DanKroh Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 "Hans Ziegler's book on scouting contains reference to research that shows homosexuals more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. . . but he is not the original researcher." Almost guaranteed, he is using Paul Cameron's discredited work, since it is the only "study" I know of that supports this. Published by the aforementioned Family Research Institute (founded by Cameron). "It would be interesting to see the original study, and determine what aspects of homosexual behavior made homosexuals more amenable to this deviant behavior. We know, for instance, that as a group homosexuals are more risk-taking and have greater interest in sex." Also more of Cameron's "conclusions" that have been repeated over and over. However, still doesn't make them any more valid, especially considering Cameron's reputation for misinformation and misrepresentation of other people's research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Anybody want a troll house cookie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Boyce Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 We can only make assumptions about the authorship of the study in the Ziegler book, and perhaps someone can dig this up for us. It would also be worth knowing---if it did turn out to be the Cameron one mentioned--just WHO and HOW the study was discredited. This being 2009, I have seen many instances where a study opposing one person/group's views was loudly proclaimed to be "discredited" . . . upon questionable grounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 "It would also be worth knowing---if it did turn out to be the Cameron one mentioned--just WHO and HOW the study was discredited. This being 2009, I have seen many instances where a study opposing one person/group's views was loudly proclaimed to be "discredited" . . . upon questionable grounds." WHO: 1983: The American Psychological Association on ethics violations 1984: Nebraska Psychological Association 1985: The American Sociological Association 1996: The Canadian Psychological Association HOW: Here is an excellent summary of the methodology flaws in Cameron's work: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_survey.html The Southern Poverty Law Center also has an excellent article on him: http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=587 There is much, much more to be found in the Internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherminator505 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Let me be clear about this. I am not so much against the BSA's policy on homosexuals as I am against the general attitude that this kind of discrimination is acceptable. The policy is merely a regrettable symptom of the larger problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 sherm, The BSA is a private organization that can legally set it's own membership requirements. If you don't like it, join an organization that supports your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP412 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 sherm why you may not agree with it the fact is most parents and boys alike are in agreement they dont feel safe or comfortable with the thought of camping alone n the woods with a gay man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherminator505 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 "The BSA is a private organization that can legally set it's own membership requirements. If you don't like it, join an organization that supports your beliefs." I really don't think you read what I wrote. To further clarify, my problem is not with the BSA but with the mindset that discriminating on the basis of sexuality is somehow OK. This is a cancer that runs rampant in our country, far beyond Scouting. I believe strongly in the ideals of Scouting and of America, and that is why I feel that is my responsibility to point out a grevious wrong for what it is. Let me conclude by saying that just because something is legal doesn't make it right.(This message has been edited by sherminator505) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 To further clarify, my problem is not with the BSA but with the mindset that discriminating on the basis of sexuality is somehow OK. Girls are not allowed to be members of Packs or Troops. Does that upset you?(This message has been edited by evmori) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherminator505 Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 "Girls are not allowed to be members of Packs or Troops. Does that upset you?" Not at all. There is a program for them called Girl Scouts. It is regrettable that the two organizations are not more closely related, but all of this is beyond my point, which is that discrimination against gays now is just as wrong as interning loyal Japanese-Americans was sixty years ago, and as wrong as segregation was a century ago, and as wrong as slavery was a hundred and fifty years ago. It upsets me that so many Americans today continue to indulge this particular blind spot in their ethical compass when most would not abide segregation or slavery or internment based on ethnic origin today.