Speaking Out
Bill Nelson
>
> In article <8m43tm$ui6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Nelson
> <bnel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Publicly speaking out against BSA policy
> > is grounds for loosing your commission. And yes, writing to this
list
> > is publicly speaking out (in fact it is considered 'publishing').
>
> I agree that writing to this list is publicly speaking out.
>
> Where does it say that publicly speaking out against BSA policy is
> grounds for losing your commission?
References I have found so far:
Baden-Powell's admonition to Scoutmasters in Aids to Scoutmastership, I
previously posted.
Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, Art. IX, §2, cl. 6
(reprinted in App. 407) ("The Boy Scouts of America
shall not, through its governing body or through any of its officers,
its chartered councils, or members, involve the Scouting
movement in any question of a political character").
From the oral arguements at the Supreme Court (note he is referring
to submitted evidence before the court, not his own opinion)
MR. DAVIDSON: If that person were to advocate that position through
Scouting channels in an effort to change policy, that
would be permissible. As the record indicates in Mr. Bishop's affidavit
and Mr. Kaye's testimony, if such a person were to
advocate the morality of homosexual conduct to youth in the program,
that person would be excluded and, indeed, one of Mr.
Dale's affiants was excluded on that ground.
--
And can the liberties of a nation be thought
secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a
conviction in the minds of men that these
liberties are the gift of God? - Thomas Jefferson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rob Strom
Bill Nelson wrote:
> Rob Blau wrote:
> >
> > In article <8m43tm$ui6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Bill Nelson
> > <bnel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Publicly speaking out against BSA policy
> > > is grounds for loosing your commission. And yes, writing to this
> list
> > > is publicly speaking out (in fact it is considered 'publishing').
> >
> > I agree that writing to this list is publicly speaking out.
> >
> > Where does it say that publicly speaking out against BSA policy is
> > grounds for losing your commission?
>
> References I have found so far:
>
> Baden-Powell's admonition to Scoutmasters in Aids to Scoutmastership, I
> previously posted.
Which doesn't say don't speak out.
>
>
> Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, Art. IX, §2, cl. 6
> (reprinted in App. 407) ("The Boy Scouts of America
> shall not, through its governing body or through any of its officers,
> its chartered councils, or members, involve the Scouting
> movement in any question of a political character").
Which doesn't say don't speak out.
>
>
> From the oral arguements at the Supreme Court (note he is referring
> to submitted evidence before the court, not his own opinion)
> MR. DAVIDSON: If that person were to advocate that position through
> Scouting channels in an effort to change policy, that
> would be permissible. As the record indicates in Mr. Bishop's affidavit
> and Mr. Kaye's testimony, if such a person were to
> advocate the morality of homosexual conduct to youth in the program,
> that person would be excluded and, indeed, one of Mr.
> Dale's affiants was excluded on that ground.
Advocating the morality of anal intercourse has nothing
to do with trying to change policy on
homosexual members and it would be
a terrible slander for anyone to try to equate the two.
--
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop
"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:398629FF...@watson.ibm.com...
[snip]
> > From the oral arguements at the Supreme Court (note he is referring
> > to submitted evidence before the court, not his own opinion)
> > MR. DAVIDSON: If that person were to advocate that position through
> > Scouting channels in an effort to change policy, that
> > would be permissible. As the record indicates in Mr. Bishop's affidavit
> > and Mr. Kaye's testimony, if such a person were to
> > advocate the morality of homosexual conduct to youth in the program,
> > that person would be excluded and, indeed, one of Mr.
> > Dale's affiants was excluded on that ground.
>
> Advocating the morality of anal intercourse has nothing
> to do with trying to change policy on
> homosexual members and it would be
> a terrible slander for anyone to try to equate the two.
That's an interesting statement. Of course, the first point is that Mr.
Davidson didn't only refer to advocating the morality of anal intercourse.
I take him to mean that any beefs with the policy must be directed *up* and
not aired with the boys. But I take you to mean that one can dispute the
BSA policy without advocating the morality of homosexual conduct, which
includes, but is not limited to anal intercourse. No you can't. The policy
is based on the morality of that conduct.
cw
"Bill Nelson" <bnel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8m53gk$o07$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Rules and Regulations of the Boy Scouts of America, Art. IX, §2, cl. 6
> (reprinted in App. 407) ("The Boy Scouts of America
> shall not, through its governing body or through any of its officers,
> its chartered councils, or members, involve the Scouting
> movement in any question of a political character").
Isn't the entire gay issue in Scouting a political question? If so, hasn't
the BSA national council already violated this principle of not involving
Scouts in political issues?
There is obviously no agreement either among the general public or among
church or religious groups as to the morality of homosexuality, and it can
be demonstrated that a gay person has neither more or less capacity to be
harful to others than a straight person has, so it is hard to frame
homosexuality as a "moral" issue. It seems to me to be purely a political
issue about whether or not gays should be included in a private club.
Rather than choose to take no position on this debate, which would be the
proper, non-political position, the BSA national leadership chose to take a
firm anti-gay position and pursue it publicly and in courts up to the
Supreme Court.
Who has drug BSA into the center of this political issue? The gays who have
always been involved in Scouts and who always will be, or the national
council who has drafted anti-gay statements that never existed before and
has chosen to publicly fight for their position through the courts? The
national council has clearly chosen to involve the Scouting movement in a
question of political character, and in doing so has violated one of the
rules of their own charter.
Frederick Northrop
"cw" <m...@nomailplease.com> wrote in message
news:u_Bh5.94$4c....@news7.onvoy.net...
>
> Isn't the entire gay issue in Scouting a political question? If so,
hasn't
> the BSA national council already violated this principle of not involving
> Scouts in political issues?
Broadly speaking it is political, but there is the politics within the
organization and the politics of national and state government. The BSA
national leadership apparently tries to keep it within the BSA. You don't,
for example, see commercials or even press releases about the bill to
terminate the national charter. I wonder, however, how councils like the
one in San Diego are dealing with local moves to evict them from public
buildings.
> There is obviously no agreement either among the general public or among
> church or religious groups as to the morality of homosexuality, and it can
> be demonstrated that a gay person has neither more or less capacity to be
> harful to others than a straight person has, so it is hard to frame
> homosexuality as a "moral" issue. It seems to me to be purely a political
> issue about whether or not gays should be included in a private club.
> Rather than choose to take no position on this debate, which would be the
> proper, non-political position, the BSA national leadership chose to take
a
> firm anti-gay position and pursue it publicly and in courts up to the
> Supreme Court.
Well, that depends on whether one considers this to be a new policy or not.
BSA's position seems to be that there was no controversy and no need to
explicitly state a policy until the gay rights movement succeeded in gaining
support in government and some religions. If the policy is not new, BSA
merely defends its legal right to make its own decisions. Doing so isn't an
attempt to influence the decisions government or religious entities. BTW it
is patently specious to say that this is not a moral issue. The very fact
that religious institutions are debating the issues IMHO makes them moral
issues.
> Who has drug BSA into the center of this political issue? The gays who
have
> always been involved in Scouts and who always will be, or the national
> council who has drafted anti-gay statements that never existed before and
> has chosen to publicly fight for their position through the courts? The
> national council has clearly chosen to involve the Scouting movement in a
> question of political character, and in doing so has violated one of the
> rules of their own charter.
The gays of course. Every lawsuit I know of was instituted against BSA.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. The courts serve a vital
function and everyone should have the right to them. Nor do I criticize
LAMBDA for making political hay out of these lawsuits. But it is unfair to
say that BSA is involving itself in a political issue simply because it
refuses to play dead. If anything, national has been too closed mouth about
it. I was surprised to see the post-Dale press release at the BSA website.
--
Frederick Northrop
Pacifica, CA
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop wrote:
> "Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:398629FF...@watson.ibm.com...
> [snip]
>
> > > From the oral arguements at the Supreme Court (note he is referring
> > > to submitted evidence before the court, not his own opinion)
> > > MR. DAVIDSON: If that person were to advocate that position through
> > > Scouting channels in an effort to change policy, that
> > > would be permissible. As the record indicates in Mr. Bishop's affidavit
> > > and Mr. Kaye's testimony, if such a person were to
> > > advocate the morality of homosexual conduct to youth in the program,
> > > that person would be excluded and, indeed, one of Mr.
> > > Dale's affiants was excluded on that ground.
> >
> > Advocating the morality of anal intercourse has nothing
> > to do with trying to change policy on
> > homosexual members and it would be
> > a terrible slander for anyone to try to equate the two.
>
> That's an interesting statement. Of course, the first point is that Mr.
> Davidson didn't only refer to advocating the morality of anal intercourse.
> I take him to mean that any beefs with the policy must be directed *up* and
> not aired with the boys.
That's not what he said.
> But I take you to mean that one can dispute the
> BSA policy without advocating the morality of homosexual conduct, which
> includes, but is not limited to anal intercourse. No you can't. The policy
> is based on the morality of that conduct.
No it isn't.
It's based on orientation. The connection between
orientation and conduct is based on prejudices.
Deny the prejudices and you separate the issues.
Even the Supreme Court couldn't find a
rationale for the policy, but they argued
in effect that a policy doesn't have to
be rational to have constitutional protection.
--
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop
And I didn't say he did. His words were quoted in the earlier post. He
said "advocate the morality of homosexual conduct to youth in the program."
