Religion/Sexuality

[Hal_Crawford]

"Yep sherm has stated he is an Eagle! Al Gore claimed he invented the internet, too. "

 

Ed:

Wow, there's a zinger. You managed to get Al Gore and Shem in one swipe. (Don't feel bad Sherm, Ed just likened you to to the only man who has won both an Oscar and the Nobel Peace Prize).

 

Ed, do you have any evidence to suggest that Sherm is not who he says he is or are you just swinging at the fences? Is it that your argument has so faltered that you have nothing left but to accuse those you disagree with of being liars and fakes? I've been posting here for almost a year; do you want to call me a troll too?

 

Do we really know who you are? You claim to be a scouter from Pittsburgh but maybe you are just a troll logging in from a hash bar in Amsterdam.

 

Sometimes the most outspoken attackers of gays are themselves secretly gay. I'm not sure why, perhaps it is to divert suspicion; perhaps they are worried that if gays were allowed to be open in the BSA then they might be outed themselves. Is that your issue? We really don't know that you are who you say you are so why should we believe you?

 

The answer to that is simple. We all profess to be involved in scouting and to live by the oath and law. We promise to be trustworthy and we should extend that expectation to each other. Some who post here are clearly trolls but they are pretty obvious and are usually gone in a flash. Lets all assume the best of each other, even those we disagree with and attack the argument, not the person.

 

Good night.

Hal

[vol_scouter]

So ephebophiles are heterosexual and they are the ones who are having non-consensual sex whereas if it is consensual it is homosexual. In other words, the male homosexuals only do good things with youth but the bad heterosexuals do bad things. That is semantics and nonsense. You can't have it both ways. If someone is having sex with the same sex, the relationship is homosexual. If it is opposite, then heterosexual and for both it is bisexual. We obviously read different studies because what I have read indicates a significant risk for homosexuals to molest youth. As you say, all studies have a bias even in the hard sciences such as physics. However, areas such as psychology and sociology have much more difficulty in minimizing the bias. That is because of having to deal with humans and typically having sample sizes that are small (due to the costs of doing the studies and/or participation issues). Hal gives a reference website to debunk Cameron's work. The criticisms can be equally applied to many 'accepted studies' in the literature and the website had rainbow in the URL - which smacks of a bias towards homosexual issues. I am not defending Cameron and I am not attacking Hal's reference - merely pointing out that biases are on all sides.

 

As to the other groups that you mention, blacks do have higher rates of several diseases. Things such as Hep B, Hep C, and AIDS are usually due to habits that current BSA guidelines screen which hopefully prevents them from being role models. The increased incidence and prevalence of hypertension has a relationship to the higher obesity rate but is also higher even after adjusting for obesity. So for a reasonably fit black scouter, they are not setting a bad example. HPV rates are related to the number of sexual partners so if the inference is scouters having sex with multiple partners - that has been covered in other discussions here and I don't wish to go into that area myself at this time. You ask if I care about them, the answer is yes, I am a physician and care about others.

 

My religion and religious beliefs are clear that homosexuality is a sin. So not matter what others are doing, I am trying to stay true to my own religion and beliefs. Whenever I treat patients, my personal beliefs are kept to myself. I do not lecture others about such issues except in the sense of telling patients to avoid bad behaviors - IV drugs, multiple sex partners both heterosexual and homosexual, overeating, etc. I do not see homosexuals as bad people. I also do not have latent homosexual tendencies or gender issues as some as seeming to imply.

 

The Southern Poverty Law Center works on important causes for which I applaud its efforts but it does tend have rather harsh criticisms for anyone who does not agree with all of its views. So even if Cameron's work was valid research, the SPLC would likely have harsh criticisms.

[packsaddle]

Please! Stop already!

"My religion and religious beliefs are clear that homosexuality is a sin. So not matter what others are doing, I am trying to stay true to my own religion and beliefs."

This is the essence and the fundamental truth of vol_scouter's view. The context of the phrase, "...no matter what others are doing..." pretty much says it all.

It is also unassailable by reason or logic because it is based in faith. Time to let it go.

[sherminator505]

"Well, sherm, since you don't seem to like the membership policy, why don't you just turn in your membership card?"

 

Well, Ed. That's an excellent question. I actually did leave Scouting for about five years. For the most part it was because I has a couple of baby girls that took up most of my time that wasn't devoted to work, but I'd be lying if I said that this issue didn't have anything to do with why I stayed out so long.

 

Fast forward four years. I am now in RCIA (for you Protestants out there, that stands for Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults). Along the way, we were asked to examine our consciences and listen to what God would have us do next.

