When will National realize this *IS* affecting membership

[Scoutfish]

I say animals because they cannot verbally speak for themselves.

 

I say underage / children/ non adults because they are not mature enough to make that decidion.

 

"Heh, heh! The laws will change, under the same assault as laws limiting marriage to heterosexuals. "

 

 

Really? The right of adults to be in contol of their own lives is the same as beastiality or (as defined as ) stauatory rape?

 

So two 35 year old men or women are to be considered of the same mentality and ability as immature youth or animals?

 

So they can vote, get jobs, pay taxes, work, buy houses, cars, land, run businesses , own businesses, contribute to society,,but when it comes to equality under the law..they are suddenly no btter than animals or immature children?

 

Used to be a time when women couldn't vote and blacks had no rights...but those laws changed to.

 

You saying that maybe we should go back and change those laws?

 

[Scoutfish]

" the studies would indicate that at best the risk of a homosexual molesting pubertal and post-pubertal youth is the same as that of the general population and at worse they are 3 times more likely to molest. The problem is that the uncertainties do not allow one enough certainty to draw firm conclusions. "

 

I think what Moose is saying is this: The studies do not draw any firm conclusions either way, yet you conclusively stick to the worst case scenerios without giving credit to the best case scenerio because the best case does not fit your agenda.

 

The studies are not accurate enough to be reliable, but lets use them anyways to prove our point!

[SeattlePioneer]

>

 

 

The Supreme Court has already decided that any child that can get pregnant is mature enough to consent to an abortion on her own inituiative if she wishes to do so.

 

Frankly, it's absurd to say that a child can consent to having an abortion but not to the sex that got her pregnant.

 

And in contrast to homosexual marriage, there is a VERY LONG history in western civilization to pubescent children being deemed old enough to consent to sex.

 

And of course, such children are having sex left, right and center all the time in any case. The effort is to prevent adults from having sex with such children --- children clearly can consent to having sex with each other right now.

 

The sexual liberation juggernaught has already rolled a long way on the sex-with-children issue. The last issue or two will fall easily enough before long.

[Eagle92]

It doesn't matter what studies say, it is what parents think. If parents have a fear that their child will be molested by a homosexual leader, then they will not allow their child to join.

 

I always wondered why my mom was so concerned about how my leaders acted. In college doing a report on sexual abuse, I discovered the book A SCOUT'S HONOR, and read about the sex abuse scandal that hit my area in the late 1970s. 10+ years later my mom was still concerned.

[Eagle92]

Forgot to add, this was also a reason why she didn't look for a new troop for my brothers after they moved to the 'burbs.

[vol_scouter]

Scoutfish,

 

If the studies had shown that the likelihood of a homosexual molesting a child in the studies ranged from less likely to more likely than the general public, then the comment would be fair. The studies did not show that and were scewed toward the more likely by up to a factor of 3. So the actual odds ratio is likely to be increased rather than the same risks. My statement was also clear that because of this, the possibility of increasing the number of molestations was not worth the risk due to the lifelong suffering that it causes the innocent victims. That was stated as opinion and was presented in a reasoned manner. You and Moose do not like the conclusions of the studies and I do not either. If several large well done studies showed error bars on centered around 2%, I would feel more comfortable if Scouting ever changes its' policies. Unless that can be shown, I would rather protect our children as much as possible. and will oppose changing the policy.

 

Additionally, in this region the effect on the number of youth will be large and negative if the policy changes. Most Scouters, parents, and church COR's that I know consider even the discussion of changing the policy to be unconscionable. Other areas of the country are different.

[moosetracker]

Eagle92 - I saw the movie A Scouts Honor.. Your mother took away the wrong message. Although the perpetrator (not a homosexual I might add) was very scary at what he did. The true crime was that these parents none of them got involved with their childrens lives.. They simply dumped the kids off for the scout meeting or for an event, and left them with one man.. ONE MAN.. to conduct the entire program..

 

Two deep leadership may have come out of this, but this was beyond two deep.. Not a single parent ever got involved..

 

Scarier still was when one set of parents found out decided to keep the secret as long as you leave my child alone and felt absolutely betrayed that he did molest their children. Even the parents that were killed found out about three days earlier, and were killed for their knowledge, but in three days they never went to the police? Or told a single other person?.. The crime was the parents.. The message your mother should have gotten was to stay involved in her childrens lives including their after school activities.

 

Vol_Scouter - Now you got me started which is dangerous! I went around and looked for my own scientific studies.. I just looked at 3 different studies, all with very different ways to conduct the study. One showed 0%, one showed 1% (equal proportion to population), and one showed homosexual males were equal to heterosexual males in response.

 

Again the statement was made that was a chance for error, and it was hard to get a cross-section.. But none stated because of the error it is presumed that it meant homosexuals are equal to 3 times more likely to be a pedophiles/hebephiles..

