How about a pertenint question?

[anarchist]

AHH! AHH! AHH! Trevorum,

 

While I agree with the 'myth of lifestyle' arguement, your 'science arguement' is unproven hypothesis...there are NO conclusive, peer-reviewed studies that come close to factual proof that Homosexuality is genetic...none. Suggestions, indications, perhaps but no proof; so lets not claim the scientific community has said the 'world is round' until we prove it...

 

That said, you note not understanding the western cultural antagonism to homosexual conduct...here in the west we have also culturally 'decided' forcing young girls into arranged marrages, pedophillia, slavery, caste systems, surfdom, burning-to-death brides who don't bring enough dowery, hacking other tribes to death and rape are also 'bad' ideas...

 

cultural tabos generally find existance in religion or as a societal responce to 'negative' events and out comes...

 

But does your post mean there are not other cultures (eastern?) that have "issues", taboos or rules?

Or is it just western cultural that has oddities... ?

 

 

and lets get real 'real' here, folks and quit dancing around the 2000 pound elephant in the room...FEAR.

 

Many if not most American families are 'apprehensive' (read afraid) of 'homosexuals' (read pedophiles) being around their boys...( I know homosexually does not equal pedophillia but there is a scientific correlation...and before you jump all over me... I am just explaining to Trevorum some western idiosyncratic issues)...On a personal note; my brother in law would not let either of his boys join scouting due to that fear...so I know it is real.

 

Another large contingent of western (American) culture has religious convictions against socializing with folks they see as continual sinners...this western bias should not be hard to fathom...I believe many Eastern cultures have if not similar taboos...at least some 'interesting' ones of their own. (Muslim, Hindu, even buddists have 'issues', nes pas?)

 

Fear of liablility is a BSA corporate responce, Fear of lossing long-time members and 'sponsors'(COs) would be another...sometimes fear is a terrible thing...some times fear keeps you from jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire....

 

and... BW I'd take the trained leaders unless the untrained guys were old hunt'n buddies of mine....

[Eagledad]

>>implying that this biology is somehow chosen. (sigh) This may be a popular opinion, but it has no scientific basis.

[evmori]

OGE,

I've been busy & been sticking to this forum.

 

Trevorum,

It seems others have expressed what I planned to express. There is no proof being homosexual is not a lifestyle. And until there is, I stand by my original post.

 

C'mon Bob! Inquiring minds want to know your answer to your question!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[acco40]

Barry, as your probably know, psychologists really don't care much about what is "normal." Sex can have disturbing effects on those who are not physically or mentally prepared/mature enough for it. With good nutrition in our society we have many girls (and I mean girls) who are physically ready for sex (i.e. mature enough to bare a child) much earlier than their mental maturity to handle the ramifications of sex and motherhood. Same for boys except that, and it may be a surprise to some feminists, boys don't get pregnant. But look at the horrible consequences that have happened to boys who were molested by authority figures, women who were taken advantage of by older men, mere children who were sexually abused, etc. Many are scarred for life. Frank discussions about sex are very rare in our country.

 

Now add to that mix the neuroses that western society brings about beauty, sex, etc. and you get a very volatile mix.

 

This reminds me of the results of a French survey that asked Frenchmen what was it that they did right after they had sex. The number one answer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Go home to their wife. :-)

[Bob White]

You are wrong Prairie

 

Foto has made it clear in his posts and in a private message that he does indeed hold that all priests and those around them are all bad due to the actions of the few and the role the everyone else played in hiding it. EVERYONE.

 

His did not generalize about any other groups other than priests and presidents.

 

He believes its wrong to generalize about homosexuals but has no qualms generalizing about priests. Not that other religions haven't had problems Only Roman Catholic Priests.

 

He is not the only one however. Several posters have expressed their stance on how we should accept others beliefs and values, just not the ones of those who disagree with them. In fact look at the predjudice so many have shown by assuming my position without having any facts. Bigots reside on both sides of this issue.

 

For insatnce look at the number of posters who have assumed what my thoughts are with a total lack of evidence. Thay are every bit as predjudiced as those they bemoan. Then look at those who allow some posters to behave in truly disgusting ways like Dug did, without even blinking an eye over it. That they would set aside their own values and accept that behavior only because it was aimed at someone they have determined disagrees with them.

 

Had I said to another poster "If you agree with homosexual leaders then why don't you leave your wife etc.."" As Dug had posted then the same people who ignored his post would have been all over me. But no one said a word. Hypocrites, bigots, predjudice, they exist on each side.

 

The BSA has said, Our job is to serve youth, we are not a political organization. So long as people continure to treat it as one the BSA will stay away from the discussion. As long as the tactics used are ones of extortion the BSA will not get involved. They have removed themselves from the very behavior so many here are wallowing in.

 

One poster would take an all homosexual leadership team over untrained heterosexuals...but they will need alot more parental overseeing... really? Why would you feel that way? What is it you would be concerned about? How hypocritical.

 

Others would take them because they are trained...good for you.. but why aren't those same people as vocal today about the units with untrained leaders that actually exist as they are about a hypothetical situation on a topic they have no control over.

How about we fix the problems we actually have first.

 

Look at the number of posters who didn't want to se the COs more involved yet it is the involved COs who sit on the executive board and make the membership decisions. You want change you just don't want the people who make the change involved.

 

You think only the very best of homosexuals will become scout leaders? Really? Are we getting the very best heterosexuals? The BSA wants leaders selected based on their character not the sexuality. That is their current stance. It leaves the door open for homosexuals and heteros alike. Do we have the best character available now?

