When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

[acco40]

Keep in mind that "intelligentsia" references the arts, social sciences and culture and rarely those involved with the natural sciences, applied science/engineering, mathematics, medicine, etc. As such, your claims are vacuous.

[moosetracker]

Sorry correct all use of the word pedophile for pedophiles/hebephiles.. I did correct it for a while, but the normal population just uses pedophile to signify anyone who sexually abuses minors of any age, so I started to fall back into bad habits..

 

You are right running expensive test wouldn't be very "kind" or "friendly", but more accurate then discriminating against a group due to an unjustified fear..

 

As for the church - From what I understand it you are a member of the church when you are baptised.. Most are baptised when they are babies, and I don't think those babies read and signed any paperwork.. As I understand it with Catholics, once baptised it is very hard to be removed as a member. I have not joined a church since being in NH, but I joined two one in Chicago and one in Massachusetts, and no paperwork needed, but then I fancied very informal and liberal churches..

 

packsaddle & acco - you guys summed up that viewpoint very nicely.. I know it was stated about the unfairness of other religions having to follow the moral beliefs of LDS/Catholic in the BSA rather then their own beliefs earlier, but the fact that BSA was claiming to be absolutely nonsectarian, I do not believe was mentioned.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[CalicoPenn]

You keep saying this: "the percentage of homosexuals in the population is 2% according to the CDC" but according to a fact sheet put out by the CDC just last month (September, 2011), the estimate of homosexual men (and just men) is 4%.

 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/fastfacts-msm-final508comp.pdf

 

This doesn't even include homosexual women - so the percentage will go up.

 

The 2% number being claimed comes from a WND article that uses this number - and WND not only has it's own agenda (an impartial news source it's not) it often is intellectually dishonest about the meaning of statistics.

 

So where does that 2% come from? The basis of it is the 2000 US Census which counted, for the first time, unmarried same sex couples. That number was approximately 1.7% of the population. The problem with the census is it has never asked for the sexual orientation of single people and in the gay community, single gay men and women outnumber same sex coupled people by a wide margin. The figures I've seen (admittedly not in peer reviewed papers) are that same sex couples account for only 25 to 30% of gay people - and if that's the case, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, then the percentage of gays an lesbians run from about 5.1% to 6.8% - well within range of the common estimates of 5 to 7% of the population. (Math check - if 1.7% of gays are in same sex couples, and they're 25% of the number of gays and lesbians, then 1.7 x 4 = 6.8%).

 

But then, of course, you can point to all kinds of other polling data that will bolster some numbers over others, but anyone with even a modicum of statistics analysis training understands that a poll of of 12,500 people will never truly reflect a population of 3.5 million people, no matter how much the math is jiggered. If I were to ask 12,500 people in Utah and 12,500 people in San Francisco if they were gay, the percentages would be incredibly different - and which poll would I use to reflect the nation as a whole.

 

Until we actually ask the question in the census, we'll never have a solid handle on the numbers of gay people in the US.

 

And frankly, the percentage doesn't matter anyway - not to this discussion. This issue is one of the issues that is affecting membership and fundraising. My suburb has dropped to 2 packs and 1 troop, from 6 packs and 5 troops - and our population hasn't decreased. I wll not claim that it is because of the three G's, but that certainly hasn't helped.

[packsaddle]

Vol_scouter, I agree with you on your point regarding 'authority' of so-called intelligentsia. It's possible that in some circles you and I might be thought of as so-called 'intelligentsia'. I hope that possibility makes you as nervous as it does me. I apologize, my tendency to beat an idea to pieces doesn't make many friends around here either.

My point is more with the concept of 'intelligentsia' and the mercurial way people choose who 'the intelligentsia' are. They seem to pick 'intelligentsia' which confirm pre-existing prejudices, while ignoring opposing ideas (not to mention opting not to think clearly on their own - maybe firing on Ft. Sumter or some such idiotic move).

 

 

Acco40, yes, it becomes sectarian under those conditions. The claims I read that LDS 'calls the shots' for BSA also makes it sectarian if those claims are true.