YOU then reinterpreted him to be referring to "Advocating the morality of
anal intercourse." I pointed out that homosexual conduct may include anal
intercourse, but is not limited to it such that advocating the morality of
homosexual conduct can occur even though one never mentions anal
intercourse. AND his statement specifically referred to stating this point
to Scouts. Rightly or wrongly, Scouts do not have any say whatsoever in
national policy. Therefor BSA believes it is inappropriate to give them a
mixed message by airing your grievences with the policy before them.
Fred
Frederick Northrop
"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
news:39871E58...@watson.ibm.com...
>
>
> Frederick Northrop wrote:
>
> > "Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
> > news:398629FF...@watson.ibm.com...
> > [snip]
> >
> > But I take you to mean that one can dispute the
> > BSA policy without advocating the morality of homosexual conduct, which
> > includes, but is not limited to anal intercourse. No you can't. The
policy
> > is based on the morality of that conduct.
>
> No it isn't.
> It's based on orientation. The connection between
> orientation and conduct is based on prejudices.
> Deny the prejudices and you separate the issues.
> Even the Supreme Court couldn't find a
> rationale for the policy, but they argued
> in effect that a policy doesn't have to
> be rational to have constitutional protection.
It is true that a policy need not be rational to be protected. The court
did so hold.
"The [New Jersey Supreme] court concluded that the exclusion of members like
Dale "appears antithetical to the organization's goals and philosophy."
Ibid. But our cases reject this sort of inquiry; it is not the role of the
courts to reject a group's expressed values because they disagree with those
values or find them internally inconsistent. See Democratic Party of United
States v. Wisconsin ex rel. La Follette, 450 U. S. 107, 124 (1981) ("[A]s is
true of all expressions of First Amendment freedoms, the courts may not
interfere on the ground that they view a particular expression as unwise or
irrational"); see also Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security
Div., 450 U. S. 707, 714 (1981) ("[R]eligious beliefs need not be
acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others to merit First
Amendment protection"). "
It is, however, true that the court held that the policy was based on
homosexual conduct:
"The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not
morally straight," Brief for Petitioners 39, and that it does "not want to
promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior," Reply Brief
for Petitioners 5. We accept the Boy Scouts' assertion."
Nevertheless, the court went into the sincerity of the assertion. "Thus, at
least as of 1978--the year James Dale entered Scouting--the official
position of the Boy Scouts was that avowed homosexuals were not to be Scout
leaders. "
The question of whether Dale's presence as a leader would significantly
burden BSA's expression was addressed separately.
"We must then determine whether Dale's presence as an assistant scoutmaster
would significantly burden the Boy Scouts' desire to not "promote homosexual
conduct as a legitimate form of behavior." Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. As
we give deference to an association's assertions regarding the nature of its
expression, we must also give deference to an association's view of what
would impair its expression. See, e.g., La Follette, supra, at 123-124
(considering whether a Wisconsin law burdened the National Party's
associational rights and stating that "a State, or a court, may not
constitutionally substitute its own judgment for that of the Party"). That
is not to say that an expressive association can erect a shield against
antidiscrimination laws simply by asserting that mere acceptance of a member
from a particular group would impair its message. But here Dale, by his own
admission, is one of a group of gay Scouts who have "become leaders in their
community and are open and honest about their sexual orientation." App. 11.
Dale was the copresident of a gay and lesbian organization at college and
remains a gay rights activist. Dale's presence in the Boy Scouts would, at
the very least, force the organization to send a message, both to the youth
members and the world, that the Boy Scouts accepts homosexual conduct as a
legitimate form of behavior. "
Based on the Hurley case, the Court agreed that this burden was enough.
Neither the Hurley case nor the Dale case say that exclusion of people based
on sexual orientation is, in itself, protected. What is protected is a
group's right to expression. The Court repeatedly makes it clear that the
issue is BSA's right not to promote homosexual conduct.
I frankly think that both BSA and LAMBDA have overstated the significance of
the opinion. I frankly don't think a gay man or boy who remained largely
closeted or who was celebate could be expelled. I could be wrong there, but
there is certainly room to distinguish the cases. However, I don't expect
to see that case come up. Why? Because IMHO LAMBDA does not want courts
making a distinctions between orientation and conduct. They want to confuse
that issue in hopes of eventually overturning Bowers v. Hardwick.
C.J.W.
Rob Strom wrote:
>
> Frederick Northrop wrote:
<snip>
> > But I take you to mean that one can dispute the
> > BSA policy without advocating the morality of homosexual conduct, which
> > includes, but is not limited to anal intercourse. No you can't. The policy
> > is based on the morality of that conduct.
>
> No it isn't.
> It's based on orientation. The connection between
> orientation and conduct is based on prejudices.
Then the NJ law at issue is based on "prejudices," because it defines so
called sexual orientation behaviorally. That's probably because sexual
desires are irrelevant to public policy.
Mr. Strom is being intellectually dishonest herein because he has
absolutely no legal or moral case whatsoever. When someone begins to
talk about sexual orientations/fixations as if sexual desires are
relevant to any political issue and public policy that is always the
case.
> Deny the prejudices and you separate the issues.
Note that there are no "prejudices" specified because that is a specious
argument.
> Even the Supreme Court couldn't find a
> rationale for the policy, but they argued
> in effect that a policy doesn't have to
> be rational to have constitutional protection.
That's incorrect. They didn't even attempt to find a rational or moral
basis for the policy. They didn't have to. That wasn't the issue when
a larger issue was at hand. Of course, the leftists, having typical
fascist tendencies... went such routes.
(Note that 5-4 is much too narrow a decision in protecting everyone's
freedom. That's why, in general, it's best not to vote for such
socialists.)
--
--Christopher Watson
"Art, like morality, consists in
drawing the line somewhere." --G.K. Chesterton
http://homepage.myevents.com/myevents/homepages/w/watt2020/Public_Life_and_Homosexuality.html
www.federalist.com
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop wrote:
> ...
>
> It is, however, true that the court held that the policy was based on
> homosexual conduct:
>
> "The Boy Scouts asserts that it "teach[es] that homosexual conduct is not
> morally straight," Brief for Petitioners 39, and that it does "not want to
> promote homosexual conduct as a legitimate form of behavior," Reply Brief
> for Petitioners 5. We accept the Boy Scouts' assertion."
>
> Nevertheless, the court went into the sincerity of the assertion. "Thus, at
> least as of 1978--the year James Dale entered Scouting--the official
> position of the Boy Scouts was that avowed homosexuals were not to be Scout
> leaders. "
>
> The question of whether Dale's presence as a leader would significantly
> burden BSA's expression was addressed separately.
>
> "We must then determine whether Dale's presence as an assistant scoutmaster
> would significantly burden the Boy Scouts' desire to not "promote homosexual
> conduct as a legitimate form of behavior." Reply Brief for Petitioners 5. As
> we give deference to an association's assertions regarding the nature of its
> expression, we must also give deference to an association's view of what
> would impair its expression....
In short, the Court said that the policy of banning people
based on orientation is related for expressive purposes to the message of
disapproving of homosexual sex because the BSA
said so, not because it was true.
Similarly, *my* expression of opposition to the policy
is unrelated to the issue of homosexual sex because *I* say so.
Same logic.
Therefore, I *can* oppose BSA policy without supporting
any sexual activity.
>
>
> I frankly think that both BSA and LAMBDA have overstated the significance of
> the opinion. I frankly don't think a gay man or boy who remained largely
> closeted or who was celebate could be expelled.
Sure they could, as soon as someone outed them.
> I could be wrong there, but
> there is certainly room to distinguish the cases. However, I don't expect
> to see that case come up. Why? Because IMHO LAMBDA does not want courts
> making a distinctions between orientation and conduct.
They did in this case.
> They want to confuse
> that issue in hopes of eventually overturning Bowers v. Hardwick.
>
Bowers v. Hardwick is entirely about conduct. Mixing the cases
makes no sense.
--
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop
> In short, the Court said that the policy of banning people
> based on orientation is related for expressive purposes to the message of
> disapproving of homosexual sex because the BSA
> said so, not because it was true.
>
> Similarly, *my* expression of opposition to the policy
> is unrelated to the issue of homosexual sex because *I* say so.
> Same logic.
>
> Therefore, I *can* oppose BSA policy without supporting
> any sexual activity.
You can. Now please quote something, anything, which demonstrates that Dale
neither engaged in homosexual conduct and did not advocate such conduct.
> >
> >
> > I frankly think that both BSA and LAMBDA have overstated the
significance of
> > the opinion. I frankly don't think a gay man or boy who remained
largely
> > closeted or who was celebate could be expelled.
>
> Sure they could, as soon as someone outed them.
And I will grant that it has probably happened, but I still think that it
would not stand up in SCOTUS.
> > I could be wrong there, but
> > there is certainly room to distinguish the cases. However, I don't
expect
> > to see that case come up. Why? Because IMHO LAMBDA does not want
courts
> > making a distinctions between orientation and conduct.
>
> They did in this case.
Who is "they" in the last sentence? If "they" refers to the SCOTUS, I
agree. The New Jersey law does not. It and the NJ courts define
"homosexual" alternatively by conduct or desires. If, however, "they" means
LAMBDA, then I disagree. LAMBDA and Dale, so far as I have heard, never
argued that Dale was celibate or that he was against gay sex.
> > They want to confuse
> > that issue in hopes of eventually overturning Bowers v. Hardwick.
> >
>
> Bowers v. Hardwick is entirely about conduct. Mixing the cases
> makes no sense.