(This message has been edited by sherminator505) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Boyce Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 DanKroh: A couple of thoughts to share. (1) You never showed that Cameron is the author of the study. You have tried to prove that Cameron is discredited by his peers, but this doesn't matter beans if Cameron is not the fellow cited in the Ziegler book. I just don't know. So your note lacks sting. (2) I'm a skeptic about psychological associations (as well as a number of religious denominational votes). Situations which get highly politicized sometimes result in bad science, wrong judgments and manipulated votes. Many lawyers refuse to join the American Bar Association for this reason. And we all know how worked-over and threatening the situation was for the American Psychological Association was at the time the vote was taken to "normalize" homosexuality. Votes made under compulsion just smell bad. Furthermore, as a field, psychology is sadly prone to abrupt shifts and changes, as well as politicized research. . . all of which lessens the field's scientific integrity. I'm over with this topic. Signing out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xlpanel Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Yeah, OP was a troll obviously, but that doesn't discredit any of the quesitons he asks or points he makes. Also, he is not asking you to state that the BSA is a private organization. It clearly is, but that does not answer the questions. He is not asking "IS the BSA allowed to ....". The BSA clearly is. He is asking "SHOULD the BSA ....". Which is entirely different. Just because something is legal does not mean it should be done. Take Power of Attorney of a dying man. The Person who holds Power of Attorney can legally change the dying man's will, and can legally make himself the sole heir. It has been done before, taken to court, and the man who changed the will won. That is legal, just as the BSA limiting who can enter, but SHOULD it be done? With that in light: I have no problem with aethiests in scouts. They pose no physical or mental danger. And 99% of kids are not trying to push agenda, they merely want to be with their friends. The 1% who wants to agenda push won't have much success if it is 1 vs the rest. He will become a comedy figure whenever he tries to agenda push. Aethiests give no other scouts reservations. However, gay scouts are another story for me. Can you imagine knowing that when you are changing, one of the other scouts also changing is paying attention to your body? That easily poses reservations tothe other scouts. Of course, with this known, I would fully expect the non-gay scouts to make life so miserable for him on camping trips and meetings that he would quit by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal_Crawford Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 "Yeah, OP was a troll obviously..." The OP who started this thread in 2008 was probably a troll and I believe that is who XLPanel is referring to. OTOH, Shermanator505, who revived this thread appears (based on his contributions to other threads) to be an Eagle Scout expressing a legitimate opinion about the BSA membership policies. Perhaps in this case he stumbled upon a hibernating bear and decided to poke it with a stick. Not a smart move in the wild but (IMHO) perfectly acceptable in the Issues and Politics section of this forum. I am dismayed that on this one subject some are quick to suggest that if one doesn't agree one should find another organization. How un-scoutlike! We usually agree to disagree on other subjects but this one is off limits? I see no reason why the membership policies should be any more taboo than one's favorite flavor of Woodbadge. Could it be because the policies are in fact "indefensible"? Sherminator, welcome to the campfire. I am glad you are here and I hope others do not chase you away with their bad manners. YIS, Hal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanKroh Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 "(1) You never showed that Cameron is the author of the study. You have tried to prove that Cameron is discredited by his peers, but this doesn't matter beans if Cameron is not the fellow cited in the Ziegler book. I just don't know. So your note lacks sting." Nope, and never claimed I did. I said it was most likely, since that is the ultimate source of those claims. Pretty much every writer quotes "scientific evidence" to support these claims about homosexuality can ultimately be traced back to Cameron (including the ones you espouse, about violence, shortened lifespan, etc). I don't have Zeiger's book, haven't read it, but since you seem to be such a fan, perhaps you can check the footnotes or backmatter in your copy and let us know. "(2) I'm a skeptic about psychological associations (as well as a number of religious denominational votes). Situations which get highly politicized sometimes result in bad science, wrong judgments and manipulated votes. Many lawyers refuse to join the American Bar Association for this reason. And we all know how worked-over and threatening the situation was for the American Psychological Association was at the time the vote was taken to "normalize" homosexuality. Votes made under compulsion just smell bad. Furthermore, as a field, psychology is sadly prone to abrupt shifts and changes, as well as politicized research. . . all of which lessens the field's scientific integrity." Cameron being kicked out of all those organization has not so much to do about his opinions about homosexuality as about his ethics, the fact that he misrepresents other people's work, has outright lied to the press to get a vote to swing his way, and generally practices bad science (as you would have seen if you had looked at any of the links I provided). But it is much easier to dismiss their concerns as being "politically motivated". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 So, sherm, it's OK the BSA discriminates based on gender but not sexuality choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now