[SeattlePioneer]

It's a waste of time for BSA to chase after approval by the liberal left. They are never going to be happy.

 

 

Is the left happy with military recruiting now that the Don't Ask Don't Tell law3 has been repealed in favor of non discrimination? Of course not!

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/10/portland_high_schools_set_to_p.html

[BS-87]

Can't we just let this thread die?

 

12 pages is enough for us to all realize there's no way anybody here is changing their mind. I'd say the rhetorical value was worth it continuing if everything worth saying hadn't been covered 5 pages ago already.

[moosetracker]

BS-87 - Even on this page there have been two new developments..

 

Acco40 - Keep in mind that "intelligentsia" references the arts, social sciences and culture and rarely those involved with the natural sciences, applied science/engineering, mathematics, medicine, etc. As such, your claims are vacuous.

(Here I thought they were scientists back in the day when scientist didn't have to prove their theories only make up something plausable)..

 

CalicoPenn - You keep saying this: "the percentage of homosexuals in the population is 2% according to the CDC" but according to a fact sheet put out by the CDC just last month (September, 2011), the estimate of homosexual men (and just men) is 4%.

 

I wasn't argueing the

[vol_scouter]

Calico,

 

he percentages that I quoted can from prior CDC studies found by my self on the CDC site and cited here in the past. Those are 2011 numbers and should be considered accurate. However, in looking into those studies before, the CDC made a distinction between the incidence of people having homosexual sex (which is what you cited) and the prevalence of life-long homosexuals. I noted that in my earlier posts. The idea is that many late teens and early twenties males experiment with homosexuality. However, many of those will end up in heterosexual relationships for essentially he rest of their lives. Therefore, the number of MSM will be higher than the long term prevalence. The studies that I cited were not fact sheets but the actual studies which delineated the statistical basis, the assumptions made, etc. So I stand by those prior studies unless the CDC has new data saying that the long term prevalence (that is not exactly how it was termed but it is the gist of it) has increased.

 

If the 'long term prevalence' has actually increased, then the studies that I had cited in the past bound 4% which would make homosexuals no more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. If you can provide a link to the paper describing such a statistical on the CDC website, I will be happy to say that the risk according to those poor studies is not elevated. However, since most of you trashed me and the studies, it would be vacuous to now cite them to support your case.

 

Moose,

 

If a church allows you to join and never asks you to agree to certain principles does not seem like a church to me since there are no shared beliefs. Each to their own. In my area, that is not the case - you would be asked when you join if you will support the church and believe the basic tenets.

 

Pack,

 

I agree. The term intelligentsia and its common use had implied to me that intellectuals were a part of the intelligentsia but I found from the fount of all knowledge , Wikipedia, that acco was right. So I learned something. Having a BS in Engineering, an MD, and a PhD in physics seemed enough credentials for the intelligentsia but clearly I can only be an intellectual. Thanks for the clarification acco even if you had to insult me in a most un-scout like way.

 

 

[vol_scouter]

Calico,

 

he percentages that I quoted can from prior CDC studies found by my self on the CDC site and cited here in the past. Those are 2011 numbers and should be considered accurate. However, in looking into those studies before, the CDC made a distinction between the incidence of people having homosexual sex (which is what you cited) and the prevalence of life-long homosexuals. I noted that in my earlier posts. The idea is that many late teens and early twenties males experiment with homosexuality. However, many of those will end up in heterosexual relationships for essentially he rest of their lives. Therefore, the number of MSM will be higher than the long term prevalence. The studies that I cited were not fact sheets but the actual studies which delineated the statistical basis, the assumptions made, etc. So I stand by those prior studies unless the CDC has new data saying that the long term prevalence (that is not exactly how it was termed but it is the gist of it) has increased.

 

If the 'long term prevalence' has actually increased, then the studies that I had cited in the past bound 4% which would make homosexuals no more likely than heterosexuals to molest children. If you can provide a link to the paper describing such a statistical on the CDC website, I will be happy to say that the risk according to those poor studies is not elevated. However, since most of you trashed me and the studies, it would be vacuous to now cite them to support your case.