 

One of the difficulties is that most pedophiles/hebephiles are neither homo/hetero/bi - sexual at all.. Since they were never able to form an adult sexual relationship.

 

Wherever you got a study that failed to prove their hypothesis, but assumed the hypothesis must still be correct is a study that was bent on angling the scientific outcome to fit the hypothesis and failed, so I would agree the study had a lot of error, more so then a study that started out without an assumption, or if it did, did not conclude their hypothesis still must be correct because the study had a hard time getting a true cross-section for data comparisons.

 

So there is 4 studies.. 3 we don't know the hypothesis.. One we know was trying to prove they were more of a threat.. But all four showed they are no more a threat then anyone else.

 

I also found out some other great and interesting stuff.. Like Jews in the Middle Ages were accused of murdering Christian babies in ritual sacrifices, in order to scare others into believing they were immoral.. (This one I knew but never equated it to this arguement.) Black men in our recent past history were falsely accused of raping white women, and had to fear even looking directly at a white women..

 

Also the laws against having sex with a minor were only introduced in the 19th century. The Judeo-Christian and other religions tolerated and even affirmed pedophilic relationships for centuries. It was the enlightened people who brought about the laws against it as they learned the negitive effects it had on children..

 

I think someone used the following quote to state the Bible was against homosexuality..

Leviticus 20:13 (If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman . . .)

 

Which does show the bible does have a statement against homosexuality.. Well here is the original law for that citation... "Which is that there is no penalty for men who have sexual relations with boys under the age of nine years and one day.".. So if the biblical beliefs have been fine for all for many a century as Seattle claims.. We should re-establish the law as it was implied.. Or accept that beliefs in morality have changed over time, the more enlightened we become..

(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

[WAKWIB]

Moosetracker sez:Which does show the bible does have a statement against homosexuality.. Well here is the original law for that citation... "Which is that there is no penalty for men who have sexual relations with boys under the age of nine years and one day.".. So if the biblical beliefs have been fine for all for many a century as Seattle claims.. We should re-establish the law as it was implied.. Or accept that beliefs in morality have changed over time, the more enlightened we become..

 

The part of the above statement that is in quotes seems to imply that the Mosaic law permitted sex with boys under the age of nine.??? Maybe I am misunderstanding the statement.

[Once_Eagle-Always_Eagle]

I want to repeat what I have suggested in other posts because I doubt everyone is going back and reading all 9 pages of this. I'll go out on a limb and suggest the BSA prohibition against homosexuals is not due to any perceived risk by homosexuals nor prejudice toward them. It is simply their interpretation of what defines morally acceptable behavior.

 

However, the comment that drew me to re-engage on this thread was:

 

>> Well here is the original law for that citation... "Which is that there is no penalty for men who have sexual relations with

>> boys under the age of nine years and one day.".. So if the biblical beliefs have been fine for all for many a century as

>> Seattle claims.. We should re-establish the law as it was implied.. Or accept that beliefs in morality have changed over

>> time, the more enlightened we become..

 

>> The part of the above statement that is in quotes seems to imply that the Mosaic law permitted sex with boys under the age of

>> nine.??? Maybe I am misunderstanding the statement.

 

I am CONFIDENT there is no place in Mosaic law nor the bible that defines homosexuality as acceptable... and I am equally certain that whoever made the original claim cannot find a biblical reference supporting pedophilia either. Just because the Bible acknowledges something does not mean that it is morally right nor pleasing to God.

 

As an example, the Bible talks about slavery in many places... talks about God's people being taken into slavery, talks about how people should treat their slaves, but it is not endorsed as an ideal to be embraced by society.

(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)

[jrush]

Seattle, I'm not trying to "personally reassure" anyone, I was merely making a point that one shouldn't take studies done by, shall we say, unfavorable-toward-homosexuals groups at face value. The megachurch preacher in Atlanta who settled a lawsuit over sex with teenager boys doesn't self-identify as gay. The prisoners raping other prisoners don't self-identify as gay. Etc.

 

I was just pointing out that the BSA's objection to homosexuality in scouting is a purely moral one, and that's fine. You don't want to see a CM and his boyfriend holding hands. That's fine. My point is, a moral objection to homosexuals is going to be damned hard for the BSA to own when an openly gay DSC or MOH awardee is told he lacks the moral character to be a good role model to scouts.

 

Personally, I don't think the bar on homosexual scouts and leaders is sustainable, any more than I thought the bar on openly-serving homosexuals in the military was sustainable. Whether or not I agree with the ban is besides the point...I don't think it's sustainable. I think eventually, Congress is going to stop protecting organizations that discriminate against gay youth and adults, at best they'll just lose their charter, at worst they'll get labled a "hate group"...I'm just not sure the BSA at the corporate level just isn't going to allow that to happen.

