Boy Scouts vs. Philadelphia

[vol_scouter]

NJCub writes:

 

Yeah, I know. Imagine those uppity gays, demanding rights and stuff. You'd think they were human beings or something.

 

 

So by using that argument, one could substitute for gays pedophiles who are working hard for acceptance. If you wish to bring out a genetic argument, then consider multiple chromosome Y syndrome that produces males that are aggressive often committing violent crimes. We should then excuse them because it is genetic. Whether any group of individuals who are a small minority (the CDC estimates that the actual number of long term homosexuals is less than 3%) is given an expanded group of rights or are to be accepted is largely a function of society. Just the fact that they want acceptance or special rights does not make it an injustice. For example, homosexual males in all states have the same marriage rights as every other male - they may marry a female. All are the same. Homosexuals want extra or new rights which is society's right to grant or deny.

 

[Beavah]

For example, homosexual males in all states have the same marriage rights as every other male - they may marry a female. All are the same. Homosexuals want extra or new rights which is society's right to grant or deny.

 

Yah, and don't think the extension of that special right doesn't matter, eh?

 

Has big implications for health care and pension costs of employers. Fairly easy for hetero friends to "marry" with a "pre-nup" just so that an uninsured friend can get covered on the employed friend's insurance. Some universities and businesses that extend same-sex-partner benefits have to write long convoluted rules about how to define partner so as to prevent this kind of fraud. If you were a single person and your uninsured best friend got cancer, wouldn't you do that for 'em?

 

Always look at da possible negative effects of a policy change before yeh conclude that it's worthwhile.

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle]

Beavah,

I am left in confusion by what you just wrote. It seems to be a common thing for me these days. But please explain what you meant when you wrote, "Fairly easy for hetero friends to "marry" with a "pre-nup" just so that an uninsured friend can get covered on the employed friend's insurance."

 

and then, "If you were a single person and your uninsured best friend got cancer, wouldn't you do that for 'em?"

 

In the first situation, using myself as one of the people, are both of us 'hetero' or only one of us - or could we both be gay but male and female? Huh?

And when you put 'marry' in quotes are you saying that there is no actual legal marriage license? Or are you indicating that it is intended to defraud an insurance provider?

I am supposing the 'pre-nup' is in order to protect assets or something along those lines but it isn't clear to me how the scam works.

Regarding the friend with cancer, ...ok, is the friend a male or a female?

 

If I was unmarried, it seems such an action would be detrimental to me because once the legal action is taken, regardless of motive, I am not free to marry a person with whom I am actually in love. Does this kind of thing happen all the time? Maybe I don't watch enough soaps.

 

I guess this is why I would never have been a successful attorney.

[NJCubScouter]

When did this become about gay marriage? It isn't, as far as I am concerned. I try to discuss these kinds of issues only as they relate to Scouting. If I want to get into a generalized discussion of politics and religion, there are a lot more suitable forums to do it in.

 

vol_scouter, I do not fault anyone for seeking recognition of rights. That doesn't mean I think any particular person or group is correct that they have rights that are not being recognized. Some are, some aren't. Generally, if a group is seeking recognition of their right to break the law (i.e. "pedophiles", although that term is kind of imprecise), they aren't going to get much sympathy from me. In the case of gay people, the government of my state and some others have recognized that people should not be discriminated against in employment, public accommodations and in other ways, on the basis of sexual orientation. (Which means, adult sexual orientation.) Where this relates to Scouting is that it would be much better if we recognize that different parts of society (different states, different parts of states, etc.) currently have different societal policies when it comes to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore allow different Scouting units to make their own choices when it comes to leadership. Which is exactly what Scouting does now, in almost every case. Scouting even permits units to discriminate on the basis of gender in making leadership decisions... but it ''requires'' units to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. It makes no sense.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

packsaddle, I think it's when two straw men marry.

[vol_scouter]

NJCub,

 

My point was that society determines what is legal and illegal. Homosexual relations were at one time considered immoral in the US and illegal in most if not all states. Due to efforts of the homosexual community, they have won acceptance in most states and new rights have been established in a very few states. The momentum makes it likely that this will spread to other states as well. This is due to society willing to accept their behavior and lifestyle.

 

Pedophilia is actually well defined and it is the name applied to people who desire or have sexual relationships with pre-pubertal children. Most pedophiles have heterosexual relationships with their victims. They are following the route forged by the homosexuals by working within the psychiatric community to convincethem to change the description from deviant as was done in the fifties in the APA after many homosexuals had become members. Like homosexuals before, they wish to change the activities from illegal to legal and to change from some tolerance to acceptance.