Exactly. But LAMBDA is not interested simply in acheiving a legal climate
that says it's okay to be gay only if one abstains from sex. Actually, I
think that has been acheived.
Fred
Leanmc420
>
>"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
>news:3987B26E...@watson.ibm.com...
>
>> In short, the Court said that the policy of banning people
>> based on orientation is related for expressive purposes to the message of
>> disapproving of homosexual sex because the BSA
>> said so, not because it was true.
>>
>> Similarly, *my* expression of opposition to the policy
>> is unrelated to the issue of homosexual sex because *I* say so.
>> Same logic.
>>
>> Therefore, I *can* oppose BSA policy without supporting
>> any sexual activity.
>
>You can. Now please quote something, anything, which demonstrates that Dale
>neither engaged in homosexual conduct and did not advocate such conduct.
>
Shouldn't the onus be on the BSA to show that Dale engaged in homosexual sex
acts, or advocated the same? The BSA kicked him out for being homosexual, not
because of sex acts.
The issue of whether homosexual activists are trying to blur the lines between
sexual orientation and sexual activity is an interesting one. I can see how
they would benefit from bluring these lines, but I can't see how its in the
BSA's best interest to blur this distinction.
The BSA could emphasize that they disapprove of homosexual sex acts by
inserting "practicing" before homosexual in their policy. Or they could change
their policy to focus on extramarital sex. From some of the anti-gay crowd on
this board, it seems like there might be opposition to homosexuals of any
stripe in the BSA. If that were true (and the way the policy is written, it
sure seems that way) then maybe it is bigotry rather than morality that is
behind the exclusion of homosexuals from the BSA.
I hope and do not think this is the case. Its possible for the BSA to write a
better, more clear policy that excludes people based on actions and behavior,
not merely sexual orientation. We need to do our best.
<snip>
David Stephens
>
> The issue of whether homosexual activists are trying to blur the lines between
> sexual orientation and sexual activity is an interesting one. I can see how
> they would benefit from bluring these lines, but I can't see how its in the
> BSA's best interest to blur this distinction.
>
> The BSA could emphasize that they disapprove of homosexual sex acts by
> inserting "practicing" before homosexual in their policy. Or they could change
> their policy to focus on extramarital sex. From some of the anti-gay crowd on
> this board, it seems like there might be opposition to homosexuals of any
> stripe in the BSA.
The point of the BSA is examples to youth or in other words, their
message. This does not require any specific actions be proven or
documented, only that the perception is there. If any of the youth
perceived that a known gay was engaged in what he has chosen to identify
with, that being gay sexual attractions, and BSA still accepted him as
an example for youth, then the message of acceptance of those action is
made. Should BSA accept a NAMBLA advocate just because no one has proven
he is guilty of doing what he says should be legal?
David S.
Brendan B. Hannemann
"C.J.W." wrote:
>
> Rob Strom wrote:
> >
> > Frederick Northrop wrote:
> <snip>
> > > But I take you to mean that one can dispute the
> > > BSA policy without advocating the morality of homosexual conduct, which
> > > includes, but is not limited to anal intercourse. No you can't. The policy
> > > is based on the morality of that conduct.
> >
> > No it isn't.
> > It's based on orientation. The connection between
> > orientation and conduct is based on prejudices.
>
> Then the NJ law at issue is based on "prejudices," because it defines so
> called sexual orientation behaviorally. That's probably because sexual
> desires are irrelevant to public policy.
>
Correct my if I'm wrong, but the difference between 1st and 2nd degree
murder is premeditation. Defining premeditation gives me basically
'desire to kill', so yes, desires (albeit not sexual in this case) are
part of public policy.
> Mr. Strom is being intellectually dishonest herein because he has
> absolutely no legal or moral case whatsoever. When someone begins to
> talk about sexual orientations/fixations as if sexual desires are
> relevant to any political issue and public policy that is always the
> case.
>
blech.
> > Deny the prejudices and you separate the issues.
>
> Note that there are no "prejudices" specified because that is a specious
> argument.
OK, how about the 'stereotype' that homosexuals engage in homosexual
sex? How's that? Not including people who engage in homosexual sex is
not the same as not including homosexuals, but neither you nor BSA make
that distinction.
>
> > Even the Supreme Court couldn't find a
> > rationale for the policy, but they argued
> > in effect that a policy doesn't have to
> > be rational to have constitutional protection.
>
> That's incorrect. They didn't even attempt to find a rational or moral
> basis for the policy.
Which was a horrendous error on their part, IMO.
> They didn't have to. That wasn't the issue when
> a larger issue was at hand.
That WAS an issue; it simply failed to be addressed properly.
> Of course, the leftists, having typical
> fascist tendencies... went such routes.
^^^^^^^
Must be your favorite word. You've used it in every post I've read from
you. You have yet to use it in correct context.
>
> (Note that 5-4 is much too narrow a decision in protecting everyone's
> freedom. That's why, in general, it's best not to vote for such
> socialists.)
Without which we would live under a dictatorship or monarchy.
Brilliant, Watson!
bbh
Frederick Northrop
"Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000802123131...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
> Shouldn't the onus be on the BSA to show that Dale engaged in homosexual
sex
> acts, or advocated the same? The BSA kicked him out for being homosexual,
not
> because of sex acts.
I think the two might, quite mistakenly, be synonymous in the minds of those
who made the decision. As to who should bear the onus, I think BSA should
not just summarily terminate anyone without at least an opportunity for an
interview, if not some sort of hearing. Once you leave BSA and go to court,
the plaintiff, Dale, bears the burden.
> The issue of whether homosexual activists are trying to blur the lines
between
> sexual orientation and sexual activity is an interesting one. I can see
how
> they would benefit from bluring these lines, but I can't see how its in
the
> BSA's best interest to blur this distinction.
Well there is the bigotry hook. I expect a significant number of BSA
leaders think homosexuality is so beyond the pale, so alien that they cannot
even think about the issues rationally. They cannot accept such a
distinction or else assume it would lead to a slippery slope.
> The BSA could emphasize that they disapprove of homosexual sex acts by
> inserting "practicing" before homosexual in their policy. Or they could
change
> their policy to focus on extramarital sex. From some of the anti-gay
crowd on
> this board, it seems like there might be opposition to homosexuals of any
> stripe in the BSA. If that were true (and the way the policy is written,
it
> sure seems that way) then maybe it is bigotry rather than morality that is
> behind the exclusion of homosexuals from the BSA.
I don't think that even BSA national leadership is quite so united. I think
it is a combination of both and that the policy as it is stated is thus open
to either interpretation. Yes, the policy could easily be modified.
Frederick Northrop
"David Stephens" <cd...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:39885849...@flash.net...
> The point of the BSA is examples to youth or in other words, their
> message. This does not require any specific actions be proven or
> documented, only that the perception is there. If any of the youth
> perceived that a known gay was engaged in what he has chosen to identify
> with, that being gay sexual attractions, and BSA still accepted him as
> an example for youth, then the message of acceptance of those action is
> made. Should BSA accept a NAMBLA advocate just because no one has proven
> he is guilty of doing what he says should be legal?
I don't see how one can be *engaged in* *gay sexual attractions.* Being
attracted is not voluntary behavior. I suppose it is, strictly speaking,
behavior. But merely feeling an attraction which is not acted upon or
communicated does not really provide an example of anything. Of course, you
said *perceived.* That would seem to indicate some sort of overt behavior
or sign of attraction. That would be a different matter entirely.
David Stephens
The point being is that it really doesn't matter if the person is
engaged in the activity resulting from the claimed attraction. The
message that such activity is acceptable is communicated by the
perception of such activity among the identified group by the youth who
are looking to the adult for an example. If the BSA holds an adult up as
an example for youth and the youth perceive him as acting on the
attractions he identifies himself as having, then the message of
acceptance is made. Such a perception of acting on the attractions is
very likely if the person takes it upon himself to justify such
attractions as acceptable such as the stated intention of Dale. The
perceptions made by the youth are more a product of direct observation
and rumor, certainly not some rules of evidence. When the youth are
exposed to media depiction of gays in drag working as prostitutes, gay
bars full of men dressed in leather and chains, gays in prison trading
sex for favors, and news reports of some gay celebrity dying of a
sexually transmitted disease, it is pretty easy to see how many of these
youth would get a certain picture of what being gay is. When Jay Lenno
jokes about west Hollywood hookers being mostly male, does that help
establish a certain reputation? A few words of denial from some one
identifying them self as gay are hardly going to stop the mass media
message. If I were asked if I knew of gays behaving in such a way,
should I lie? I could take the youth on a field trip to watch it if they
so desired. If a person is to be an example for youth in a program sold
to parents as one that builds moral values, isn't it better not to be
identified with a group known for the opposite? I really have a hard
time finding a depiction of gays in the media that is not associated
with reckless sexual behavior.
David S.
Rob Strom
>
> "Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:3987B26E...@watson.ibm.com...
>
> > In short, the Court said that the policy of banning people
> > based on orientation is related for expressive purposes to the message of
> > disapproving of homosexual sex because the BSA
> > said so, not because it was true.
> >
> > Similarly, *my* expression of opposition to the policy
> > is unrelated to the issue of homosexual sex because *I* say so.
> > Same logic.
> >
> > Therefore, I *can* oppose BSA policy without supporting
> > any sexual activity.
