May 23rd predictions and post-vote plans

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I say again, there are no valid reasons, other than religious, for the exclusion of gays at any level of Scouting. If the BSA is truly nonsectarian, then there is no reason to ban them. For the benefit of those concerned about gay leaders taking boys into the woods, Wayne Brock stated that we have the best youth protection program of any youth organization. So, either the BSA is a religious organization with a particular religious bias, or it isn't.

By the way AZMike, how does the "natural law: argument against homosexuality work against, say, whiptail lizards?

[packsaddle]

AZMike, I agree with some of what you say and disagree with some. First, there is not a consistent set of moral rules. Different religions believe different things about a few things, homosexuality in particular. I agree that "doing what he or she feels is subjectively right" is a bad idea. But my religious beliefs are different from yours. You might say that I'm not true to the bible, but I'm fairly certain you aren't either. Do you keep kosher? 2500 years ago slavery was fine. It was actually considered a good way to help slaves pay off debts. Nobody believes in that anymore, although it is in the bible. Over 2500 years society has evolved. So it's not that people are doing whatever is convenient, it's that slowly, over decades at the shortest, our definition of moral is changing.

 

Regarding your point that gay kids present a problem, you may be right. Most kids have problems because they haven't accepted who they are. Accepting that you're gay when your friends are everything has got to be hard on anyone. But is a gay kid any different than a kid that has Aspergers? I've had a few in my troop and one of them would fly off the handle and attack other kids because he couldn't read their signals. Another kid was fine, once you figured out how to talk to him. I know you don't want us to ban all kids with Aspergers. But you're right, it is a risk having a different kid around. I take a risk every time I go on a campout with the children of other parents. Climbing on rocks, throwing snowballs, starting the whole forest on fire, flying canoes from wind, tornadoes, I've been through plenty. Being prepared is important in mitigating that risk. I appreciate that you wouldn't want a gay kid in your troop. I'm willing to take that risk. I might completely screw up. But if I know that a kid is gay it's going to be a lot easier for me to deal with the risk. I'm willing to take that risk not because I think we should have gay appreciation meetings or any such crap, but because every kid comes from God, and that's why the phrase "love the stranger" is also in the bible.

I was just today reading a history of the country I'm in right now. The Jesuits profited by selling slaves to the planters here.Once the new slaves were in the hands of the owners, they turned around and worked to convert those Africans they just sold into slavery to Catholicism. As long as we're talking about chattel slavery for profit...just saying....one more of those delicious ironies.

[packsaddle]

What IS 'Objective Atheist Morality'?

Is there a 'Subjective Atheist Morality?'

Is there an 'Objective Religious Morality?'

I think I can understand the existence of a 'Subjective Religious Morality.' Seems to be what most people think IS their 'morality'.

[MattR]

AZMike, we're probably not going to get anywhere with this discussion, but it's interesting and I'm having fun arguing with you.

 

I'd never heard of Natural Law before, so I looked it up. In a nutshell, it seems vague at best. I have to agree with ThomasJefferson, the only natural law when it comes to human behavior is best described by Machiavelli. Morality is what keeps us above that muck.

 

Sexual slavery and debt was real, it was not just POWs that were slaves. Look at wikipedia under the bible and slavery to find a real great quote about selling your daughter as a slave. Comparing criminal incarceration with sexual slavery is not a reasonable comparison. The comment about keeping kosher was really just to point out that many religious leaders, over thousands of years, have been interpreting the rules and stories in the bible.

 

To answer some of your questions: The behavior is wrong if it's a choice. Just like being stupid is wrong if it's a choice. But what about a scout with Downs? It's not a choice for such a kid. Let me ask you this, do you think gays choose to have same sex attraction? Do you think a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay? If so, then that's where our differences are and there's nothing left to say.