 

Moose,

 

If a church allows you to join and never asks you to agree to certain principles does not seem like a church to me since there are no shared beliefs. Each to their own. In my area, that is not the case - you would be asked when you join if you will support the church and believe the basic tenets.

 

Pack,

 

I agree. The term intelligentsia and its common use had implied to me that intellectuals were a part of the intelligentsia but I found from the fount of all knowledge , Wikipedia, that acco was right. So I learned something. Having a BS in Engineering, an MD, and a PhD in physics seemed enough credentials for the intelligentsia but clearly I can only be an intellectual. Thanks for the clarification acco even if you had to insult me in a most un-scout like way.

 

 

[acco40]

Vol_Scouter, may I suggest to you what I suggest to my teenage children, the fountain of all knowledge, acco40, aka "me", can be used to check the accuracy of Wikipedia.

[drmbear]

For the last fifteen years I've been helping as part of the leadership team for an annual men's gathering that grew out of an even older Washington Area Men's Council. One of the things really great about this gathering is that it is for men and boys, without any issues regarding religion or sexual preference. It is a safe place to do men's work, and to be men. We have men attending in their 80's, and boys as young as 5 years old. Although I've heard religion discussed (hey it is part of life), it is not what this is about. There are gay men, straight men, and in particular some regular attendees with a son just a year younger than mine - and they are gay men, that I have hung out with having normal parenting discussions just like those I have regularly with other parents in our Cub Scout Pack. Their son would have a great time in Cub Scouts, and these guys would make great leaders. I have long term friends from this gathering, both straight and gay. All the issues in life that we deal with as men apply whether gay or straight. All the benefits of Scouting also apply to all. The likelihood of a boy being abused by an adult is not dependent on sexual orientation - the youth protection guidelines we put in place are there to help prevent problems. I started taking my son to the gathering just before his 6th birthday. I would trust my son with any of these men. Just like it would never be acceptable at a Scouting event for parents or anyone else to be making out, it is also not a part of this gathering. Just because parents coming into Scouting could be gay doesn't mean they would be doing inappropriate things at a Scouting event. Just like every other parent, they are there for their kids. I actually think it is far worse if a parent smokes at an event, or even reeks of smoking around the kids. Should we prevent smokers from being den leaders? Or how about alcoholics, or drug users, etc.? Oh no, we don't prevent that, but if someone is a caring gay parent all hell breaks loose. I am working to do something about this. I am a member of a Unitarian Universalist church, and I'm seeing the UU Scouter's Association would like to see these BSA policies changed. In many ways, I really see no problem with particular charter organizations having things they care about as part of unit policy. If I can get Scouting units into my church, I will be glad to see acceptance.

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

To answer your question --- BSA prohibits the use of tobacco, alcohol or drugs by any person at Scouting activities.That's a much tougher standard than is applied to homosexuals.

 

And if you are a Committee Chair or Chartered Organization rep, you can refuse to appoint anyone to any leadership position in your unit for any reason.

 

Just to put a point on that, you can refuse to appoint leaders who smoke, fornicate, drink, do drugs, are overweight or wear short skirts. And homosexuals too.

[moosetracker]

SP - with alcohol & drugs.. No use on an outing, but you can use it all you want outside of scouts.. With smoking, it is go off and smoke over there.. Problem is, over there is a place that another group of scouts walk by and see you smoking..

 

And yes the CO has a right to not accept people who smoking, use drugs or alcohol.. But, they have a right to accept the smokers, and alcholics (or those who drink occasionally), or drug addicts (or those who use prescribed but normally questionable drugs)..

 

The CO does not have a right to accept homosexuals, even if religion teaches respection ALL people, and treating ALL people as your neighbors.. If they had the right to make the decision for themselves, then this whole thread would not be here. Nor would about 10 other threads that sprang up this month alone.

[Eagledad]

Loving your neighbor does not mean accepting their sins. Living the scout law is a guide to how we treat everyone respectfully, it is not a contract to ignore bad behavior.

 

Barry

[moosetracker]

In YOUR church it is about not accepting their sins.. In other churches it is about forgiving their sins, or not even seeing them as sins.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)