>
> You can. Now please quote something, anything, which demonstrates that Dale
> neither engaged in homosexual conduct and did not advocate such conduct.
>
I think the evidence lies in the *absence* of any
accusation that he did do so between the time the
interview was published and his dismissal.
That is, they dismissed him without even looking
for such evidence of conduct. Their behavior
demonstrates that Dale was dismissed because
of the disclosures in the article and not
because of any conduct or advocacy of conduct.
...
>
> Who is "they" in the last sentence? If "they" refers to the SCOTUS, I
> agree. The New Jersey law does not. It and the NJ courts define
> "homosexual" alternatively by conduct or desires. If, however, "they" means
> LAMBDA, then I disagree. LAMBDA and Dale, so far as I have heard, never
> argued that Dale was celibate or that he was against gay sex.
You've changed the burden of proof.
That's forbidden. Kicking him out
for sexual misbehavior requires
arguing that he misbehaved, not
that he demonstrates he was celibate.
>
> > > They want to confuse
> > > that issue in hopes of eventually overturning Bowers v. Hardwick.
> > >
> >
> > Bowers v. Hardwick is entirely about conduct. Mixing the cases
> > makes no sense.
>
> Exactly. But LAMBDA is not interested simply in acheiving a legal climate
> that says it's okay to be gay only if one abstains from sex. Actually, I
> think that has been acheived.
But we weren't talking about LAMBDA's objectives. They
can have multiple objectives. One can be that
homosexuals aren't discriminated against. Another
can be that governments don't regulate
homosexual sex acts between consenting adults.
The BSA case was the first kind of case.
--
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop
> >
> > You can. Now please quote something, anything, which demonstrates that
Dale
> > neither engaged in homosexual conduct and did not advocate such conduct.
> >
>
> I think the evidence lies in the *absence* of any
> accusation that he did do so between the time the
> interview was published and his dismissal.
>
> That is, they dismissed him without even looking
> for such evidence of conduct. Their behavior
> demonstrates that Dale was dismissed because
> of the disclosures in the article and not
> because of any conduct or advocacy of conduct.
>
IOW there is no such evidence. It is unfortuneate that the court records on
the web do not reveal any details about how the decision was made. I think
your version is true, because Dale was not questioned. BSA officials
apparently assumed the worst.OTOH Dale did not seek national review.
>
> That is, they dismissed him without even looking
> for such evidence of conduct. Their behavior
> demonstrates that Dale was dismissed because
> of the disclosures in the article and not
> because of any conduct or advocacy of conduct.
>
Not quite. One can presume gay sexual activity when a young man comes out
and becomes president of the college gay fredom group and advocates
counseling of adolescent boys who might be gay. I don't say that one
necessarily follows the other, but the odds are very good indeed.
I agree that BSA should have a better procedure. I don't think people
should be summarily dismissed, regardless of the reason. OTOH BSA is
certainly entitled to err on the side of caution. It is Mr. Dale who
challenged the decision, thus, in court at least, it was up to him to show
that the decision had nothing to do with conduct.
I think the David Stephens' post may go too far. He believes that the youth
will make a connection of endorsement of gay sex even if the leader disavows
gay sexual activity. He might be right. I wonder, for example, if there
truly are gay priests who are known to be so and how this has affected the
RMC's teachings to its young people.
> > Who is "they" in the last sentence? If "they" refers to the SCOTUS, I
> > agree. The New Jersey law does not. It and the NJ courts define
> > "homosexual" alternatively by conduct or desires. If, however, "they"
means
> > LAMBDA, then I disagree. LAMBDA and Dale, so far as I have heard, never
> > argued that Dale was celibate or that he was against gay sex.
>
> You've changed the burden of proof.
>
> That's forbidden. Kicking him out
> for sexual misbehavior requires
> arguing that he misbehaved, not
> that he demonstrates he was celibate.
Not at all.
First, in court, Dale was the plaintiff and also was in the best position to
have evidence of his sexual behavior. It is his burden to prove
discrimination.
As to BSA's compliance with its own rules, I don't know what the rules are.
I point out, again, though that he could but did not seek national review of
his termination. At any rate, BSA officials can reasonably conclude from
the news article that there was ongoing sexual misbehavior. That seems to
be your complaint. You seem to think that BSA, like a criminal court, must
presume Dale to be innocent until proven guilty. It need not. I was fired
from a job once because my supervisor was embezzleing and the board figured
his employees had to know about it. Too bad for me. I beat them on the
unemployment claim, but I wouldn't have a hope of winning an unjust
dismissal action. Private organizations do not owe us "due process."
> > Exactly. But LAMBDA is not interested simply in acheiving a legal
climate
> > that says it's okay to be gay only if one abstains from sex. Actually,
I
> > think that has been acheived.
>
> But we weren't talking about LAMBDA's objectives. They
> can have multiple objectives. One can be that
> homosexuals aren't discriminated against. Another
> can be that governments don't regulate
> homosexual sex acts between consenting adults.
> The BSA case was the first kind of case.
You keep saying that, but you haven't any evidence that Dale was celibate.
If he were, don't you think he would have said so by now?
No, but my point about LAMBDA is that we are not going to get a test case of
the celebate homosexual. An individual can't afford to bring the case and
LAMBDA won't finance it.
Leanmc420
>
>Leanmc420 wrote:
>>
>
>> The issue of whether homosexual activists are trying to blur the lines
>between
>> sexual orientation and sexual activity is an interesting one. I can see
>how
>> they would benefit from bluring these lines, but I can't see how its in the
>> BSA's best interest to blur this distinction.
>>
>> inserting "practicing" before homosexual in their policy. Or they could
>change
>> their policy to focus on extramarital sex. From some of the anti-gay crowd
>on
>> this board, it seems like there might be opposition to homosexuals of any
>> stripe in the BSA.
>
>message. This does not require any specific actions be proven or
>documented, only that the perception is there. If any of the youth
>perceived that a known gay was engaged in what he has chosen to identify
>with, that being gay sexual attractions, and BSA still accepted him as
>an example for youth, then the message of acceptance of those action is
>made.
No that's not the case at all. The BSA's message should be *against*
prejudgements.
>Should BSA accept a NAMBLA advocate just because no one has proven
>he is guilty of doing what he says should be legal?
An NAMBLA advocate is someone who publiclly argues that adults ought to be
allowed to have sex with children. Legal or not, that's against BSA policy.
The BSA could exclude NORML members, too. Homosexuals may or may not think
that homosexual sex should be acceptable, (same as heterosexuals, actually)
False analogy.
>David S.
Leanmc420
>
>"Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000802123131...@ng-fs1.aol.com...
>> Shouldn't the onus be on the BSA to show that Dale engaged in homosexual
>sex
>> acts, or advocated the same? The BSA kicked him out for being homosexual,
>not
>> because of sex acts.
>
>I think the two might, quite mistakenly, be synonymous in the minds of those
>who made the decision. As to who should bear the onus, I think BSA should
>not just summarily terminate anyone without at least an opportunity for an
>interview, if not some sort of hearing. Once you leave BSA and go to court,
>the plaintiff, Dale, bears the burden.
>
Well, in this case Dale wasn't offered the opportunity. The way the BSA argued
the case, they didn't offer proof that Dale actually had homosexual sex, much
less was known to have done so. Dale didn't just "leave" the BSA, he was
expelled.
>> The issue of whether homosexual activists are trying to blur the lines
>between
>> sexual orientation and sexual activity is an interesting one. I can see
>how
>> they would benefit from bluring these lines, but I can't see how its in
>the
>> BSA's best interest to blur this distinction.
>
>Well there is the bigotry hook. I expect a significant number of BSA
>leaders think homosexuality is so beyond the pale, so alien that they cannot
>even think about the issues rationally. They cannot accept such a
>distinction or else assume it would lead to a slippery slope.
>
I think that a substantial amount of the "bigotry" issue is just a semantic
issue. In most churches, doctrine is argued to death, and they are really
specific about what they disapprove of. In the BSA, things seem to be more ad
hoc and shadowy, the people with the power seem to not delve too deeply into
the nature of the policies. I am disturbed that the policy *appears* bigoted,
but I think that if the powers that be really put some thought into it, they
could avoid that appearence. Whether the powers that be *are* bigoted I can't
say. But the BSA shouldn't support bigotry.
>> The BSA could emphasize that they disapprove of homosexual sex acts by
>> inserting "practicing" before homosexual in their policy. Or they could
>change
>> their policy to focus on extramarital sex. From some of the anti-gay
>crowd on
>> this board, it seems like there might be opposition to homosexuals of any
>> stripe in the BSA. If that were true (and the way the policy is written,
>it
>> sure seems that way) then maybe it is bigotry rather than morality that is
>> behind the exclusion of homosexuals from the BSA.
>
>I don't think that even BSA national leadership is quite so united. I think
>it is a combination of both and that the policy as it is stated is thus open
>to either interpretation. Yes, the policy could easily be modified.
>
I think, then, that the responsible thing for Scouters to do is to urge that
*some* homosexuals, the ones who can follow the Scout Oath and Law, be allowed
to be Scouters. And I will be the first to say that some homosexuals should
*not* be Scouters.
It is our duty to preserve *all* of the core values of Scouting, not just some
of them. If single heterosexuals who do not make a big deal about their sex
lives (or lack thereof) can be Scouters, homosexuals who do not make a big deal
about their sex lives (or lack thereof) should be allowed to be Scouters.
