Religion/Sexuality

[packsaddle]

I applaud the calls on both sides for sources of evidence to support claims. I see some misunderstanding about what constitutes a source for this kind of discussion.

 

This is addressed to Mr. Boyce, most recently, but actually to all readers who are not experienced in proper referencing. I offer the following example of a proper source for others to reference, taken from the instructions to authors for that journal:

 

Doe J. Epidemiology and public health. Int J Epidemiol 1970; 5: 702-10

 

This is just one example and different journals have different styles but most of them require similar information. Specifically:

Author

Year of publication

Title of article (if not a book)

Journal or book title

Volume (and sometimes number) (Edition, if the book has been revised)

Pagination (page number for first page of article - and often page number of last page of article. Number of pages if a book)

 

For sources such as CDC, there is a simlar protocol for citing reports, white papers, bulletins, or even internal correspondence.

Without this level of detail, the reader has little hope of actually finding the references or information you claim to have read. In a peer review, without this level of detail, your claim will be dismissed as unsupported.

If anyone in this discussion would like to claim actual technical validity, the onus is on you to provide a means by which everyone can access the evidence.

 

Some sources have online access. Here is an example for the above journal:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/current.dtl#MENTAL_HEALTH

You will note the ability to read online or to download as pdf in most cases. Much older literature and older government reports (CDC, for example) sometimes are not available online but may be purchased from third party print sources.

 

Otherwise, if you don't provide actual source information, you do nothing to advance your argument...actually you hurt your standing by cultivating the appearance of someone who merely makes unsupported claims.

 

[evmori]

Legal rulings aside, does this seem like a solid rationale for such a policy?

 

I think the BSA policy regarding homosexuals is right on the money. Is it exclusionary? Yes. Does that make it wrong or a bad policy? No. Is it discriminatory? Yes. Does that make it wrong or a bad policy? No.

 

Not that it's any of your business, but yes. My deacon does know that I believe that discriminating against homosexuals is wrong.

 

Are avowed homosexuals permitted to become members of the parish you just joined?

 

[sherminator505]

Thanks for answering my question, Ed. In response to yours, no, I don't believe they do. And before you ask, no I don't believe that fact means that I should quit the Church any more than I believe that I should quit Scouting because of one policy that I don't like.

 

You take the good with the bad in life, but you should always try for more good even when the task becomes irksome and the responsibility becomes weighty.(This message has been edited by sherminator505)

[evmori]

Are you taking the same umbrage with your parish that you are taking with Scouts, sherm?

[NWScouter]

Ed, you state in a post a few pages back Did God destroy entire cities because people ate pork and shrimp or blending the threads of linen and wool? Nope. And let us not forget those were man's rules not those of God. You claim to know the Bible and state the prohibitions mention were just mens rule Hate to remind you they are in the book of Leviticus, part of the Torah and the same place where quotes sited against homosexual come from. How you can call one passage God's Law and an another mans.

 

One thing you have to remember about the history of interpreting the bible, you have groups that have practiced free love, 16th cent. Radical Anabaptists, vegetarianism, Seven Day Adventists, complete abstinence, Shakers and others beliefs to this day.

 

[sherminator505]

It's not so much a matter of taking umbrage as trying to make a wrong situation right. I can't change the Church, as the Church is much more than a parish. Also, the requirement of the Church regarding doctrine is acceptance. So even though I might have personal disagreements on points of doctrine, I accept them as the teachings of the Church and refrain from arguing the point.

 

My attitude toward Scouting is different only in that there is the opportunity to change something that I perceive as unjust. It's not taking umbrage, it is informing Scouters that my conscience tells me that what they are doing is wrong. You may disagree with me (and obviously you do) but you should realize that I have said what I have said with the very best of intentions.

[evmori]

I understand were you are coming from sherm. I see the two as the same thing. Both are let's say a national policy not a local policy. Why not work to get the church doctrine to change while you are trying to get the Scouts to change their policy?

