Whats next?

[The Latin Scot]

31 minutes ago, yknot said:

Furthermore, to anyone of the same homophobic opinions, you need to read up on Lord Baden Powell beyond the sanitized biographies written about him. He was without doubt a repressed, crossing dressing homosexual. Still a great man, with great wisdom to impart about kids, but that is undeniably who and what he was. 

That sounds to me, if you'll forgive my bluntness, an incredibly short-sighted and narrow understanding of a human life. If you define a man simply by his tastes, preferences, orientation, religion, nationality, color, or any other outward marker, and claim that that is "who he was," then you are ignoring the most important indicator of a person's true self: what they choose to be, or in this case, chose. He never chose to define himself by those minor details of his life, thus neither should we. That is the central message of Scouting; it is our choices that define us. I have read almost every biographical book, essay, paper and article on BP, and the idiosyncrasies of his private life have little to no bearing whatsoever on who he truly was - because the man he CHOSE to be exponentially superseded whatever proclivities or personal foibles or quirks or oddities he may have had during his life, and that man went to his grave as one of the most noble and upright men of his generation, whatever detours or distractions he may have travelled on his way there. Let's not use the tired method of pulling the "secretly gay!" card in an attempt to manipulate people into accepting other lifestyles; there are far more reasonable, respectful, empathetic, and measured ways that we can accomplish the same thing without wresting it from the personal legacies of leaders who aren't here to clarify or defend their actions for us. 

[yknot]

6 minutes ago, The Latin Scot said:

That sounds to me, if you'll forgive my bluntness, an incredibly short-sighted and narrow understanding of a human life. If you define a man simply by his tastes, preferences, orientation, religion, nationality, color, or any other outward marker, and claim that that is "who he was," then you are ignoring the most important indicator of a person's true self: what they choose to be, or in this case, chose. He never chose to define himself by those minor details of his life, thus neither should we. That is the central message of Scouting; it is our choices that define us. I have read almost every biographical book, essay, paper and article on BP, and the idiosyncrasies of his private life have little to no bearing whatsoever on who he truly was - because the man he CHOSE to be exponentially superseded whatever proclivities or personal foibles or quirks or oddities he may have had during his life, and that man went to his grave as one of the most noble and upright men of his generation, whatever detours or distractions he may have travelled on his way there. Let's not use the tired method of pulling the "secretly gay!" card in an attempt to manipulate people into accepting other lifestyles; there are far more reasonable, respectful, empathetic, and measured ways that we can accomplish the same thing without wresting it from the personal legacies of leaders who aren't here to clarify or defend their actions for us. 

I'm not sure what you are saying here, because your tone sounds like you are arguing with me but your words sound like you are mostly agreeing with me. The boys in Baden Powell's care were likely not at risk of being preyed upon by him simply because he was homosexual. They were safe because of his character. The homophobia in scouting that links orientation to character has confused the two. I've had double dads and double moms in my units and never worried about them. The biggest danger appears to be from people who are hiding what they are and use organizations like scouting and churches to cloak their intent. 

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, Mrjeff said:

Perhaps I'm the only one who will not allow my boys to go away with a gay scoutmaster, and still encourage my girls to be girls. 

Gay scoutmasters are not attracted to young boys...period!  Gay men do not seek out straight men.  Lesbians are still girls/women and I know this because my daughter is lesbian and every inch a girl and acts like a girl.

[johnsch322]

1 hour ago, David CO said:

I do think those who are on the winning side of these issues have been less than magnanimous in their victory.  Having won the policy issue, they could afford to be a little less hostile with those who are still disappointed in their defeat.

This is a little disappointing to read as it was @mrjeff who started this thread. As was said if you want to post your opinion be ready to hear the other side. Hasn't history taught us anything?  

 

[Eagledad]

1 hour ago, johnsch322 said:

This is a little disappointing to read as it was @mrjeff who started this thread. As was said if you want to post your opinion be ready to hear the other side. Hasn't history taught us anything?  

 

This post makes no sense. David’s post is just the other side.

Barry

[David CO]

6 hours ago, Mrjeff said:

Don't bother with a lot of remarks or negative comments directed to me because I probably won't read them, but I hope this raises some real and honest discussion.