David Stephens
>
> I think the David Stephens' post may go too far. He believes that the youth
> will make a connection of endorsement of gay sex even if the leader disavows
> gay sexual activity. He might be right. I wonder, for example, if there
> truly are gay priests who are known to be so and how this has affected the
> RMC's teachings to its young people.
I have yet to see any compromise from the other side of the fence that
would tolerate exclusion of a potential gay leader if he refused to make
such statements against homosexual practice, say citing privacy rights.
As for the RMC, I would have to defer to their rather dismal record of
abuse of alter boys and the ensuing law suits by the now adult victims.
The abuse seems to be on the order of groups of boys, not just
individuals. Without some kind of teaching, such abuse on a group scale
would be difficult to get away with even on a short term.
David S.
Frederick Northrop
> Well, in this case Dale wasn't offered the opportunity. The way the BSA
argued
> the case, they didn't offer proof that Dale actually had homosexual sex,
much
> less was known to have done so. Dale didn't just "leave" the BSA, he was
> expelled.
Dale had the opportunity, and he had to have known it. First he could have
replied to the letter explaining his dismissal, by saying that he neither
engaged in gay sex and would never advocate its morality. Second, he could
have sought a hearing with BSA. Third, he could have raised the issue in
court. He did none of these things.
BSA is under no obligation to prove that Dale has had sex and BSA doesn't
have to wait until Dale starts *counseling* scouts into believing they are
gay before it decides he is not leader material. You seem to think,
however, that BSA should have to prove a case against a leader first. I
don't. I think that a leadership position can be terminated at will be
either party. But think about the ramifications of requiring BSA to prove a
leader is a practicing homosexual. How shall they proceed. Compulsory
polygraph tests? Private detectives? Maybe have another leader solicit him?
I think it far better to leave it to the leader to come forward and deny the
charge, first.
> I think that a substantial amount of the "bigotry" issue is just a
semantic
> issue. In most churches, doctrine is argued to death, and they are really
> specific about what they disapprove of. In the BSA, things seem to be more
ad
> hoc and shadowy, the people with the power seem to not delve too deeply
into
> the nature of the policies. I am disturbed that the policy *appears*
bigoted,
> but I think that if the powers that be really put some thought into it,
they
> could avoid that appearence. Whether the powers that be *are* bigoted I
can't
> say. But the BSA shouldn't support bigotry.
Agreed. Things are far too shadowy in general, not merely about
homosexuality.
> I think, then, that the responsible thing for Scouters to do is to urge
that
> *some* homosexuals, the ones who can follow the Scout Oath and Law, be
allowed
> to be Scouters. And I will be the first to say that some homosexuals
should
> *not* be Scouters.
> It is our duty to preserve *all* of the core values of Scouting, not just
some
> of them. If single heterosexuals who do not make a big deal about their
sex
> lives (or lack thereof) can be Scouters, homosexuals who do not make a big
deal
> about their sex lives (or lack thereof) should be allowed to be Scouters.
Okay, reasonable enough. Notice how it never comes up in "official"
discussions?
Rob Strom
> ...
> > That is, they dismissed him without even looking
> > for such evidence of conduct. Their behavior
> > demonstrates that Dale was dismissed because
> > of the disclosures in the article and not
> > because of any conduct or advocacy of conduct.
> >
> Not quite. One can presume gay sexual activity when a young man comes out
> and becomes president of the college gay fredom group and advocates
> counseling of adolescent boys who might be gay.
No!!!!!!!!!!!!
One is morally forbidden to presume!
That's why I've been arguing here for months.
It's against the scout law.
It's against the Bible.
It's forbidden by Jewish law.
We had a Catholic theologian agree it's against Catholic morals.
It's against the national ideals of judging
individuals on their merits rather than on the
basis of the group they belong to.
That's why people keep bringing up bigotry in
this connection. Bigots presume. Bigots
decide from no evidence that gays or gay-sympathizers are
also doing some other bad things. I keep
pointing out this is no different from saying
"Well he's Irish, so one can presume he's a lush;
I don't say that one necessarily follows the other
but the odds are very good indeed". Yuck.
...
>
> I agree that BSA should have a better procedure. I don't think people
> should be summarily dismissed, regardless of the reason. OTOH BSA is
> certainly entitled to err on the side of caution. It is Mr. Dale who
> challenged the decision, thus, in court at least, it was up to him to show
> that the decision had nothing to do with conduct.
The way to show that the decision had nothing to do with conduct
is not to show conduct, but to show that the decision was
in fact made without enquiring into conduct. He did that.
...
> >
> > But we weren't talking about LAMBDA's objectives. They
> > can have multiple objectives. One can be that
> > homosexuals aren't discriminated against. Another
> > can be that governments don't regulate
> > homosexual sex acts between consenting adults.
> > The BSA case was the first kind of case.
>
> You keep saying that, but you haven't any evidence that Dale was celibate.
> If he were, don't you think he would have said so by now?
No. The relevant fact is not whether he's celibate or not,
but whether the BSA cared about it. He showed that they
responded to his sexual orientation, not his behavior.
--
Rob Strom
Rob Strom
>
> "Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000803003646...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> > Well, in this case Dale wasn't offered the opportunity. The way the BSA
> argued
> > the case, they didn't offer proof that Dale actually had homosexual sex,
> much
> > less was known to have done so. Dale didn't just "leave" the BSA, he was
> > expelled.
>
> Dale had the opportunity, and he had to have known it. First he could have
> replied to the letter explaining his dismissal, by saying that he neither
> engaged in gay sex and would never advocate its morality. Second, he could
> have sought a hearing with BSA. Third, he could have raised the issue in
> court. He did none of these things.
There was a law saying don't discriminate on the basis of sexual
orientation. He made a case that he was an exemplary member of BSA
until they found out that he was gay. He raised *that* issue in court.
>
> BSA is under no obligation to prove that Dale has had sex and BSA doesn't
> have to wait until Dale starts *counseling* scouts into believing they are
> gay before it decides he is not leader material. You seem to think,
> however, that BSA should have to prove a case against a leader first. I
> don't. I think that a leadership position can be terminated at will be
> either party. But think about the ramifications of requiring BSA to prove a
> leader is a practicing homosexual. How shall they proceed. Compulsory
> polygraph tests? Private detectives? Maybe have another leader solicit him?
> I think it far better to leave it to the leader to come forward and deny the
> charge, first.
There weren't any "charges" to deny. He was dismissed
because he was a homosexual.
I think it's far better to make the same presumption of
innocence that we do with unmarried heterosexuals.
--
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop
> There was a law saying don't discriminate on the basis of sexual
> orientation. He made a case that he was an exemplary member of BSA
> until they found out that he was gay. He raised *that* issue in court.
Yes, and if the law had stood, BSA violated it. The NJ law prohibits
discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and defines "sexual
orientation" to include both actions and desires.
> There weren't any "charges" to deny. He was dismissed
> because he was a homosexual.
And, IMHO, most adult homosexuals engage in homosexual sex.
> I think it's far better to make the same presumption of
> innocence that we do with unmarried heterosexuals.
Nobody is being charged with a crime. I suppose you mean that we presume
that unmarried heterosexual scouters are celebate. I, for one, do not make
that presumption.
J. Northwood
<fredno...@msn.com> wrote:
>"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
>news:3989B847...@watson.ibm.com...
>> There was a law saying don't discriminate on the basis of sexual
>> orientation. He made a case that he was an exemplary member of BSA
>> until they found out that he was gay. He raised *that* issue in court.
>Yes, and if the law had stood, BSA violated it. The NJ law prohibits
>discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and defines "sexual
>orientation" to include both actions and desires.
>> There weren't any "charges" to deny. He was dismissed
>> because he was a homosexual.
>And, IMHO, most adult homosexuals engage in homosexual sex.
And most adult heterosexuals engage in heterosexual sex.
Thus, the BSA is teaching--by example--that it is perfectly acceptable
for pre- and extra-marital sex to occur.
>> I think it's far better to make the same presumption of
>> innocence that we do with unmarried heterosexuals.
>Nobody is being charged with a crime. I suppose you mean that we presume
>that unmarried heterosexual scouters are celebate. I, for one, do not make
>that presumption.
Then, applying the same "logic" as is used w/r/t homosexuals, allowing
unmarried heterosexual Scouters to act in leadership roles sends a
clear message that the BSA condones fornication and (possibly)
adultery; however, as it is *heterosexuals* (presumably) doing these
things, it falls within the category of "morally straight".
Frederick Northrop
> Frederick Northrop wrote:
> > Not quite. One can presume gay sexual activity when a young man comes
out
> > and becomes president of the college gay fredom group and advocates
> > counseling of adolescent boys who might be gay.
>
>
> No!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> One is morally forbidden to presume!
If you continue to shout at me, I will not discuss this with you further. I
will grant that the judgment is morally questionable. Will you grant that
it is nevertheless reasonable?
>
> That's why I've been arguing here for months.
> It's against the scout law.
Query-> which point?
> It's against the Bible.
> It's forbidden by Jewish law.
> We had a Catholic theologian agree it's against Catholic morals.
> It's against the national ideals of judging
> individuals on their merits rather than on the
> basis of the group they belong to.
I remember some argument about this. It was under the subject
"Claification." You argued that jewish law as interpreted by rabbis was to
the effect that (1) one should not judge based on appearances rather than
evidence; (2) one should not form judgments based on probability. That's a
cogent set of arguments and I agree that BSA should give members and leaders
the benefit of the doubt in these matters. I also agree that they did not
do this for Mr. Dale. It's not right, but it's not unreasonable either.