 

 

[moosetracker]

I do not pretend to be an expert on ancient history, but I found this brought up in a few places.. Something about interpreting the passage to mean "men" not "boys".. So a law was passed that it was not immoral for you to lie with boys up to nine years & 1 day..

 

It was just interesting information in passing.. I always knew that sex and marriage was at younger ages especially in the midevil times and earlier, due to lower life expectancy.. I also knew men would sell their women as chattel, or put them in matches that made family alliences.. And that older men would buy (or enter into family alliences) with younger women..

 

I guess taking all that into our past beliefs in what was acceptable practices.. It is not such a mind-numbing jump to believe their were also other types of sexual activity occuring that was considered acceptable, that we today would find as immoral, and damaging to the children involved.

[moosetracker]

OnceanEagle - Thing is the Bible saw all of that as perfectly acceptable behavior.. Doesn't mean God found it acceptable, but means the people who wrote the bible found it not to be a problem, therefore it was acceptable..

 

Thing is morality does change over time, as people become more enlightened.. Those found as acceptable in the bible change to become unacceptable, and those that were unacceptable with enlightment become acceptable..

 

Alot of what God finds acceptable or unacceptable is really unknown and a guesswork of man.

[Once_Eagle-Always_Eagle]

>> but means the people who wrote the bible found it not to be a problem, therefore it was acceptable

 

I disagree. (we won''t get into divine inspiration in this thread. :-) Because something is recorded as occurring doesn't mean it is approved... Just means the writers were honest about what happened. The authors recorded David's sin with Bathseba and how he plotted to murder her husband so he could have her for himself. Doesn't mean that the people who recorded it agreed... or take Joseph who was sold into slavery by his brothers. Again, the writer wasn't saying it was right- just saying it happened and God was bigger than the choices and actions of men. In other words, you're on thin ice if you pull a single verse and then base your entire world view on it. It would be like spenidng 10 minutes with me and then making judgments on my entire life. You just can't do it fairly or with wisdom.

 

>> Thing is morality does change over time, as people become more enlightened..

I would agree with your statement if you allow me to rephrase:

 

"Morality (and the willingness of society to accept sinful behavior) does change over time, as people become more biblically illiterate or indifferent to the content."

 

(This message has been edited by once_eagle-always_eagle)

[moosetracker]

This passage seems to say the Lord approved of war and slaves.. And wanted his share of the spoils..

Numbers 31: 25-40

 

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, take the sum of the prey that was taken, both of man and of beast, thou, and Eleazar the priest, and the chief fathers of the congregation:

and divide the prey into two parts; between them that took the war upon them, who went out to battle, and between all the congregation: and levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep:

Take it of their half, and give it unto Eleazar the priest, for an heave offering of the LORD.

And of the children of Israel's half, thou shalt take one portion of fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks, of all manner of beasts, and give them unto the Levites, which keep the charge of the tabernacle of the LORD.

And Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was six hundred thousand and seventy thousand and five thousand sheep,

And threescore and twelve thousand beeves,

And threescore and one thousand asses,

And thirty and two thousand persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

And the half, which was the portion of them that went out to war, was in number three hundred thousand and seven and thirty thousand and five hundred sheep:

And the LORD'S tribute of the sheep was six hundred and threescore and fifteen.

And the beeves were thirty and six thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and twelve.

And the asses were thirty thousand and five hundred; of which the LORD'S tribute was threescore and one.

And the persons were sixteen thousand; of which the LORD'S tribute was thirty and two persons.

 

(restated in more modern English)

The LORD said to Moses, 26 You and Eleazar the priest and the family heads of the community are to count all the people and animals that were captured. 27 Divide the spoils equally between the soldiers who took part in the battle and the rest of the community. 28 From the soldiers who fought in the battle, set apart as tribute for the LORD one out of every five hundred, whether people, cattle, donkeys or sheep. 29 Take this tribute from their half share and give it to Eleazar the priest as the LORDs part. 30 From the Israelites half, select one out of every fifty, whether people, cattle, donkeys, sheep or other animals. Give them to the Levites, who are responsible for the care of the LORDs tabernacle. 31 So Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the LORD commanded Moses.

32 The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 33 72,000 cattle, 34 61,000 donkeys 35 and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man.

36 The half share of those who fought in the battle was:

337,500 sheep, 37 of which the tribute for the LORD was 675;

38 36,000 cattle, of which the tribute for the LORD was 72;

39 30,500 donkeys, of which the tribute for the LORD was 61;

40 16,000 people, of whom the tribute for the LORD was 32.

 

[WAKWIB]

Yep, God ordered the Israelites to do some very rough things to the Canaanites who were disobedient to Him. Later in the Old Testament, He turns and does much of same treatment to the wayward Israelites. And so it goes. Contrary to popular opinion, the God of the Bible is not a cosmic good fairy. But, we are going off topic and I would suggest a new thread if folks wish to discuss the Bible, etc.