 

I can understand that some parents will be uncomfortable with gay kids in other troops. Unfortunately the same thing was said of blacks until 1975 when summer camps were finally desegregated in the South. Do you think a gay kid is likely to abuse another kid more than, say, kids with Aspergers, or PTSD (both of which I have in my troop)? Sure, different kids need to be watched differently, but there seems to be no evidence that gay kids are going to be any more dangerous to other kids than kids with other challenges that we already have in our troops. Is it that you don't want gay pride meetings in your troop? Trust me, nobody else wants that either.

 

"Every kid may come from God, but so do all bullies, racists, alcoholics, and drug addicts. We are allowed to discourage that kind of behavior as well." In all of these instances the kid chooses to do these things. It keeps getting back to choice. Character and morality come from the choices one makes. For a kid that can't make that choice, and isn't harming anyone else, I don't see a problem.

[AZMike]

AZMike, we're probably not going to get anywhere with this discussion, but it's interesting and I'm having fun arguing with you.

 

I'd never heard of Natural Law before, so I looked it up. In a nutshell, it seems vague at best. I have to agree with ThomasJefferson, the only natural law when it comes to human behavior is best described by Machiavelli. Morality is what keeps us above that muck.

 

Sexual slavery and debt was real, it was not just POWs that were slaves. Look at wikipedia under the bible and slavery to find a real great quote about selling your daughter as a slave. Comparing criminal incarceration with sexual slavery is not a reasonable comparison. The comment about keeping kosher was really just to point out that many religious leaders, over thousands of years, have been interpreting the rules and stories in the bible.

 

To answer some of your questions: The behavior is wrong if it's a choice. Just like being stupid is wrong if it's a choice. But what about a scout with Downs? It's not a choice for such a kid. Let me ask you this, do you think gays choose to have same sex attraction? Do you think a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay? If so, then that's where our differences are and there's nothing left to say.

 

I can understand that some parents will be uncomfortable with gay kids in other troops. Unfortunately the same thing was said of blacks until 1975 when summer camps were finally desegregated in the South. Do you think a gay kid is likely to abuse another kid more than, say, kids with Aspergers, or PTSD (both of which I have in my troop)? Sure, different kids need to be watched differently, but there seems to be no evidence that gay kids are going to be any more dangerous to other kids than kids with other challenges that we already have in our troops. Is it that you don't want gay pride meetings in your troop? Trust me, nobody else wants that either.

 

"Every kid may come from God, but so do all bullies, racists, alcoholics, and drug addicts. We are allowed to discourage that kind of behavior as well." In all of these instances the kid chooses to do these things. It keeps getting back to choice. Character and morality come from the choices one makes. For a kid that can't make that choice, and isn't harming anyone else, I don't see a problem.

Matt, Natural Law arguments can hardly be called vague. They are based on the Thomistic-Aristotelian model. As such, what you and "Thomas Jefferson" are describing as natural law, under Natural Law philosophy is simply the first stage, the "discriminating norm." Describing it simply as "that which keeps us above the muck" is trying to define a cause by its effect. You'll run into some problems with that.

 

The "discriminating norm" is human nature itself, objectively considered - essentially, the book in which is written the text of the law, and is the instrument by which we classify human actionsas good and bad. Strictly speaking, human nature is the proximate discriminating norm or standard. The remote and ultimate norm, of which it is the partial reflection and application, is the Divine nature itself, the ultimate base of the created order. The binding or obligatory norm is the Divine authority, imposing upon the rational creature the obligation of living in conformity with his nature, and thus with the universal order established by the Creator. While Kantian claimed that we must not acknowledge any other lawgiver than conscience, the truth is that reason as conscience is only immediate moral authority which we are called upon to obey, and conscience itself owes its authority to the fact that it is the mouthpiece of the Divine will and imperium. The manifesting norm (norma denuntians), which determines the moral quality of actions tried by the discriminating norm, is reason. Through this faculty we perceive what is the moral constitution of our nature, what kind of action it calls for, and whether a particular action possesses this requisite character. If you want to read more on this subject, I'd be happy to give you some recommendations.