So, the issue you are arguing seems to be that fairness demands providing a
better factfinding process befor making the decision. I agree with that.
These things can turn into real witch hunts (convictions based on rumor,
innuendo, and suspicionI)
> That's why people keep bringing up bigotry in
> this connection. Bigots presume. Bigots
> decide from no evidence that gays or gay-sympathizers are
> also doing some other bad things. I keep
> pointing out this is no different from saying
> "Well he's Irish, so one can presume he's a lush;
> I don't say that one necessarily follows the other
> but the odds are very good indeed". Yuck.
Oh puleez. People yell "bigot!" here and elsewhere for no better reason
than they lack a cogent argument. So let's really have an argument by
clarifying what you are arguing first.
What I hear you saying is that the two following statements are logically
equal and falsely reasoned.
1. Bill is Irish. All Irish are alcoholics. Therefore Bill is an
alcoholic.
2. Bill says he is a homosexual. All homosexuals engage in homosexual
sex. Therefoe Bill engages in gay sex.
I agree, but because the reasoning is based on a false premise (the second
in each case), not because morality forbids me to reach the conclusion. I
know that there are moderate drinkers and nondrinkers among the Irish. I am
told and am willing to assume that there are celibate homosexuals.
What I am reasoning is: "Bill says he is a homosexual. Most homosexuals
engage in homosexual sex. Therefoe Bill probably engages in gay sex"
I don't perceive a logical or factual error here. Nor is there a moral
problem until I decide that Bill gets booted out. There, I grant you, the
probability is insufficient to decide. It is certainly sufficient reason to
investigate.
But I'm not done here. You go on to condemn BSA on probability as well.
> The way to show that the decision had nothing to do with conduct
> is not to show conduct, but to show that the decision was
> in fact made without enquiring into conduct. He did that.
He didn't. His advocacy alone was sufficient reason to expel him.
> No. The relevant fact is not whether he's celibate or not,
> but whether the BSA cared about it. He showed that they
> responded to his sexual orientation, not his behavior.
I don't agree. I have already said why. You insist that if BSA didn't make
inquiry into his behavior, that shows they didn't care. It seems to me that
you are violating your own rule. You are drawing a conclusion based on what
BSA didn't say, but might have. With that, you are ignoring the fact that
BSA has expressly said that its objection is to homosexual conduct and the
advocacy of that conduct. Me, I think your conclusion is wrong, but I don't
say that with certainty. Your conclusion is reasonable. You could be
correct. It's just that I am willing to give BSA the benefit of the doubt
and you are not. However, if you want to live by your stated moral precept,
you are going to have to entertain that doubt yourself.
Rob Strom
Frederick Northrop wrote:
> "Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
> news:3989B738...@watson.ibm.com...
> > Frederick Northrop wrote:
> > > Not quite. One can presume gay sexual activity when a young man comes
> out
> > > and becomes president of the college gay fredom group and advocates
> > > counseling of adolescent boys who might be gay.
> >
> >
> > No!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > One is morally forbidden to presume!
>
> If you continue to shout at me, I will not discuss this with you further. I
> will grant that the judgment is morally questionable. Will you grant that
> it is nevertheless reasonable?
I don't know what "reasonable" means in this context.
I grant that people do it, but it's morally wrong.
Our major religions forbid it, secular morality forbids it,
and it is forbidden by all the civics lessons we teach
to children.
>
>
> >
> > That's why I've been arguing here for months.
> > It's against the scout law.
>
> Query-> which point?
From the Lowell commentary on "A Scout is Friendly"
\begin{quote}
There is an old Roman saying: "Nihil humani mihi alienum puto,"
-- which means that nothing which is human, or within the
range of human experience, should be beyond any man's range of
comprehension. No matter how strange, or how barbarous,
or how absurd the conduct of another person may appear,
it is the duty of every broad-minded man to put himself in that
other's place sufficiently to understand with his own imagination
what the other's actions mean from that other's point of view.
This breadth of mind is necessary if we want to form true judgements
and to be just in interpreting the acts of other people, and
it is part of the intelligence of which we have just been speaking as
necessary "to help other people at all times."
Judging the conduct of people entirely according to their conformity
or non-conformity to the ordinary customs of life is a very
unsafe thing to do; for, in the first place, there are sometimes
special circumstances in life which require action different from
that which is customary, and we are not treating even custom with
right respect if we make it take the place of independent and
courageous action which may be entirely contrary to custom when occasion
requires.
When we have put ourselves in another person's place and learned,
by the aid of our human sympathy and imagination, what
the significance of his act was to him, then only can we form a clear idea
of whether it was right or wrong from our point of
view, -- and to what extent.
\end{quote}
This could as well be a commentary on
b'tsedek tishpot amitecha.
>
>
> > It's against the Bible.
> > It's forbidden by Jewish law.
> > We had a Catholic theologian agree it's against Catholic morals.
> > It's against the national ideals of judging
> > individuals on their merits rather than on the
> > basis of the group they belong to.
>
> I remember some argument about this. It was under the subject
> "Claification." You argued that jewish law as interpreted by rabbis was to
> the effect that (1) one should not judge based on appearances rather than
> evidence; (2) one should not form judgments based on probability.
I also argued that it violated the Catholic law. Bill Nelson
disagreed and we agreed to pose the question to
a priest-theologian, who later gave a ruling that Catholics
should not be imputing the sin of homosexual acts based
on homosexual orientation.
> That's a
> cogent set of arguments and I agree that BSA should give members and leaders
> the benefit of the doubt in these matters. I also agree that they did not
> do this for Mr. Dale. It's not right, but it's not unreasonable either.
Again, with the "unreasonable". If something is considered wrong
by all major religions, by secular humanism, and by American
civic values, I don't see why you can consider it
"reasonable" that an American patriotic and character-building
organization should do it.
>
> So, the issue you are arguing seems to be that fairness demands providing a
> better factfinding process befor making the decision. I agree with that.
> These things can turn into real witch hunts (convictions based on rumor,
> innuendo, and suspicionI)
No. I am arguing that justice demands not assuming that
something needs to be decided.
>
>
> > That's why people keep bringing up bigotry in
> > this connection. Bigots presume. Bigots
> > decide from no evidence that gays or gay-sympathizers are
> > also doing some other bad things. I keep
> > pointing out this is no different from saying
> > "Well he's Irish, so one can presume he's a lush;
> > I don't say that one necessarily follows the other
> > but the odds are very good indeed". Yuck.
>
> Oh puleez. People yell "bigot!" here and elsewhere for no better reason
> than they lack a cogent argument.
No. They yell "bigot" for the reason that people are making
the same unfavorable generalizations that bigots do,
and that characterize bigotry.
> So let's really have an argument by
> clarifying what you are arguing first.
>
> What I hear you saying is that the two following statements are logically
> equal and falsely reasoned.
>
> 1. Bill is Irish. All Irish are alcoholics. Therefore Bill is an
> alcoholic.
> 2. Bill says he is a homosexual. All homosexuals engage in homosexual
> sex. Therefoe Bill engages in gay sex.
>
> I agree, but because the reasoning is based on a false premise (the second
> in each case), not because morality forbids me to reach the conclusion. I
> know that there are moderate drinkers and nondrinkers among the Irish. I am
> told and am willing to assume that there are celibate homosexuals.
>
> What I am reasoning is: "Bill says he is a homosexual. Most homosexuals
> engage in homosexual sex. Therefoe Bill probably engages in gay sex"
No better.
"Bill is Irish. Most Irish drink. Therefore Bill probably drinks too".
Equally Biblically prohibited.
>
>
> I don't perceive a logical or factual error here. Nor is there a moral
> problem until I decide that Bill gets booted out. There, I grant you, the
> probability is insufficient to decide. It is certainly sufficient reason to
> investigate.
No. You're supposed to give people the benefit of the
doubt until there is an indication that they don't deserve it.
It would be wrong to have special inquiries into
Irish scoutmasters, too.
>
>
> But I'm not done here. You go on to condemn BSA on probability as well.
No I condemn them on the basis of the factual record,
and their written policy.
>
>
> > The way to show that the decision had nothing to do with conduct
> > is not to show conduct, but to show that the decision was
> > in fact made without enquiring into conduct. He did that.
>
> He didn't. His advocacy alone was sufficient reason to expel him.
It wasn't reason to expel him, since he didn't advocate anything wrong.
(Unless you think civil rights for gays and lesbians is wrong.)
>
> > No. The relevant fact is not whether he's celibate or not,
> > but whether the BSA cared about it. He showed that they
> > responded to his sexual orientation, not his behavior.
>
> I don't agree. I have already said why. You insist that if BSA didn't make
> inquiry into his behavior, that shows they didn't care. It seems to me that
> you are violating your own rule. You are drawing a conclusion based on what
> BSA didn't say, but might have.
What the BSA didn't say is not a matter of guessing, but
a matter of fact. I'm not assuming that because other
organizations behave a certain way, BSA probably did.
> With that, you are ignoring the fact that
> BSA has expressly said that its objection is to homosexual conduct and the
> advocacy of that conduct.
That aggravates their sin. They objected to a homosexual conduct
that had never been brought to their attention. They objected
to an advocacy that had never been made.
