An Op/Ed piece on the scout files

[Mr. Boyce]

Here's something interesting:

 

http://americansfortruth.com/2012/10/01/catholic-league-homosexuality-implicated-in-boy-scout-child-molestation-files/

 

[acco40]

Mr. Boyce, not sure of your thoughts but the article is an outright falsehood. Regardless how one feels on the issue of the BSA's stance on homosexuality, the BSA policy has nothing to do with the safety of the scouts. It has to do with the fact that the BSA views that homosexuals do not provide a desirable role model for Scouts and thus are not an appropriate role model of the Scout Oath and Law.

 

Now, you may not know this but most males have a much larger amount of testosterone coursing through their veins than most females. This makes males, homosexual and heterosexual, more frequent initiators of sex - all sorts, than their female counterparts - in general.

[Brewmeister]

Well I'm curious. Didn't all the abuse cases involve homosexual acts and sodomy?

[Beavah]

Yah, hmmmmm....

 

So, Mr. Boyce, yeh do realize that what yeh linked to is a blog, not an "op-ed piece", right?

 

When we were younger, yeh had to have a fair bit of money and a number of people in your employ in order to own a press, eh? That capital cost meant yeh wanted to try to recoup your investment by establishin' a trusted relationship with a broad audience of readers and advertisers. It encouraged those with presses to be responsible, and reinforced da notion that something that was "in print" was actually true or at least worth readin'.

 

Nowadays, with internet blogs, individuals who are just plain nutters can set up an electronic press for virtually no cost, so yeh get things like "Americans for Truth about Homosexuality" (really just one guy named Peter LaBarbara who has a computer), or da "Catholic League" (really just one guy named Donahue who has a computer). If yeh can start a "press" for a few thousand bucks that can reach nation-wide yeh are sure to find some like-minded folks who are gullible, eh? Folks who don't realize that a blog is not da same things as an old-style printed paper op-ed piece. Usually older folks who grew up with da notion that if it was in print, it was true or at least worth readin', because da reputation and financial wellbeing of da owner of da press was important back then, and they haven't realized things have changed.

 

Personally, I think it's shameful for such people to prey on da weaknesses and fears of folks in that way, but these people are just nutters. Shame doesn't come into it.

 

I'm opposed to gay marriage and am deeply pro-life, but this nonsense doesn't help da cause at all. It associates good, thoughtful folk with da shameful and da nutty.

 

Beavah

 

[BadenP]

Yea Beav

 

"Nutters" sums up that piece very well, including the site as well.

[WAKWIB]

Well, Beavah. Looking at the Catholic League, I think the one man with the computer has a large board of directors and it claims to be the largest Catholic civil rights group in the country. Just sayin. The AFTAH also appears to be a bit more than some nobody in their mother's basement tweeting to his friends.

If you don't want to comment on the content of the article, then don't.

It doesn't help the cause of anything to patronize and treat Mr. Boyce like a dunce for posting this link.

[Mr. Boyce]

Thanks for the above. I have really been trying to do "due diligence" on these issues, and I cannot find much good substantive evidence disproving the notion that homosexuality is a psychological perversion and that homosexuals are more predatory on youth.

 

I DO see a massive propaganda bandwagon marching to the tune of "dumbing down" any genuine moral concern, and "normalizing" abnormal behavior.

 

(It's tempting to join in: I would like to be a Pepper too! and of course in America it is verboten to say "no" to anyone; God forbid you are "mean").

[rdclements]

According to the American Psychological Association, "Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."

 

http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abuse.aspx

 

The APA is the largest professional and scientific psychological organization in the US. Is that "good substantive evidence" for you?

 

There are people out there who, if given the opportunity, will hurt children. Most of them are not gay. Working to keep gay people out of scouting is a waste of resources because the real problem is identifying and dealing with child abusers.

[WAKWIB]

This is purely anectdotal and proves nothing, I suppose. I have/had 6 friends that told me they were introduced to homosexual acts by an adult when they were under-age. These men continued their homosexual activity into their adulthood. I don't know, but I surely hope that they did not repeat the cycle.

I only keep in touch with one of them, and 3 of them died in the 80's from AIDS.

[AZMike]

"According to the American Psychological Association, "Despite a common myth, homosexual men are not more likely to sexually abuse children than heterosexual men are."

 

http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/brochures/sex-abuse.aspx

 

The APA is the largest professional and scientific psychological organization in the US. Is that "good substantive evidence" for you? "

 

There's a great deal of "substantive evidence" that there is institutional bias against conservative researchers, and conservative conclusions to research in the social sciences, as even liberal scientists admit. Read this 2012 journal article from Perspectives on Psychological Science XX(X) 18: http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf ("Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology," by Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers,Tilburg University)

 

From the abstract:

 

"A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative overall, there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate."

 

In such a highly politicized academic environment, is it any wonder that research that is critical of a liberal status quo gets suppressed? This is hardly a surprise to anyone employed in academia, as Dr Jonathan Haidt at the University of Virginia has noted: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&