 

Probably best not to use ta Wikipedia article as a source on Biblical scholarship. As with any controversial subject, they are edited and re-edited by those with an ideological ax to grind. Here's a tip: when reading any Wiki article, click on that little tab on the upper right labeled "Talk" to view the arguments over re-edits. As many of those note in this article, the Bible does not, in fact, condone slavery. It attempted to regulate a pre-existing practice, as the continuing theme of the Old Testament is the continued failures of even God's chosen people, the Israelites, and the attempts to gradually raise them to a higher moral state, even as they (as all humans) backslid due to "the hardness of their hearts."

 

You further claim that "behavior is wrong if it is a choice." You're confusing an attraction with behavior. Do you honestly believe that an attraction to behavior - even if it wholly or partially innate - is uncontrollable? So if another man has an attraction to your wife, his attraction towards adultery (and hitting on your old lady) can be condoned, because, hey, that's just how he is. Sexual attraction may impel, but it does not compel. Addictive personalities may also be partially genetic - do we encourage it? Do you not believe that an addict, or an alcoholic, can also encourage another to the same behavior, even if both parties know the behavior will not benefit them? (continued)

[AZMike]

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

 

[packsaddle]

If anyone was unclear about natural law yesterday, I hope they're perfectly clear about it now, lol.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

If anyone was unclear about natural law yesterday, I hope they're perfectly clear about it now, lol.

Yep. "Subjectively right" while pretending it's objective.

[CricketEagle]

AZMike and Others.

 

Regardless of the harsh and at times dismissive comments you are receiving, I wanted to thank you for your time that you are taking to present your side of this discussion and the moral compass that guides you and many others. An open discussion here is most important

 

Some of the responses here have been on the “un scout like sideâ€Â

 

[EmberMike]

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

At risk of using an already over-used cliche paraphrasing of a Ben Franklin quote, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." The minute we say that it is better to ere on the side of safety and protection at the cost of the freedom of all boys to participate in something as apple-pie-American as Scouting, even when we're talking about protecting our children, that is the moment in which I believe that the BSA is lost. And we might possibly see that moment arrive on Thursday. Short of some definitive scientific proof emerging, linking homosexuality to abuse, I can't imagine putting a non-credible attempt at safety ahead of the freedom of any boy to experience Scouting.

 

Of course that is assuming that anyone subscribes to the idea that there still is this connection between homosexuality and abuse, which is just a theory. The science is pretty thin on both sides of that argument, but I'm inclined to base my opinion of that matter on personal experiences, particularly having known many gay men, one of whom is my uncle, and none of whom have ever molested anyone. My conscience won't let me label all gay men and boys as safety risks, just because of the deplorable actions of the few. And especially when those few are not of one single sexual preference and often times are self-described heterosexuals, often in committed heterosexual relationships.

[Scouter99]

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

In point of fact, consensual sex acts between males after age 13 is not "pedophilia" it is homosexuality. Pedophilia ends where puberty begins, and in increasing numbers that is as young as 10. Gay adult-teen sex is a cornerstone of gay culture from Plato to Wilde to "Queer as Folk" and only idealists have the capacity for the blissful ignorance or willful blindness necessary to paper over this simple fact. You can read all about it in the gay history "Toward Stonewall", Chapters 12 and 13. Keep your barfbag handy.

[EmberMike]

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

I'm not all up on the letter of the law, but I still believe that any sex act between an adult and someone under 18, male or female, same sex or opposite sex, it's still illegal. Even if the definition of pedophilia ends at 13 (is that accurate? Got a cite?) 13-17 is still abuse.