> Me, I think your conclusion is wrong, but I don't
> say that with certainty. Your conclusion is reasonable. You could be
> correct. It's just that I am willing to give BSA the benefit of the doubt
> and you are not. However, if you want to live by your stated moral precept,
> you are going to have to entertain that doubt yourself.
That's why we look at the court record.
We look at what they told Dale. They told
him that he was being expelled based
on what they learned from the interview.
I don't make generalizations like "Other conservative
organizations are hypocritical and intolerant, so BSA is too".
We judge from the facts.
They didn't.
--
Rob Strom
Leanmc420
>
>"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
>news:3989B738...@watson.ibm.com...
>> Frederick Northrop wrote:
>> > Not quite. One can presume gay sexual activity when a young man comes
>out
>> > and becomes president of the college gay fredom group and advocates
>> > counseling of adolescent boys who might be gay.
>>
>>
>> No!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> One is morally forbidden to presume!
>
>If you continue to shout at me, I will not discuss this with you further. I
>will grant that the judgment is morally questionable. Will you grant that
>it is nevertheless reasonable?
>
Fred, its not reasonable to exclude single people who say that they are
heterosexual because you think that they must be having sex. Its not
reasonable to do the same thing to homosexuals.
Rob was shouting becasue you seem to be argueing that homosexuals who admit to
being publicly should be assumed to be having and/or approve of having
homosexual sex. But he wasn't shouting at you, I don't think. I think it was
frustration more than anything.
We shouldn't put words in each other's mouths. I'm guilty of this
transgression from time to time, and I usually back off. Saying you are gay is
different from saying that you have or approve of gay sex. This is an
important distinction.
Leanmc420
>
>"Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000803003646...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
>> Well, in this case Dale wasn't offered the opportunity. The way the BSA
>argued
>> the case, they didn't offer proof that Dale actually had homosexual sex,
>much
>> less was known to have done so. Dale didn't just "leave" the BSA, he was
>> expelled.
>
>Dale had the opportunity, and he had to have known it. First he could have
>replied to the letter explaining his dismissal, by saying that he neither
>engaged in gay sex and would never advocate its morality. Second, he could
>have sought a hearing with BSA. Third, he could have raised the issue in
>court. He did none of these things.
>
The BSA kicked him out, he was what, 20? He *did* try and fight it. Are you
saying that he should have tried to prove himself innocent? The onus is on the
BSA to prove that he would have impeded their message. If they didn't show
that he had homosexual sex, then they might convine some Supreme Court
Justices, but not me (and not you, I bet).
For all I know, Dale is a real jerk. Why he did what he did doesn't matter.
Its why the BSA did what they did, and do what they do that matters to me. I'm
not an Eagle James Dale, I'm an Eagle Scout. If the BSA can't convince Scouts
that its policy isn't on the up and up, then they have a real problem.
And we both agree that it would be simple to fix the BSA policy. The question
is, do we have the courage to speak plainly and get past prejudice?
>BSA is under no obligation to prove that Dale has had sex and BSA doesn't
>have to wait until Dale starts *counseling* scouts into believing they are
>gay before it decides he is not leader material. You seem to think,
>however, that BSA should have to prove a case against a leader first. I
>don't.
I think that the BSA shouldn't kick people out because of prejudice. I think
that the BSA *should* have to prove a case. I don't think that preemptive
expulsion is appropriate, unless there is cause.
>I think that a leadership position can be terminated at will be
>either party. But think about the ramifications of requiring BSA to prove a
>leader is a practicing homosexual. How shall they proceed. Compulsory
>polygraph tests? Private detectives? Maybe have another leader solicit him?
>I think it far better to leave it to the leader to come forward and deny the
>charge, first.
>
Maybe we should have better background checks on leaders, but I certainly
wouldn't like to answer questions about the entire range of my romantic
experiences (and they've all be heterosexual). That's private stuff. I don't
think that its a good thing to delve too deeply into such things. Its
embarrassing and leads to witch hunts.
I'm not saying that a person who everyone knows is promiscous should be allowed
to remain a Scouter; most churches have policies that require some sort of
diligence in the face of credible evidence that an officer or minister deviates
from the doctrine.
>> I think that a substantial amount of the "bigotry" issue is just a
>semantic
>> issue. In most churches, doctrine is argued to death, and they are really
>> specific about what they disapprove of. In the BSA, things seem to be more
>ad
>> hoc and shadowy, the people with the power seem to not delve too deeply
>into
>> the nature of the policies. I am disturbed that the policy *appears*
>bigoted,
>> but I think that if the powers that be really put some thought into it,
>they
>> could avoid that appearence. Whether the powers that be *are* bigoted I
>can't
>> say. But the BSA shouldn't support bigotry.
>
>Agreed. Things are far too shadowy in general, not merely about
>homosexuality.
>
I think it would be better for the BSA as an organization if it were more
transparent and accountible to its members and chartering organizations.
>> I think, then, that the responsible thing for Scouters to do is to urge
>that
>> *some* homosexuals, the ones who can follow the Scout Oath and Law, be
>allowed
>> to be Scouters. And I will be the first to say that some homosexuals
>should
>> *not* be Scouters.
>
>> It is our duty to preserve *all* of the core values of Scouting, not just
>some
>> of them. If single heterosexuals who do not make a big deal about their
>sex
>> lives (or lack thereof) can be Scouters, homosexuals who do not make a big
>deal
>> about their sex lives (or lack thereof) should be allowed to be Scouters.
>
>Okay, reasonable enough. Notice how it never comes up in "official"
>discussions?
>
So what does that say about "official discussions? :-)
Could you imagine if the regulars of this newsgroup were the actual policy
makers? We'd either all be dead, or become fast friends. I like most Scouts
and Scouters that I've ever met, and I bet that there's a lot of posturing that
doesn't shed light on our true characters.
>
>
Frederick Northrop
> I have yet to see any compromise from the other side of the fence that
> would tolerate exclusion of a potential gay leader if he refused to make
> such statements against homosexual practice, say citing privacy rights.
Yes, David, I have noticed here and in the Left Handedness thread that the
only people interested in compromise are those who want to believe that BSA
can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of gay sex. No
Gadow, Little Deer, or Bill B.
> As for the RMC, I would have to defer to their rather dismal record of
> abuse of alter boys and the ensuing law suits by the now adult victims.
> The abuse seems to be on the order of groups of boys, not just
> individuals. Without some kind of teaching, such abuse on a group scale
> would be difficult to get away with even on a short term.
Our council requires YP training every two years. Since the policy won't
keep out closeted gays and other pedophiles, BSA needs to be vigilent any
way.
Fred
Frederick Northrop
"J. Northwood" <jona...@northwood.uce_is_icky.org> wrote in message
news:o8mjosoregqkh9re8...@4ax.com...
> And most adult heterosexuals engage in heterosexual sex.
>
> Thus, the BSA is teaching--by example--that it is perfectly acceptable
> for pre- and extra-marital sex to occur.
*Perfectly* no, the manual states a preference of abstinence until marriage.
But, yes, by example, BSA is neutral on the morality of pre- and
extra-marital sex. Unless there is another policy we don't know about.
<SG>
> Then, applying the same "logic" as is used w/r/t homosexuals, allowing
> unmarried heterosexual Scouters to act in leadership roles sends a
> clear message that the BSA condones fornication and (possibly)
> adultery; however, as it is *heterosexuals* (presumably) doing these
> things, it falls within the category of "morally straight".
Good point as to the fornication part.
Frederick Northrop
Yes, but you are now discussing procedure, not substance.
In trying to implement a policy, one can never *know* these things, because
most people do treat them as largely private. We can have suspicions based
on public conduct and at that point it's either accept it, ignore it,
investigate it, or expel the leader. So far, BSA seems to be following the
last option. I think you and I are leaning toward the third. But let's not
kid ourselves. It won't come up often, but it will come up. There will be
homosexuals, recreational drug users, purveyors of fireworks, those who
think it harmless to bring a bottle of wine to camp, and those who sneak a
cigarette behind the tree. Investigations are not pretty, but they are
prettier than summary expulsion.
> So what does that say about "official discussions? :-)
>
> Could you imagine if the regulars of this newsgroup were the actual policy
> makers? We'd either all be dead, or become fast friends. I like most
Scouts
> and Scouters that I've ever met, and I bet that there's a lot of posturing
that
> doesn't shed light on our true characters.
It's a different context. I think of a discussion group is a way to test
one's thinking, not a means of actually achieving policy.
Frederick Northrop
unreasonable position. I checked archives about the moral proposition that
we avoid making judgments of people based on probability. And I appeciate
that point. It's difficult, though, because we rarely have the luxury of
certainty. We often are forced to act on probability, but we can extend the
benefit of the doubt to others. Reason tells us one thing, charity demands
another.
"Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000804012004...@ng-cp1.aol.com...
The First Geer family
> Frederick Northrop wrote:
> > Who is "they" in the last sentence? If "they" refers to the SCOTUS, I
> > agree. The New Jersey law does not. It and the NJ courts define
> > "homosexual" alternatively by conduct or desires. If, however, "they"
means
> > LAMBDA, then I disagree. LAMBDA and Dale, so far as I have heard, never
> > argued that Dale was celibate or that he was against gay sex.
>
> You've changed the burden of proof.
>
> That's forbidden. Kicking him out
> for sexual misbehavior requires
> arguing that he misbehaved, not
> that he demonstrates he was celibate.
