On Line Resource on Gay Rights Issue

[eisely]

For those concerned about the gay rights controversy and scouting, I would suggest visiting the web site noted below. It is loaded with a lot of information, not just inflammatory statements. The web site is: cprmd.org

 

If my memory serves me correctly (senior member and all that), cprmd stands for Citizens for Parental Rights in Maryland.

[sctmom]

This website has me fuming, not because of the position against gays but on the home page it talks about "natural family" and the importance of "blood relatives".

 

My son is NOT my blood relative. Neither is my nephew. I adopted my son when he was born. My brother raised his wife's son since the boy was 2 years old. These are not "natural" or "blood" families. Both mothers made mistakes, they both choose to do the best they could with their children. One choose to take the responsibility of being a mother, and did a fine job (her son is now 24). The other realized she could not provide the type of home she wanted for her son, so she let him go somewhere else to live. I thank God and that mother every day for letting me have the chance to be a mother. Did God bless my family? You better believe it! But not in the way this guy is talking, we are not "blood" relatives. Also, the man my sister's children call "Pop" is not their blood father. Their "natural" father died of cancer when they were teenagers. This man has come into their lives, making their mother happy and taking on responsibility of them as well.

 

The guy behind this website was molested as a child. That is a true tragedy. He has a right to publish his beliefs about homosexuality. But he alienates many people who don't have the "ideal natural family". I could not objectively read anything on his site due to my anger and disgust at his narrow view of "family". After I calm down a bit, I may write him a letter explaining that his choice of words is very hurtful to many people in this world and will turn many away from his information (not that I agree with much of what he presents).

 

[Dedicated Dad]

Sctmom

The ideal natural family is one man and one woman brought together by marriage, who enjoy a monogamous relationship, and with Gods' blessing are given children to raise and love.I believe this speaks directly to the ideal and is not opprobrious to anyone other than those who practice perversion. We believe that extended blood relationships can also play a significant role in the development of the natural family. The can also includes the natural and loving (non-homosexual) parents/parent of adoption. Praise to you and yours for the courageous gift you have given. God bless you.

 

 

[andrews]

As someone whose family has grown by adoption, I would concur completely with the statement quoted. Ours is the best that could have come out of a tough situation, but that doesn't make it ideal. Just because something isn't the ideal doesn't mean it is "bad," it just means it is not the best. Unfortunately the choices of others sometimes make "the best" unachievable.

 

Brad

[evmori]

sctmom,

Being adopted I can sympathize with your post.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

[sctmom]

I know that the best family situation for a child is to be in the care of two loving married parents (one male and one female). But this guy lost his credibility with me by being careless with his words.

 

Just as I'm sure many of you would not listen to the "other" side of the issue if something careless was said right off the bat.

 

I do feel for this man who is still hurting so bad from his childhood experience, and hope that some day he and all the other victims of abuse can find peace.

 

[eisely]

It's funny the things you miss. When I put up this original post I did not pick up on the idea that anybody might be offended on the grounds given. I was more impressed by the volume of information on the issues that were available. I'm sorry if anybody was offended.

[sctmom]

To be honest -- I wasn't impressed by his info on Gays either. Some of the "facts" seemed biased and I thought it did have "inflammatory statements". But that's just my humble opinion.

 

Oh, did anyone pick on the statement from a news source he quoted that said many gays are married? Just keep in mind, you can get rid of every "avowed" gay there is and still "they" may be there.

 

Like a few years ago when Clinton said he would "allow gays to be in the military". That's funny --- they were already there, "allowed" or not.

 

[Rooster7]

sctmom,

 

You got me to bite on your last post...

 

Don't you see the difference between openly accepting a behavior and knowing that it exists? Of course, behavior of all kinds exists in every corner of the world. I'm sure there are numerous rapist and murders hiding in the military ranks as well (although not disproportionately to the rest of the world). Existence is not justification for acceptance. Not when you're talking about behavior.