[Scouter99]

You ask if a gay kid can encourage a straight kid to become gay. You are confusing a semantic description ("gay") with behavior (homosexual acts). Yes, certainly a boy who considers himself "gay" can entice another boy, especially a younger boy, a boy he has some authority over, or a smaller boy, into homosexual acts. There is currently a thread concerning such an incident on this forum, right now. Without commenting on the rightness or wrongness of expelling the boy from the BSA for his actions (and I agree with "Thomas Jefferson" that the behavior merited expulsion), do you believe that the scout in question was somehow able to locate two other boys who shared a desire to experiment with what sounds like homosexual acts, or at least pretty close to such, or was this a case of a boy who encouraged some naive (probably younger boys) with no pre-existing interest in same-sex acs to experiment in such behavior?

 

 

 

 

If you don't believe that boys who identify as homosexual or bisexual can encourage other boys to try out such acts, I don't know what to tell you. You have an unusual view of sexuality. I don't think a boy with Downs Syndrome will be able to encourage other boys to acquire Downs Syndrome, so you are using a false analogy. Down Syndrome is a legitimate genetic condition, whereas the science is still out on whether homosexuality is genetic, not genetic, or a combination of genetics, pre- or post-natal environment, etc. The research shows that men who identify as gay had childhood (per age 14) sexual contact with adult males in numbers far beyond what straight males have, so could early sexual contact with a teenage or adult male, which would be frightening for most male children, be one of the causes for self-identification as "gay?" Probably. We know that young girls who are molested repeatedly by adult males show an earlier rate of sexualization, a higher rate of promiscuity in adult life, and difficulty in forming adult relationships. Why would sexual contact with a homosexual, and the resultant feelings of shame and loss of masculine identity, not be expected to cause differences in sexual identity later in life in males? Complex human behavior rarely has a single cause, and there could be several reasons why people self-identify as gay. Some people may be born gay, some people may be made into gays. That comports with what we know of human response to early sexual molestation. We see that adolescent females who are forced into child prostitution typically internalize the idea that they are "prostitutes" and quickly adopt the persona that a pimp introduces them to. Sexual identity while young is unfortunately malleable in conditions of fear, shame, and degradation, and this is a lesson that is usually overlooked by LGBT apologists who argue, "well, I'VE always known I was heterosexual. Do you think anyone would willingly CHOOSE to be gay?" The answer, as we have seen, is no. In some (not all) cases, they may well be dealing with the effects of childhood sexual abuse. Many gays probably have always felt themselves gay, but the higher rate of early childhood sexual contact in males who identify as gay would be hard to write off as coincidence.

 

 

 

 

 

On your last point, yes, boys DO choose sexual behavior. If the sexual behavior is negative (we don't even need to argue that it is immoral or degrading to the individual spirit, using Natural Law arguments), we can choose not to do it. We don't argue that child molesters, or adulterers, or rapists, or polygamists, or those with anger issues towards intimate partners, or even simple philandering cads, are "forced" to do it by their natures. People who have sexual drives that are damaging to others (or to themselves, in the case of, for instance, those who enjoy pursuits such as auto-erotic asphyxiation) can and should be encouraged to pursue a celibate life.

 

 

 

 

 

One could argue that, well, homosexuals aren't hurting anyone but themselves, so they're not like the examples I cited. Yet, it takes two to tango. If one introduces another to homosexuality, or encourages another, how is this a victimless act? Is homosexuality "bad" for the homosexual and his partner? Objectively, yes. They live much shorter lives, as the research shows. They live far more depressed lives, and for reasons that are not solely based on societal disapproval. They are far more prone to a wide variety of problems, including substance abuse and suicide, for reasons that research shows are not largely related to societal or family disapproval. They willingly enter into what can only ever be sterile relationships, and thereby deprive themselves (and their parents) of one of the great joys of life, having children and continuing your line. They are far more likely to be unable to find a committed partner, and this will grow worse as they age. They have a far higher rate of divorce in communities where gay marriage is legal. They are more likely to suffer from a variety of ailments (not even including STDs) from the deleterious long-term effects of sodomy, as proctologists and urologists can tell you - anal fissures, prolapsed rectums, and other problems tend to show up much earlier in life than they ever should. As the CDC's research shows, they are far more prone to a wide variety of unhealthy and risk-seeking behavior. These rates are seen even in countries with a high rate of societal tolerance of homosexuality.

