue then was the constitutionality of a public school accepting a charter from Boy Scouts that incorporates a duty to god into its principals. In Oak Park, Illinois the local variant of PTA was the charter partner that did not want to abide by scout's policy on gays. The idea of allowing chartered organizations to have their own policy would also place a stronger burden on parents to understand what they are getting into.

 

Parents also have the option of organizing their own 501c3 non profit corporation for the express purpose of obtaining a charter and running a scout unit. This option exists today, and would allow more variation among organizations.

 

I still come down on the side that believes that homosexuals are inappropriate role models, but some degree of local flexibility may be a constructive way to work through this situation.

 

Rooster7,

 

Do any of the data you cite go into the question of pedophilia committed by "avowed" homosexuals as distinct from homosexuals still in the closet at the time that the abuse occurred?

 

jbroganjr,

 

I also think you presume a bit when you say that it sounds like none of the posters have ever known any gay people. I happen to work for a very large organization in San Francisco and work alongside gays every day in very productive professional relationships. Any employer who might choose to shut gays out of its labor pool will pass up a lot of talented hard working people. But that is yet different from selecting leaders for youth organizations.

 

Also of interest; anybody who doubts that there is a gay agenda to persuade the youth of America that homosexuality is a great life style should visit the web site of the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. Just search for GLSEN and you will get there.

[Rooster7]

Mr. Eisely,

 

In regard to your question - "Do any of the data you cite go into the question of pedophilia committed by 'avowed' homosexuals as distinct from homosexuals still in the closet at the time that the abuse occurred?"

 

I cannot provide an answer. Personally, I'm convinced that all homosexuals are a potential threat, and in particular a threat to our children. If you probe the web pages on the www, and investigate the various groups that support the Gay agenda, I think you would agree.

 

In regard to the proposal that the issue should be left up to local councils or Troops, I disagree. BSA has been around for a very long time - 90 plus years. The organization should remain faithful to their founding principles - nationally. Furthermore, if various councils or Troops can set their own policies, what happens when a BSA event brings those groups together (i.e., jamboree, camporee, etc.)?

 

Thanks.

 

[jmcquillan]

eisely said:

 

"I still come down on the side that believes that homosexuals are inappropriate role models,..."

 

Yep, I couldn't agree more. But here's the rub...when a don't ask / don't tell philosophy rules the day, (and I'm not saying it's wrong, not at all), who's to know just who's setting the example"? :-)

[eisely]

For those who are concerned about the quality of the dialogue on these issues, please take note of the diatribe below. "SF Gate" is affiliated with the San Francisco Chronicle, a major general circulation metropolitan newspaper (that I don't read). If this kind of stuff represents the genteel side of the critics of the Boy Scouts, imagine what is going on elsewhere. To keep jmcquillan's admonition in mind, this is not the level we want to get to. We want to stay above this.

 

Jesse Prefers Straight Boys

A homophobic senator, the Scouts, and the sad truth about American politics

 

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist Wednesday, June 20, 2001

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 

 

So here's a fascinating little anecdote of minor political intrigue and ignoble Washington bickering and fiscal backstabbing and blatant GOP homophobia and bitter Jesse Helms-infused ugliness you may or may not have heard about, because God knows no one really wants to pay too much attention to anything Jesse Helms does or says or smells like for fear of nausea and intellectual degradation and nasty rashes breaking out on your id.

 

It goes something like this: everyone graciously acknowledges how the Boy Scouts are now rather famously homophobic, actively rejecting those awful and morally corruptive gay people from their straight-laced, knot-tying, tent-pitching faux-ranks, essentially yielding to dumb fear and denying the existence of the inborn homoerotics in scouting, of thousands of menboys and boymen sharing campsites and learning to be virile together and sharing neatly pressed uniforms and learning how to be good upstanding quietly repressed members of American society. This much we know.

 

We also know many upstanding educational facilities across this fine land have decided, in turn, to ban the Scouts from using their auditoriums and schoolrooms and bathrooms for their meetings and pow-wows. This is probably a good thing.