 

It should be pointed out that post-pubertal children who are victimized by same sex relationships with an adult are victimized by a homosexual and not a pedophile. The homosexual community realized that this issue would harm their desire to move from tolerance to acceptance, so they have tried to imply that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth were pedophiles. That is not true. These are homosexual relationships. So they have largely succeeded in changing the view of this crime by society.

 

The point about genetics was to show that genetic predisposition should not be sufficient to allow certain behavior. So whether homosexuals are genetically predisposed or not is not an argument for accpeting their behavoir.

 

Society will decide who receives new rights. Whether society makes wise decisions can only be determined retrospectively.

 

As to scouting, few would say that it is unwise to allow 2 heterosexual adult males to take post-pubertal girl scouts on a camping trip. The same thing logically applies to 2 homosexual males taking post-pubertal boys on a camping trip. I am a believer in protecting our rights. When it comes to the rights of or youth to be protected, adult rights may have to be infringed upon.

 

 

[DanKroh]

"Pedophilia is actually well defined and it is the name applied to people who desire or have sexual relationships with pre-pubertal children. Most pedophiles have heterosexual relationships with their victims. They are following the route forged by the homosexuals by working within the psychiatric community to convincethem to change the description from deviant as was done in the fifties in the APA after many homosexuals had become members. Like homosexuals before, they wish to change the activities from illegal to legal and to change from some tolerance to acceptance."

 

Yeah, well, good luck with that. It isn't going to happen, it isn't even close to happening, and this is a major straw man that is usually pulled out to elicit fear of homosexual equality. That's like saying accepting homosexuals and giving them equal rights is going to make murderers demand that murder be made legal.

 

"It should be pointed out that post-pubertal children who are victimized by same sex relationships with an adult are victimized by a homosexual and not a pedophile."

 

Actually, any post-pubertal children who are sexually victimized by adults are victimized by an ephebophile. And, like pedophiles, most of them are heterosexual relationships. Another straw man.

 

"The homosexual community realized that this issue would harm their desire to move from tolerance to acceptance, so they have tried to imply that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth were pedophiles. That is not true. These are homosexual relationships. So they have largely succeeded in changing the view of this crime by society."

 

Unless you have references to back this up, I'm going to have to call bull on this one. If anything, it seems more likely that heterosexuals who want to have relationships with teenage minors to have done this, since they make up the majority of people involved in adult/teenage relationships.

 

[packsaddle]

"As to scouting, few would say that it is unwise to allow 2 heterosexual adult males to take post-pubertal girl scouts on a camping trip."

 

I can't speak for other parts of the country but around here such an idea would get VERY close scrutiny and probably would be discouraged unless adult women were also in leadership positions and present on the camping trip.

[vol_scouter]

Dan,

 

People in the forties and fifties would have never dreamed that homosexuality would become first tolerated and now in some communities accepted. We make excuses for murderers where they used to hang in the town square. To deny that as a society we have become more tolerant to all sorts of crimes or former crimes is to put one's head in the sand. I am not arguing that acceptance of homosexuality good or bad. I am saying that the homosexuals provide a study on how to go from a crime to acceptance and others groups will try the same thing. NAMBLA is a good example of an organization pushing for changes in the views of society towards homosexual sex with minors and pedophiles.

 

You said: "Actually, any post-pubertal children who are sexually victimized by adults are victimized by an ephebophile. And, like pedophiles, most of them are heterosexual relationships. Another straw man."

Thanks for helping to make a point. Same sex relationships between a post-pubertal child and an adult are homosexual relationships. I did not say that all adult-youth sex is homosexual, just when the youth is post-pubertal and the adult is of the same sex. The homosexual community tries to redefine terms so that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth is something other than homosexual. That is dishonest.

Certainly, there are far more heterosexual adults than homosexual adults (CDC estimates

[Beavah]

If anything, it seems more likely that heterosexuals who want to have relationships with teenage minors to have done this, since they make up the majority of people involved in adult/teenage relationships.

 

But not the majority of our problem cases within Boy Scouting.

 

Ephebophile to my mind is a term used to obscure as often as to define, eh? As you point out in the quoted sentence, these are homo and hetero relationships with large age/power differentials. But they're still homo or hetero relationships. A male coach who sleeps with his female teen basketball star is hetero, eh? And a male scoutmaster who molests a teen scout is homosexual.

 

There is also da practical issue of gay male "recruitment" of (typically younger) men, which is a part of the culture. And necessary in light of da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality. Had to deal with that with an ASM in a troop once and 16-17 year old scouts.

 

B

 

[NJCubScouter]

Beavah says:

 

There is also da practical issue of gay male "recruitment" of (typically younger) men, which is a part of the culture. And necessary in light of da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality.