 

You wouldn't know it from these threads. Bigotry, predjudice, hypocracy, and that's from the side that sees themselves as the good guys who want equality for everybody. I'd be ashamed to associate with either side. Both your politics and behaviors embarrass me. I will stay with the BSA stance, select good leaders, do not allow your sexuality to interfere with the program.

 

 

 

 

 

[Hunt]

Bob, I guess your question was intended to smoke out hypocrasy, and your last post seems to suggest that you think it did, but I don't get it. And this:

 

"Others would take them because they are trained...good for you.. but why aren't those same people as vocal today about the units with untrained leaders that actually exist as they are about a hypothetical situation on a topic they have no control over.

How about we fix the problems we actually have first."

 

What does this mean? That you would choose the trained homosexual leaders over the untrained ones? Clearly, you've made you position clear that you are strongly against untrained leaders--I don't have to put words in your mouth to ascribe that view to you. You go on to say, I think, that people should stop arguing about gay leaders and should focus on untrained leaders. Who are you talking to? I'm in favor of trained leaders--and BSA policy doesn't have to be changed in order to support training--people just have to go to the training.

[DugNevius]

Im still curious why people find my dislike for bigotry to be disgusting. After all, it seems clear that this topic was created to be antagonistic.

[acco40]

"I will stay with the BSA stance, select good leaders, do not allow your sexuality to interfere with the program." Oh my gosh, are dogs sleeping with cats? Are Republicans giving to the poor? Democrats not looking to Government to solve their problems? :-)

 

Bob, why do you believe that is the stance of the BSA? Do they disallow avowed heterosexuals? Do they disallow avowed homosexuals? I agree whole heartedly with part of the above statement that you made. Select good leaders, do not allow THEIR sexuality to interfere with the program. Alas, I just don't feel that it is the BSA stance.

 

P.S. To Terry and/or moderators - in the spirit of promoting good spelling (I need the training) could you alter the forum so we can correct errors in the subject line?(This message has been edited by acco40)

[Prairie_Scouter]

Bob, if foto has commented to you privately that he does indeed consider all priests to be a "problem", then that isn't information I had available, and I once again stand corrected. I didn't read his post that way.

 

Regards your other comments, I never said that allowing gays in Scouting would result in BSA getting only the "best" gays. I had commented that there seemed to be a perception that allowing gays into Scouting would result in a bunch of gay leaders coming to meetings in drag. That's no more true than saying that all gays are good, or all straights are good, etc. Each leader should be judged on his/her own merits.

 

I wish BSA did make their leader policy based on character and not on sexuality, as you say, but I think that that's not what the policy is. BSA has clearly stated that they do not consider gays to be appropriate role models as leaders and disallow them. There is some talk of a policy of don't ask, don't tell. Now, if BSA really did believe that gays should be judged on their character, they wouldn't be saying that they consider them to be poor role models, would they? Personally, I think if the "pro-gay" community is smart, they'll build a population of "don't ask, don't tell" gay leaders who are doing an excellent job, and get them recognized for that. Then, at some point where the evidence is undeniable, go public with that information. It could effectively destroy the "poor role model" argument.

[evmori]

Bob,

Why do you refuse to answer your own question? Stop berating the other posters & give us you answer! I for one am waiting with great anticipation.

 

As far as the spelling goes, there is a spell checker for Internet Explorer. Google ieSpell & download the program. You will need to restart IE but then you will be able to spell check all posts prior to submitting them. And it does check the subject line. Bob, you really need this tool. There are times your posts are almost impossible to read. And since you want to really get your point across with authority, spelling is extra important.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Now let's see...the original question was a choice between two alternatives. One alternative was "a scout unit with all homosexual scout leaders". The other alternative was "all untrained scoutleaders."

 

Now I admit making the assumption that the first alternative with gay leaders also had training attached to it. This makes sense because the only qualification for the second alternative had nothing to do with sexuality, only training. And given what Trevorum noted, the second alternative could well have been untrained gay OR heterosexual leaders, we couldn't say one way or the other. So I assumed the first alternative had to be TRAINED gay leaders.

Without that clarifying assumption, the comparison is impossible because the choice is unclear. But the question does require a choice, "Given the choice, would you rather your son be in ..." And with a couple of exceptions we, the respondents, chose.

 

"Others would take them because they are trained...good for you.. but why aren't those same people as vocal today about the units with untrained leaders that actually exist as they are about a hypothetical situation on a topic they have no control over.

How about we fix the problems we actually have first."

 

This one is interesting. We all were, I thought, trying to answer the 'pertinent' question...which asked nothing about our response to other units with untrained leaders. If THAT was the point of the question, then the question could have been crafted much better. And, after all, this hypothetical was created in the mind of the person who posed the question, not by the respondents.

Therefore I ask, what IS the correct response by the leader of one troop if he detects that leaders of other troops are not properly trained? Now I'm curious about that answer as well as the correct answer to the original question.

 

We have all struggled to sincerely make something of this, and then, wondering what the point was, we are answered, "I'd be ashamed to associate with either side. Both your politics and behaviors embarrass me."

Now is THAT clear enough for everyone? Have a nice day.

[DugNevius]

Anarchist: "I know homosexually does not equal pedophillia but there is a scientific correlation..."

 

Prove it.

[OldGreyEagle]

Gee Ed, crtisizing people over spelling on the net is so uncool, you spend enough time arguing with Bob as it is, we dont need to add typography to your laundry list of whats wrong with him

[packsaddle]

Good one OGE, let the person woh has never mispeled cast the first dictionary at poor what's-his-name, the former vise-president.

[acco40]

Go easy on Mr. Ed folks. His spelling comments were a direct response to my post.