 

The reason is clear enough: The Homophobia Merit Badge doesn't exactly jibe all that well with the ostensible American educational ideal -- in tatters or not -- of tolerance and humanitarianism and the sharing of ideas. (OK, and also drug paranoia and sexual whininess and rampant misinformation and underpaid staffs and too many lousy teachers, but that's another column).

 

Not to mention that most schools have zero obligation to cater to bigoted otherwise intolerant groups. This is the school's choice. No KKK meetings, no Mormon brainwashing seminars, no creepy Promise Keepers rallies, no showings of German snuff films in the school cafeteria, no homophobic Scout troop meetings. Simple.

 

So here comes Jesse Helms (extreme R, N.C.) and his horde o' white wheezing chest-thumpin' GOP hunks, oozing his viscid North Carolina malevolence across the nation as he spearheads a nasty little education initiative (tacked onto the larger education reform bill) that effectively bars government funds from schools that have barred the homophobic Scouts from using their facilities due to their anti-gay stance. That's right: you don't want the happy exclusionary anti-gay Scouts to meet in your school? Fine. No money for you.

 

Helms said his amendment was meant to combat "the organized lesbians and homosexuals in this country of ours." He actually said that. No one slugged him for it. Satan fluffed the fiery leech-infested pillows in Jesse's cell in anticipation of his pending arrival, but that's about it. He did not immediately implode and dissolve into a puddle of green odiferous tripe, as you might expect. In fact, the measure passed.

 

(Side note: If this story reminds you of a recent newsitem in which GOP man-beast Bob Barr (R-Georgia) threatened to withhold funding from the D.C. transit commission unless they named another bus stop after Reagan, you are reading far too much political news and need to get some air and drink more wine and read of book. Seriously. But you're right, it is the exact same breed of Prozac-inducing obscenity).

 

Sometimes we have to be reminded of how politics really works. We have to remember it's not at all about two opposing viewpoints battling valiantly to make progress for their respective causes, wrongheaded or no, aiming for the general betterment of their constituents or their wives or even their own wallets, sometimes resorting to ugly backstabbing tactics to make progress for their cause. Would that it were half that noble, one tenth that intelligible or humane.

 

Forget the huge tax cuts and the sweeping education reforms and grand mutations in foreign policy enacted over years and decades. Politics is also in the minutia, politics is tiny whiny acts of sneering **** -slapping amongst its participants, politics is bitter little maneuvering to see who gets the last laugh, to see who really wields the bigger stick, to see who can act most like a screeching 5-year-old forced to go to bed without their tenth scoop of ice cream.

 

Politics is Jesse Helms preventing schools from buying new supplies and fixing up schoolrooms because they refuse to cater to a group, however noble its overall intention, which stupidly and rather meanly fears and discriminates against people it deems immoral and dangerous because they have slightly different sexual wiring.

 

The Boy Scouts may do as they please. The Supreme Court said so. The schools -- and the culture at large -- should respond accordingly. Everything else is merely little simpering balls of poison in the form of a wildly unattractive anti-everything North Carolina senator who wields too much power and probably should be excised like a bunion.

 

 

 

[Mike Long]

Mark Morford must live in a very sad, ugly and bitter little world.

His glass isn't just half empty, it's shattered beyond recognition.

 

Over here, the sun is out, the birds are singing, my family and friends are healthy and my wife loves me.

I feel bad for him.

[Rooster7]

The title of this article alone should tell you something about how the Gay community thinks - "Jesse Prefers Straight Boys". I ask...Does anyone really believe that this represents a minority within the Gay community? Not from anything I have read. They're militant. They're determined to make everyone "see the light". In the process, they don't care about anyone else, especially those people with conservative beliefs. If you don't agree with them, you're labeled as stupid or evil or both. BSA, and everyone else that believes their behavior is wrong, needs to stand together.

[eisely]

Apparently Mr. Morford's piece did not run in the San Francisco Chronicle but only ran on the sourced web site. The following correction was supplied to the Wall Street Journal's web site OpinionJournal.com by the news director for SFGate.com:

 

"The Mark Morford column on Boy Scouts did not appear in the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper, nor is Morford an employee of the Chronicle. The article appeared only on SF Gate, a separately managed website that contains original material as well as Chronicle content, and was not reviewed by Chronicle editors prior to publication."

 

Don't want to misrepresent anybody or anything.