 

And a funny thing happened. I came to realize that I was being selfish for not returning to Scouting because of something like this. I came to realize that I was dishonoring the Scoutmaster who helped me to Eagle and the Council who sent me to Wood Badge as a college Scouter on campership. And I realized that the only message that I was sending was that my nose was bent out of joint and I was slinking away.

 

So I'm back, Ed, and guess what. I've decided that my conscience's dictates are more important than what you, and all those like you, think.

 

I've answered your question, Ed. Now will you answer mine?

[Mr. Boyce]

It's fascinating to me to ponder the fact that in 2009, after how many years and how many hundred millions of dollars, homosexuals are STILL operating at the same rate of promiscuous unprotected sex that they did at the time that AIDS first appeared.

 

If you truly believe homosexuality is equivalent to hetereosexuality, you are ignoring great differences here: much more promiscuity, much more abuse and mistreatment and exploitation.

 

You may feel you are noble in ignoring these differences, or pooh-poohing them, but you really do truth a disservice. . . in the interest of some political goals you have.

 

I wish it weren't so, but it is.

 

And with respect to religion, the Bible is quite clearly prohibitive of homosexuality. (Yes, I know there are modern convoluted readings which take black and turn it white, but we all know, at the end of the day, that the reason this is done is simply because we're tired of the pressure from the homosexual groups and tired of the venom.)

[GernBlansten]

If the gays were allowed to marry, would the promiscuity rate approach that of the rest of the population?

You know, by definition, promiscuous sex is that which is engaged in outside the sanctity of marriage. So any sex by gays is in fact promiscuous. Right?

[vol_scouter]

Packsaddle,

 

I have presented cogent arguments why homosexuals should not be held as an OK alternative lifestyle and for special risks for scouting from my reading. DanKroh was saying that many religions are accepting of homosexual lifestyles and no longer consider it sinful. My religion does not and my reading of the bible and of scholars leads to believe that it is a sin. So just because there is a movement among some religions to accept homosexuality as not sinful does not make them correct. In science, many times the lone voice that has been demonized has turned out to be the correct view. Society will determine what is right for society by the views of the majority which does mean that the views are right or wrong - the Creator will determine that clearly if my belief system is actually correct. DanKroh implies that non-acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle as being correct is to demonize them. I think that the opposite is becoming the norm - those that do not see homosexuality as a 'good' lifestyle are the ones being demonized.

[DanKroh]

"So for a reasonably fit black scouter, they are not setting a bad example. HPV rates are related to the number of sexual partners so if the inference is scouters having sex with multiple partners - that has been covered in other discussions here and I don't wish to go into that area myself at this time."

 

So, for blacks and women, you are willing to qualify that if they, as individuals, do not engage in the unhealthy lifestyles that are rampant in within their groups, then it would be ok for them to be scouters. Yet, you are not willing to extend that same courtesy to homosexuals who do not engage in unhealthy behaviors.

 

Right. Got it.

 

You can tout your compassion as a physician all you want. I'm glad you are able to separate your personal feelings from your professional duties. But when you say things like "homosexuals lead unhealthy lifestyles", "significant risk for homosexuals to molest youth", and "homosexuality is a sin", your intention may not be to demonize them, but that is exactly what you are doing. You are pre-judging every last one of them based on your religion-dictated precepts. Hmmm... isn't there a word for that?

 

"So ephebophiles are heterosexual and they are the ones who are having non-consensual sex whereas if it is consensual it is homosexual. In other words, the male homosexuals only do good things with youth but the bad heterosexuals do bad things. That is semantics and nonsense. You can't have it both ways. If someone is having sex with the same sex, the relationship is homosexual. If it is opposite, then heterosexual and for both it is bisexual."

 

So men who have consensual sex with teenage girls are happy, well-adjusted heterosexuals, and that relationship with a teenage girl is equivalent (in their minds) to a relationship that they might have with an adult woman? Because that's what you are saying about homosexuals. Are there homosexuals who engage in inappropriate relationships? Yes, a very small minority, just as there are a very small minority of homosexuals (men and women) who engage in inappropriate relationships with teenagers of the opposite gender. Does that mean that all (or a majority of) heterosexuals have the potential to have inappropriate relationships with teenagers? You'll have to tell me if you have statistics on that, can't say I've ever felt the urge. And yet, we allow female leaders in Boy Scouting. And yet, we allow leaders of both genders as leaders in Venturing. But can't let the big scary homosexuals be leaders in Scouting because they might lead an otherwise completely heterosexual teenage boy into consensual sex (also know as "catching the gay").