 

 

 

 

 

So, yes, they should be regarded with compassion as fellow children of God. No, their behavior (which could be described as sin from a sociological standpoint, and gravely unhealthy from a secular standpoint) should not be normalized or encouraged. If any other set of behaviors were so damaging to young men, would we encourage it, or would we seek to actively discourage it and tell boys they shouldn't do it?

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Asperger's and PTSD can cause behavior that has to be monitored. Would you agree that there is a qualitative difference between a kid who had a scout with a behavioral disorder take a swing at him or throw a hatchet at him (as bad as those behaviors are) and the boy who is sexually molested by another scout or scouts? There's abuse, and then there's abuse. The men I've spoken with who were molested as scouts (whether by leaders or other scouts) have very, very different feelings about Scouting than those who had to deal with a fight or a non-sexual attack by another kid, which is usually accepted as just part of being a boy. Believe me. Not a single one of them would ever let their son be in Scouting now.

 

 

 

 

 

The Youth Safety policies that the BSA has evolved to deal with the continuing risk of sexual assault have worked to reduce the number of molestations far below what we saw in the past. Keeping out, as best we can, those who have a sexual interest in the male sex, admitted or not, is a major part of that policy. Abandoning those elements is not a good idea and is unfair to the other kids whom we are entrusted to keep safe.

"...13-17 is still abuse" Simply put: no. Laws establish only what is legal or not legal. Consensual relationships do not constitute abuse, but they may be illegal. We see the argument that illegality establishes abuse evaporate when we consider that a 20-yr-old can legally engage in sex acts with a 18-yr-old; however, make that 20-yr-old a teacher, and the 18-yr-old a student, and now the same behavior is illegal (even if the 18-yr-old is not a student of the 20-yr-old). Free consent (not made under duress, manipulation, etc) establishes whether abuse has occurred. As a society, we have decided that we don't want people under the age of 18 to be able to give legal consent to sex acts to people over the age of 18, but that does not change the biological desires of minors or of adults, it can only influence their behavior. But 30 yrs ago in the US, that age was 16, and 50 years ago that age was 13; indeed, in many parts of the world, the age of consent is still 12, or they don't even legislate the issue.

"...have a cite?" I assure you, I'm not the one to be cheeky with on this front. Pedophilia is a specific medical term with a specific definition. It means a sexual attraction to prepubescent children. We generally peg puberty to 13. You are free to borrow or buy a copy of the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) if you want to check up on that, or pop over to Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

While I'm humoring your citations request, as noted, we "generally" peg puberty to 13, but as I said, "in increasing numbers" boys are entering puberty as young as 10, which you can read (or listen) all about here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/12/24/167735056/like-girls-boys-are-entering-puberty-earlier

You may read the book I referenced for free here: http://books.google.com/books?id=buDwPEe95OIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false But a digital copy is cheap if you want to be able to read all of Ch 13. Might I also suggest "Gay Man's Worst Friend" for a prominent gay publisher's explanation of how it is that you don't know about the intrinsic tilt of homosexuals toward youth despite the wealth of historic and contemporary evidence. You can read about the classical Greek ideal of adult-youth gay sex as the height--the most superior--of love in Plato's "Symposium" which has inspired and influenced homosexuals for centuries.

[King Ding Dong]

If the argument boils down to behavior and not the desire, would it then not be appropriate to ban avowed heterosexual boys engaging in sexual relations with females ?

[DigitalScout]

If anyone was unclear about natural law yesterday, I hope they're perfectly clear about it now, lol.

Oh yeah, it's crystal clear.