 

[eisely]

There is no question that the information provided is intended to support a point of view. Just as the information provided in pro gay and lesbian websites is intended to support a point of view. I still believe that the information is helpful.

 

For example, there is the old canard that one in ten men in the US are gay. Apparently this came from the original Kinsey studies based on responses to a single question, "Have you ever had a homosexual experience?" It could easily be true that one in ten adult males have had a homosexual experience, but it does not follow that one in ten are actually gay. How many of those reported experiences were forced upon the respondents? The site goes on to provide more accurate survey information about the incidence of homosexualtity in the United States and other western societies.

[sctmom]

I agree. I just hear some people (not necessarily on this board) who think they have "solved the problem" but not "allowing" gays. They will be there no matter what rules you make.

 

I was thinking more about this whole subject this morning. This website we are discussing is run by a guy who was abused as a child. He is trying to protect others from this same horrible event. I do applaud him for that. I think pedophiles are about the lowest scum on earth. From one view I'm glad this man will educate others on what can happen, including the comments that many pedophiles are married. Also, because of pedophiles, parents and youth leaders have to spend so much valuable time protecting both our children and ourselves. This is time and energy that could be spent on on other things if we could trust no on would hurt our children. But it's not worth the risk.

 

It's not just about homosexuals but also

straight men and women who take advantage of children of the opposite sex, and many other perversions. There are many kinds of abuse a man can to do a young boy that do not qualify as "homosexual" behavior. I believe it has been proven that people who commit sex crimes cannot be reformed. I have no tolerance for these people (male or female).

 

As I get older I am finding out more and more about the women in my family that were abused by their fathers, brothers and uncles. My sister and I are so thankful that we were spared this tragedy. My mother went to great lengths to protect us while remaining in contact with the family. I don't believe any of the boys were sexually abused, but they may have been. My mother also did not let my brother be left alone with these men, I don't know if she had the same fear for him or not.

 

My point is that this isn't just about gays. If you want to argue that gays are immoral, I may disagree with you but I understand your beliefs. I understand not having your children around people who oppose your values -- I do the same. To say all or most gays will abuse childen is not correct. The same as you cannot say all or most married men with daughters abuse their daughters. Gays who flaunt their sexuality also do not represent all gays. Just as men who run around on their wives or beat their wives do not represent all married men.

 

We all make generalities about groups of people, myself included. It's a shame that we do and do not look at each new person as a true individual.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

60 Minutes Misleads the Nation, Attacks Boys Scouts!

CBS 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl misled America as she smiled into the camera and proclaimed that, Heterosexual men are 3 times more likely to molest a boy as compared to homosexual men according to the U.S. Justice Department statistics. Her reasoning was based upon the fact that these are married men involved in heterosexual relationships. It has been well documented that a lot of homosexual men and women hide their homosexuality behind a marriage. Tres Kerns quoted Leslie Stahl to expose her erroneous logic that married male child molesters, who sodomize young boys, are heterosexual and he wasnt suggesting that many homosexuals are married. Tres is a friend to the BSA and a righteous defender of that which is good, right and true.

 

[Dedicated Dad]

I guess we need to get into this now. The BSA hit piece, by Leslie Stahl and 60 minutes attempted to spin the focus from homosexuality being in conflict with the Scout Oath to a non-sequitor molestation issue. For the record though, same-sex molestation accounts for 31% of all molestation while the population of those who practice perversion are only around 2%. Granted, the amount of heterosexual molestations are greater in number, but the rate of incidence is dramatically higher as a percentage to the homosexual population and it is in this fact where Leslie Stahl sought to deceive the gullible and uninformed. Anyway, like I said, the premise behind all this was to spin the BSAs stance on homosexuality away from its contradiction to The Oath and to establish perversion as a moral equivalent to normal man/woman relationships. It is in these specious comparisons the homosexual agenda attempts to gain equal status to marriage. The bottom line position of the BSA on homosexuality is that its in opposition to being Morally Straight and as soon as we take our eye off this ideal, the justifications for perversion go well beyond these ostensible comparisons to that which is good, right and true.