 

All righty then. Yes, you obviously read different studies than I do.

[DanKroh]

Can't get the edit button to work, but I made a typo, it should read:

 

"Are there homosexuals who engage in inappropriate relationships? Yes, a very small minority, just as there are a very small minority of heterosexuals (men and women) who engage in inappropriate relationships with teenagers of the opposite gender."

[Mr. Boyce]

Dan, you are so very dismissive of this subject that you are frightening me!

 

Here are sources:

 

National Coalitions of Antiviolence Programs

Knight-Ridder

Journal of Men's Studies

International Journal of Epidemiology

University of Chicago research

Centers for Disease Control

Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes

Midwest AIDS Prevention Project

British Journal of Psychiatry

 

I would say that these many sources should strongly suggest that we take a serious look into this topic, and not wave it off, even if it makes us uncomfortable due to our political sympathies.

 

I think the whole area continues to need research. In light of this, the BSA policy makes even more sense than perhaps the BSA recognizes.

 

I'm a circumspect guy, so I tend to not care for either the political left wing or right wing. But in this one area, I think prudence suggests careful policies on the part of an organization which is so greatly liable to have abuse take place. . . and subsequent expensive litigation.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Hey Sherm, contratulations and welcome !

[DanKroh]

"Dan, you are so very dismissive of this subject that you are frightening me!"

 

I'm not sure what "this subject" is; if you are speaking of the problems that plague homosexuals, I am anything but dismissive, since it is my life's work. What I *am* dismissive of, Mr. Boyce, are citations from sources of propaganda, like the Traditional Values Coalition and NARTH, which are the only sources you have cited here so far. When you throw out pejorative and derogatory statements, I'm going to call you on them. That's not being dismissive, it's being intellectually honest.

 

"Here are sources:

National Coalitions of Antiviolence Programs

Knight-Ridder

Journal of Men's Studies

International Journal of Epidemiology

University of Chicago research

Centers for Disease Control

Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes

Midwest AIDS Prevention Project

British Journal of Psychiatry

 

I would say that these many sources should strongly suggest that we take a serious look into this topic, and not wave it off, even if it makes us uncomfortable due to our political sympathies."

 

Again, sources of what? You have not cited them as being the sources for any of the "facts" you have been espousing. I am quite well versed on HIV and AIDS statistics. I am quite well versed on the unhealthy behaviors that are rampant in the homosexual community (but do not try to attribute them to some inherent flaw of homosexuals), as I said, dealing with them is the focus of my professional career. However, that's not what you have been trying to discuss. You and others have been trying to use these statistics to establish that homosexuality is "an unhealthy lifestyle". A sexual orientation is not a lifestyle. And the unhealthy behaviors that some homosexuals engage in make them no less moral or worthy of respect or good role models than the unhealthy behaviors that some heterosexuals engage in.

 

I'm simply trying to stop some people from seeing them as one big group of boogeymen (and boogeywomen?) and to see them as individuals who are just as fallible as *human beings* as any other human being.

[evmori]

I'd be more than happy to answer your question, sherm, if you would please ask it again.

 

Do the Catholic's administering this Rite know your stance on homosexuals?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hal, you limited it to "Nobel PEACE prize," but if you just go with Nobel and Oscar, George Bernard Shaw won both.

[sherminator505]

*sigh*

 

"I'd be more than happy to answer your question, sherm, if you would please ask it again."

 

OK, Ed. I don't typically repost something because it tends to make the forum longer than it needs to be. But as I can see that you are given to knee-jerk reactions and not actually reading the posts, I will repeat my question along with the setup in its entirety:

 

"OK. I'm signing in one more time. I am not signing on to address any one post, as this could go on forever. But I do wish to make a few observations, if I might:

 

1) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is immoral, even amongst the major Christian demominations.

 

2) There does not seem to be a consensus as to whether or not homosexuality is a lifestyle choice.

 

3) There does not seem to be clear evidence to support the assertion that open homosexuals would be any more of a detriment to Scouting than the closeted ones that are generally acknowledged to be there now.

 

Given the above observations, is seems that a clearly exclusionary and probably discriminatory policy is being pursued based on "maybes" and the discomfort of some. Legal rulings aside, does this seem like a solid rationale for such a policy?"

 

"Do the Catholic's administering this Rite know your stance on homosexuals?"

 

Not that it's any of your business, but yes. My deacon does know that I believe that discriminating against homosexuals is wrong. And even though the deacon and I disagree on that point, I should tell you that I was accepted into the Church anyway.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)