[vol_scouter]

In a partial response to Packsaddle, Hal, and Dan, an article dealing with the prevalence of homosexuality can be found at the CDC:

Sexual Behavior and Selected Health Measures: Men and Women 1544 Years of Age, United States, 2002, W. D. Mosher, A. Chandra, and J. Jones, Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics, CDC, Number 362, September 15, 2005. The number of males 15-44 having a homosexual encounter in the past 12 months is 2.9%. Another article that I read at the time of publication several years ago building upon this data and taking all males with long term homosexual relationships was estimated to be 1.9%. The number was smaller as I recall because the higher rates of Hep B, Hep C, and AIDS tended to shorten the expected life spans. Other categories would include bisexuals et cetera. A prevalence of ~2% of the male population makes a definition of abnormal correct. That is without any value judgments. For example, picking people with sufficiently high IQs would make that group abnormal but that does not mean that the trait is bad. It is just noting the prevalence.

 

I think that Dan is correct and that the majority of male homosexuals will not harm male youth. Most are basically good people (basically good here representing the norm). From conversations with scouting professionals and from non-scholarly descriptions in the mainstream media of supposed scholarly work, the rate of homosexual molestations is well higher than 20%. I have no way to know why and how certain homosexuals sign up for scouting, but if it in any way reflects the prevalence in society, then a conservative estimate is that homosexuals are molesting youth at a rate 10x higher than heterosexuals. The number that I have seen is more on the order of 40% but I do not have ready references. So I see the current ban as a YP issue. It is unfair to the male homosexuals that would never molest a child but it seems prudent.

 

A previous poster did a much more eloquent job than I earlier in asserting that when it comes to his ability to raise his children free from having to deal with homosexual issues and other issues that are not appropriate for children, stay out of his business. I wholeheartedly agree. My children, male and female, are through graduate school so these are not issues for me now. However, I would not have my children in an organization where that is an issue.

 

 

[Hal_Crawford]

Vol:

I think you may be mixing two different usages of the word homosexual. There is homosexual the noun which generally refers to people who might call themselves gay or lesbian; people who attracted to the same sex instead of the opposite sex. Then there is homosexual the adjective which means same sex and would be used to describe acts as being between the people of the same gender.

 

The distinction that I see is that most of the concerns we have in YP are about homosexual acts but many if not most of these molestations are not committed by homosexuals (in the traditional sense). They are committed by pedophiles and they are an entirely different animal. According to what I learned in YPT and what I have read elsewhere the pedophile is most likely to otherwise heterosexual and usually married. Why someone can live as an adult heterosexual and want to have sex with boys is beyond me but they do. When the married father of three molests a boy it is a homosexual act but he is not someone who is identified as a homosexual. That difference in the uses of the word can skew the statistics and I think that is the case with the ones you cite.

 

Pedophiles are the reason that we have to have Youth Protection in spite of the ban on gay members. Truth be know, parents should have no more reason to trust you or me with their sons than they would a gay man of otherwise good character. I add that last caveat because there are many people straight and gay who are bad role models and should not work with youth. I wish that we lived in a world where everyone could be trusted not to harm children but we don't so we have YP training and policies to keep bad things from happening.

 

Hal

 

[evmori]

NWScouter,

 

You are correct regarding the OT. But God still never destroyed an entire city because someone ate pig.

[vol_scouter]

Hal,

 

Pedophiles by definition have sex with pre-pubertal children. So most of the instances that I have read about or are personally aware do not involve pedophiles. Dan Kroh has correctly identified them as ephebophiles. I agree that they compose the majority of molesters from what I have read in the media and from information that I am privy. The real issue as to homosexuals from a YP stand point is whether or not 'statistically' they are more likely to molest a child than heterosexuals. If the rate of abuse was ~2%, then there would be no real risk as compared to heterosexuals. If it is in the 20-40% range that I have seen, then they are more likely to molest than a heterosexual. You are correct that how these numbers are obtained is suspect especially since many times ephebophile crimes are called pedophiles - which if that is the way it is officially reported then the risk is much higher. If ephebophiles were primarily heterosexual/bisexual but are reported as homosexual, then the risk is over estimated. Maybe Dan has good information that he is confident in the validity that better answers the question but I doubt it considering that the information is not likely recorded by people trained to determine the appropriate classification. I do not believe that asking the molester is entirely valid. It would likely take questioning and some clever scales that Dan likely has or knows about.

 

I do not mind excluding people to protect our youth. If it can be shown (with good studies not associated with agendas) that the risks outlined are incorrect and that the risks are no greater than the general population, then homosexuals should not be excluded on the basis of YP risks. Whatever national determines, I have no input unless they read these forums and I suspect that most here are in the same boat.