I understood this to be referring to personal attacks.  The OP is clearly asking for "real and honest discussion" of the issues.  

Personally, I don't see the point in continuing a discussion that is now a dead issue.  It's over.  Homosexuals are now allowed to be members in scouting.  I don't expect that to change.  

The only decision left for people with traditional moral/religious beliefs is to decide on their own membership/support of scouting.  That is a personal decision for them to make.  

Edited August 7, 2021 by David CO

[SiouxRanger]

18 minutes ago, yknot said:

I'm not sure what you are saying here, because your tone sounds like you are arguing with me but your words sound like you are mostly agreeing with me.

I have to agree with @yknot. Seems like @The Latin Scot is agreeing with you.

I have trouble following the rest of the post of @The Latin Scot.

The use of the word "chose" or "choose" in a discussion of "being gay" opens a whole level of discussion and debate that likely will never resolve until future Watsons and Cricks explain it to us.

And, I don't really follow the notion of judging someone by how they seek to define themselves.  Few think of Gacy as a benevolent, community-minded clown.

Perhaps, "Do as I say, not as I do," becomes, "Judge as I do, not as I say."

A friend whom I judge to be very astute once said to me, regarding the issue of "choosing" to be gay or not:  "I never sat down and considered my alternatives, and what my orientation would be.  I was hetero and I never thought about it.  Who would make such an evaluation of their life?  'I can be hetero, accepted by virtually everyone and move along smoothly among my family and peers, or 'decide' to be gay, and be ostracized, shunned, ridiculed, live life in the shadows, cut off from family and friends and perhaps be strung up on a fence in Wyoming to die?'

Hmmm.  Some choice.

For whatever reason, genetics, chemistry, ???, it seems to me that folks who are gay are born that way and have no "choice" in that matter.  They do have a choice in whether they express their feelings at all, only openly among their good friends, or include their family, or include everyone (without regard to the societal consequences).  Why is "outing" as gay so significant an event?  Is anyone "outed" as hetero?

In my mind, that raises the question of how should gays conduct themselves?  And THAT, to me, is THE question.  Should a gay person have to live their life to meet MY expectation of their acceptable behavior?

To paraphrase Lincoln:  I certainly don't intend to live my life to anyone else's expectation, and thereby can't expect them to live their life to mine.

On the other hand, I am not interested in a person's orientation being the principal projected component of their personality whenever I encounter them or for the duration of the encounter.  It is distracting and impolite.  It is not the time, nor place, and not to an appreciative audience.

One reason it appears to be genetic, chemical, or ???, to me, is that despite the profound societal ostracization, and concomitant emotional impacts, is that it appears that no manner of either internal or external pressures or influences, agony or grief, changes behavior.  That gay behaviors are elicited among like-minded adults, well, they are adults.

Child abusers, it seems to me, at least my working hypothesis, are subject to the same genetic, chemical, ???, influences.  What else explains that many are repeat offenders.

Even after being caught, exposed, punished-lose their jobs, their family, and move on to another locale, they abuse again-and the cycle repeats.  I am not taking the position that they have no ability to control themselves-they do-but they don't.  But whatever drives them, it is powerful and apparently cannot be changed. Subdued temporarily, but ever present.  It resurfaces to ill-effect.

But, child abusers, their activity is not between consenting adults.  They target and damage innocent and vulnerable children.  I have no doubt that child abuse severely affects the victim life-long.  I have a crushed best friend for whom I just don't know what help to offer.  I flew across the country to spend time with him once I learned, but now he has grown silent.  Push or lay back? I am not sure what will help.

There does not seem to be any statistically meaningful connection between gays and pedophiles.

And in a world where statistics, mathematically sound statistics, are practiced, there are surely some, though very few, gays who are pedophiles, but when your faucet is leaking and the flooding Mississippi is headed to your basement, you address the Mississippi first-that's practical statistics.

So, these are some of my thoughts.  Not set in concrete, but working hypotheses, always subject to reconsideration and reformulation.

I had a great friend, now passed, who at committee meetings was famous for saying, "Could you please say that again-I WANT to understand you."  He had an uncanny ability to defuse and achieve consensus.

I have said to many clients, "Most folks are just trying to get through the day."