 

Those are stereotypes, and I don't think the BSA should be basing its policy on stereotypes. (And it doesn't; in fact, the BSA does not base its policy on the supposed behavior of gay leaders toward youth members at all. If it did, the policy would cover all gay leaders and would permit investigations into whether someone is gay. It does not; it only applies to people who are "avowedly" gay.) Now, some stereotypes do have some basis in fact, but I have to admit that I am not an expert in the "culture" of gay people nor in the "nature of male homosexuality", so I don't really know for sure whether that is the case here. Are there objective scientific studies, showing the numbers of gay vs. straight men who engage in sexual behavior with under-age people? And even if there really were some difference in the numbers, that wouldn't justify a blanket policy covering everybody.

 

Had to deal with that with an ASM in a troop once and 16-17 year old scouts.

 

Have you ever heard of an adult male, such as a teacher, engaging in sexual conduct with under-age females, such as students? I know I have. But we don't ban heterosexuals from being teachers, or Scout leaders, just because some act improperly. We deal with the improper conduct on a case by case basis, and through the criminal justice system if it goes that far.

[vol_scouter]

NJCub,

 

I know of some numbers but I do not have a reference so I will not quote the number. Recruitment is a common practice. As I said before, for all but small age differences, adult child sexual relations cause significant suffering to the minor. Homosexual relations can result in severe problems in later life. We can not ban all adults. However, just as few would OK two adult males taking girls camping, we should not allow two homosexual males from taking boys camping. The protection actually goes both ways. The problem is that it is usually easy to determine the sex of an individual but difficult to determine sexual orientation.

 

You are right that the BSA says that the reason to ban homosexuals is that they do not fit into the traditional family structure and as such should not be a role model. Recent studies show that homosexuals have less stable relationships than heterosexuals. They are small minority. So it is not an unreasonable stance.

 

We now treat smokers relatively badly because of the diseases that they suffer. We say that it is unhealthy. Yet, society turns around and says that a male homosexual lifestyle is an acceptable lifestyle despite significant health issues sustained in that community. The health issues are significant even without AIDS. For the BSA not to hold a male homosexual lifestyle as a good role model. This seems to be a reasonable and prudent standard. This will unfortunately exclude a very small number of homosexual males who wish to work in scouting for all of the right reasons.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

This is also why the BSA forbids obese men from being scoutmasters, as they are poor role models for a healthy lifestyle. And why there are no fat Eagle scouts, as they could never pass the 'physically fit' requirement.

 

Caution: sarcasm

[DanKroh]

"The homosexual community tries to redefine terms so that same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal youth is something other than homosexual. That is dishonest."

 

No, they understand that any relationship between two people of the same-sex is homosexual, just as any relationship between two people of the opposite sex is heterosexual. That's just semantical definitions. What they object to is the comparison of a predatory same-sex relationship engaged in by a pedophile or ephobophile to healthy, consentual relationships between two adults of the same-sex. Yes, both are homosexual because they are same-sex, but that is where the similarities END.

 

 

"I have no ready data showing that homosexuals are more likely to abuse a child than a heterosexual when adjusted for the prevalence in society. However, homosexuals are responsible for most same sex abuse of post pubertal children."

 

That's because there isn't any. As far as your second statement, that's because you define anyone who engages in a same-sex relationship as a homosexual. Such sophistry doesn't advance your argument. That's why there is a push to use pedophile, to differentiate people who are attracted to pre-pubescent children from both homosexual and heterosexual adults who engage in healthy, adult relationships.

 

"Except for an adult male crime of control, which can be either heterosexual or homosexual, same sex relations between an adult and a post-pubertal child is a homosexual relation."

 

Again, sophistry and semantics. Different-sex relations between an adult a a post-pubescent child is a heterosexual relation. But it's not a relationship that is of interest to healthy heterosexual adults. Just as post-pubescent children of the same-sex are not of interest to healthy homosexual adults.

 

"In my opinion, relations between older adults and children is always a crime and should be punished."

 

I agree. I also agree on the "Romeo and Juliet" exception for a minor and adult only one or two years apart, on a case by case basis.

 

Beavah, ephebophile may be obscure to your mind, but it is a well defined pathology in my field, as well defined at pedophile. And again, I use that term to differentiate those people who do not desire/cannot maintain healthy adult relationships from those who do.

 

Also, "recruitment"? Wow. Now there's a stereotype I haven't heard dragged out for a while.

[Beavah]

Yah, one man's stereotype is another man's statistical prevalence, eh? Much like da multi-partner nature of male homosexuality which is well documented.