 

In this discussion, you brought up a good point - we are all scouters trying to deliver quality program to our youth. We do not always agree with some aspects although in some of the other forums Dan, you, and I agree much of the time. I think that if I had the opportunity to share a campfire with you, Dan, pack, and most others, that we would have a great time and be in much harmony as long as we stayed away from these few divisive issues that we do not control.

[Hal_Crawford]

"I think that if I had the opportunity to share a campfire with you, Dan, pack, and most others, that we would have a great time and be in much harmony as long as we stayed away from these few divisive issues that we do not control. "

 

I agree. Somebody recently posted something that my grandmother used to say, in polite company you don't talk about politics or religion. Taking those two off the table I suspect we would all be more alike than different.

 

One of the reasons I feel the way I do about the membership issues is that I think it has drawn a lot of focus away from the program. It not only attracts the wrong public attention but it also consumes far to much of the energies of those within the scouting community. I am really tired of explaining all the truly wonderful things that we do and then hearing "But..." I suspect we all would be happier if the entire issue would go away.

 

My gut tells me that if the membership issues were left up to chartering organizations that scouting would probably change for the better. I really doubt that the gay bars will empty out as the whole LGBT community scrambles to find scout troops to join. I doubt that you would see a scout color guard at the head of the Pride Parade. I suspect that there would be very few gays who would want to join and most of them would fall into one of two categories: former scouts and/or Eagles whose lives were enriched by scouting and wish to continue with the program and gay or lesbian parents of boys who want to share the scouting experience with their sons. In my mind neither group poses a serious threat.

 

For many it is a moral (or more to the point a religious) issue and I respect that (certainly more than statistics which you and I both know can be twisted to prove anything). That is why leaving it up to the COs makes sense. You can be sure that the LDS, Catholic or the more conservative protestant churches are not going to approve any openly gay leaders. Other churches and organizations would be free to grant membership based on their on values. Along the way the BSA might find some new chartered partners in Unitarian, liberal Jewish and other houses of worship that have differed with the BSA position.

 

Personally I would like to see scouting move away from the politics of left and right, gay and straight etc. Yesterday a scout camp here in Virginia lost a young man in a devastating fire. He hasn't been identified but he was reportedly a 20 year old counselor. There have been a total of five postings about this tragedy on this forum. How many posts have their been on the political threads during the same period? Maybe we should all step back and examine our priorities. Perhaps we should all remind ourselves what brought us to the campfire in the first place. I think I may go have a friendly cup of coffee with myself and reflect.

 

Maybe someday we will all be able to sit around the campfire have a cup of coffee and talk not about gays or Rush or socialism or Bush or Obama but about how scouting changed the lives of young men we knew. How the awkward kid conquered the COPE course or the shy kid who found his voice, became SPL and then Eagle. I look forward to that campfire.

 

YIS,

Hal

[DanKroh]

Vol_scouter and Hal,

 

Nicely said, gentlemen. Hear, hear.

 

Vol_scouter, I spend some time while pursuing my Psy.D. doing work with sex offenders. Unfortunately, while a very interesting field, it was not to my liking for personal reasons. I have some personal observations from that time, but it is completely anecdotal and I have nothing published to back it up. Let me just say that I truly feel just as comfortable sending my sons off to spend time alone with their gay, married godfathers as I do with their heterosexual aunts and uncles.

[vol_scouter]

Hal,

 

I agree about too much bad press and attention to things that are not that important in the long run. The only way that I think letting CO's determine the gay issue is to allow them to be more stringent as well as less. So that a CO could say no gays and only certain religious views. If that carrot is not thrown in, many would leave. I think that you are right about who would join. We still have to be vigilant of EVERYONE to prevent child abuse.

 

I hope that we get that cup of coffee (which means I have slimmed down to meet the weight restrictions!)

 

 

[packsaddle]

"I think that if I had the opportunity to share a campfire with you, Dan, pack, and most others, that we would have a great time and be in much harmony as long as we stayed away from these few divisive issues that we do not control. "

 

Heck, I bet we'd have a good time even discussing these issues. I appreciate those who disagree because often I can learn from them.