And finally, the ultimate arbiter of wisdom, "That which you do to the least of mine, you do to me."

And few among us have claimed to stand higher than that.

[Eagledad]

5 minutes ago, SiouxRanger said:

I have to agree with @yknot. Seems like @The Latin Scot is agreeing with you.

I have trouble following the rest of the post of @The Latin Scot.

The use of the word "chose" or "choose" in a discussion of "being gay" opens a whole level of discussion and debate that likely will never resolve until future Watsons and Cricks explain it to us.

And, I don't really follow the notion of judging someone by how they seek to define themselves.  Few think of Gacy as a benevolent, community-minded clown.

Perhaps, "Do as I say, not as I do," becomes, "Judge as I do, not as I say."

A friend whom I judge to be very astute once said to me, regarding the issue of "choosing" to be gay or not:  "I never sat down and considered my alternatives, and what my orientation would be.  I was hetero and I never thought about it.  Who would make such an evaluation of their life?  'I can be hetero, accepted by virtually everyone and move along smoothly among my family and peers, or 'decide' to be gay, and be ostracized, shunned, ridiculed, live life in the shadows, cut off from family and friends and perhaps be strung up on a fence in Wyoming to die?'

Hmmm.  Some choice.

For whatever reason, genetics, chemistry, ???, it seems to me that folks who are gay are born that way and have no "choice" in that matter.  They do have a choice in whether they express their feelings at all, only openly among their good friends, or include their family, or include everyone (without regard to the societal consequences).  Why is "outing" as gay so significant an event?  Is anyone "outed" as hetero?

In my mind, that raises the question of how should gays conduct themselves?  And THAT, to me, is THE question.  Should a gay person have to live their life to meet MY expectation of their acceptable behavior?

To paraphrase Lincoln:  I certainly don't intend to live my life to anyone else's expectation, and thereby can't expect them to live their life to mine.

On the other hand, I am not interested in a person's orientation being the principal projected component of their personality whenever I encounter them or for the duration of the encounter.  It is distracting and impolite.  It is not the time, nor place, and not to an appreciative audience.

One reason it appears to be genetic, chemical, or ???, to me, is that despite the profound societal ostracization, and concomitant emotional impacts, is that it appears that no manner of either internal or external pressures or influences, agony or grief, changes behavior.  That gay behaviors are elicited among like-minded adults, well, they are adults.

Child abusers, it seems to me, at least my working hypothesis, are subject to the same genetic, chemical, ???, influences.  What else explains that many are repeat offenders.

Even after being caught, exposed, punished-lose their jobs, their family, and move on to another locale, they abuse again-and the cycle repeats.  I am not taking the position that they have no ability to control themselves-they do-but they don't.  But whatever drives them, it is powerful and apparently cannot be changed. Subdued temporarily, but ever present.  It resurfaces to ill-effect.

But, child abusers, their activity is not between consenting adults.  They target and damage innocent and vulnerable children.  I have no doubt that child abuse severely affects the victim life-long.  I have a crushed best friend for whom I just don't know what help to offer.  I flew across the country to spend time with him once I learned, but now he has grown silent.  Push or lay back? I am not sure what will help.

There does not seem to be any statistically meaningful connection between gays and pedophiles.

And in a world where statistics, mathematically sound statistics, are practiced, there are surely some, though very few, gays who are pedophiles, but when your faucet is leaking and the flooding Mississippi is headed to your basement, you address the Mississippi first-that's practical statistics.

So, these are some of my thoughts.  Not set in concrete, but working hypotheses, always subject to reconsideration and reformulation.

I had a great friend, now passed, who at committee meetings was famous for saying, "Could you please say that again-I WANT to understand you."  He had an uncanny ability to defuse and achieve consensus.

I have said to many clients, "Most folks are just trying to get through the day."

And finally, the ultimate arbiter of wisdom, "That which you do to the least of mine, you do to me."

And few among us have claimed to stand higher than that.

What?
 

Barry

[David CO]

7 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

What?
 

Barry

No.  Not Watt.  Watson.

(with apologies to Abbott and Costello)

 

Edited August 7, 2021 by David CO

[Eagle1993]

This thread is just growing a bunch of red arrows. Take the weekend off of this debate.  Go out and have fun.