How is expelling dale forbidden? Providing burden of proof as required in a
court of law, is not the same as with an organization such as BSA. No less
since when does an organization have to show burden of proof except for
violating policy? Which is what Dale did.
>
The First Geer family
news:3988557F...@mitre.org...
> "C.J.W." wrote:
> > > Even the Supreme Court couldn't find a
> > > rationale for the policy, but they argued
> > > in effect that a policy doesn't have to
> > > be rational to have constitutional protection.
> >
> > That's incorrect. They didn't even attempt to find a rational or moral
> > basis for the policy.
>
> Which was a horrendous error on their part, IMO.
Sure, the pro-homosexual side who love to have the USSC address that issue.
But that is NOT how the USSC works. Never have, some day they might. That
wasn't the issue. The issue being addressed was basically wiether the NJ law
violated their constitutional rights. Not where the policy was
constitutional or not.
>
>
> > They didn't have to. That wasn't the issue when
> > a larger issue was at hand.
>
> That WAS an issue; it simply failed to be addressed properly.
The issue was not wiether they could ban homosexuals. The issue was wiether
or not NJ could tell BSA who could or could not be members.
Frederick Northrop
wrong.
Fred
"The First Geer family" <emg...@train.missouri.org> wrote in message
news:hFUi5.71$N4....@news.more.net...
The First Geer family
news:uLl8vRw$$GA.279@cpmsnbbsa07...
> You snipped too much out of Rob's reply. He argues that it is morally
> wrong.
Knowing Rob based on his past posting, I can accept that based on his
religious belief that would be morally wrong. however, I was taking the the
portion I used; how BSA did not provide "burden of proof" and way they
expelled him was forbidden. I took it that he was referring to the laws
(non-bibical). But, I may have been mistaken.
C.J.W.
"J. Northwood" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 12:06:42 -0700, "Frederick Northrop"
> <fredno...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> >"Rob Strom" <st...@watson.ibm.com> wrote in message
> >news:3989B847...@watson.ibm.com...
>
> >> There was a law saying don't discriminate on the basis of sexual
> >> orientation. He made a case that he was an exemplary member of BSA
> >> until they found out that he was gay. He raised *that* issue in court.
>
> >Yes, and if the law had stood, BSA violated it. The NJ law prohibits
> >discrimination on the basis of "sexual orientation" and defines "sexual
> >orientation" to include both actions and desires.
>
> >> There weren't any "charges" to deny. He was dismissed
> >> because he was a homosexual.
>
> >And, IMHO, most adult homosexuals engage in homosexual sex.
>
> And most adult heterosexuals engage in heterosexual sex.
>
> Thus, the BSA is teaching--by example--that it is perfectly acceptable
> for pre- and extra-marital sex to occur.
That's incorrect. Note that homosexuality is by definition a form of
extra-marital sex and it can never be marital sex. Northwood is
apparently attempting to confuse the issues by pretending that the same
standard doesn't apply to all people equally already, "homosexual" or
"heterosexual." Sexual desires are irrelevant.
<snip>
> Then, applying the same "logic" as is used w/r/t homosexuals,
Wrong. Homosexuality doesn't have to be treated the same way because it
is not equal and doesn't equate.
--
--Christopher Watson
"Art, like morality, consists in
drawing the line somewhere." --G.K. Chesterton
http://member.newsguy.com/~watt2020/Public_Life_and_Homosexuality.html
http://www.aclj.org
David Stephens
> Our council requires YP training every two years. Since the policy won't
> keep out closeted gays and other pedophiles, BSA needs to be vigilent any
> way.
At what point does vigilance become paranoia? Endorsing homosexuality
attacks two of the four preconditions for sexual abuse on which the YPP
is based. The first one is already surpassed by accepting those with
motive to abuse.
David S.
Frederick Northrop
all homosexuals into one group and assuming that all such people are fixated
on youth. I'm sure some are and others aren't. I'd say vigilence looks to
guard against probable threats and paranoia magnifies improbable threats.
"David Stephens" <cd...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:398ED495...@flash.net...
David Stephens
>
> I can't describe an exact point. I think one gets close to it by lumping
> all homosexuals into one group and assuming that all such people are fixated
> on youth. I'm sure some are and others aren't. I'd say vigilence looks to
> guard against probable threats and paranoia magnifies improbable threats.
>
> "David Stephens" <cd...@flash.net> wrote in message
> news:398ED495...@flash.net...
> > Frederick Northrop wrote:
> >
> > > Our council requires YP training every two years. Since the policy
> won't
> > > keep out closeted gays and other pedophiles, BSA needs to be vigilent
> any
> > > way.
> >
> > At what point does vigilance become paranoia?
When one is concerned about issues of safety, trial and error is not the
wiser choice. It is best to examine the experience of others and the
nature of the characteristics to be judged on their safety merit.
In keeping with this, should we ignore the death of Jesse Dirkhising? He
was boy scout age and apparently enjoyed the company of two adult gays.
Their sexual play with him killed him. The point in this case was that
the gays were acting on the very attraction that defines them as gay.
The sexual attraction was the motive that resulted in the boys abuse and
death. It was accidental so no intent to murder was there, only to have
sex and that was directly linked to the men being gay.
I have also related my experience with gays in my youth that occurred
because of the somewhat unusual circumstances I was in and as a direct
result of the sexual attraction that is the definition of gay. Proposing
to ignore the experience of others as well as the nature of the
characteristic involved when making a safety judgment is using youth in
an experiment. Some of us already know what can happen, just listen to
us.
We all know that gasoline is dangerous under certain circumstances yet
we use it in our automobiles every day. It is of benefit to our
endeavors and thus has it has value to us. At the same time, it is best
not to put it in circumstances where it might become stimulated beyond
its flash point. That is the nature of gasoline, it does not make it
evil. It should be segregated from circumstances that provide
stimulation of it natural characteristics in the interest of safety.
David S.
Frederick Northrop
lesbian teachers. No big deal. Yeah, back then they could have lost their
jobs, but quick, if they'd been found out, but there it is. You had bad
experiences. I don't discount them, but I'm not going to generalize from
them either.
"David Stephens" <cd...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:39901795...@flash.net...
Leanmc420
>> I have yet to see any compromise from the other side of the fence that
>> would tolerate exclusion of a potential gay leader if he refused to make
>> such statements against homosexual practice, say citing privacy rights.
>
>Yes, David, I have noticed here and in the Left Handedness thread that the
>only people interested in compromise are those who want to believe that BSA
>can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of gay sex. No
>Gadow, Little Deer, or Bill B.
>
Well, I suppose that's because many Scouters do not have the religious belief
that homosexual sex is immoral. That's an acceptable belief in religions that
charter BSA troops. This is why I think the BSA's policy is absurd. Or should
we only allow Unitarians or Reform Jews who affirm that homosexual sex is
immoral, but not allow those who refuse to answer but affirm that they won't
discuss the issue?
On the other hand, there *is* support for expelling homosexuals who attempt to
persuade Scouts that homosexual sex should be moral. And there is no
opposition to kicking out homosexuals who violate the YPP in any way.
No, there's not support for haing a philosophical witchhunt to root out what
people think about sex. I don't like rascism, but I don't think the BSA needs
to ask every Scouter what they think about affirmative action.
>> As for the RMC, I would have to defer to their rather dismal record of
>> abuse of alter boys and the ensuing law suits by the now adult victims.
>> The abuse seems to be on the order of groups of boys, not just
>> individuals. Without some kind of teaching, such abuse on a group scale
>> would be difficult to get away with even on a short term.
>
>Our council requires YP training every two years. Since the policy won't
>keep out closeted gays and other pedophiles, BSA needs to be vigilent any
>way.
>
"[G]ays and other pedophiles"? Fred, how is that different from saying "blacks
and other criminals"? Sexual orientation and pedophilia are two different
things. I don't like it when feminists say that all men are rapists, and I
don't like it when you say that all gays are pedophiles.
The BSA doesn't exclude homosexuals to protect youth from sexual abuse. Unless
the BSA does not care about youth in programs it runs that allow homosexuals.
>Fred
>
>
>
Scott Miller
gays and other pedophiles statement too.
At one time I used to work for the state police in the IT area. We would
keep up the databases for all criminals in the state and also would
receive the daily profiles on criminal activity from the FBI.
One thing I learned by having access to the database and reading a lot
of it (all public records also) is that the profile of a pedophile does
not fit most gays. Most 95% are "straight" white males between the ages
of 30 and 50 and in a "trust" roll with youth. Not gay. Also Family
members like Uncles and Step Fathers. Only about 12% are female.
So people may not agree with gays but lets keep an eye on your straight
leadership also. Your CC or ASM is more likely to assault a child than a
gay leader.
Just facts according to crime stats and profiling by experts not us
amateurs.
Leanmc420
>
>>Leanmc420 wrote:
>> >Frederick Northrop wrote:
<snip>
>> I'm not saying that a person who everyone knows is promiscous should be
>allowed
>> to remain a Scouter; most churches have policies that require some sort
>of
>> diligence in the face of credible evidence that an officer or minister
>deviates
>> from the doctrine.
>
>In trying to implement a policy, one can never *know* these things, because
>most people do treat them as largely private. We can have suspicions based
>on public conduct and at that point it's either accept it, ignore it,
>investigate it, or expel the leader. So far, BSA seems to be following the
>last option. I think you and I are leaning toward the third. But let's not
>kid ourselves. It won't come up often, but it will come up. There will be
>homosexuals, recreational drug users, purveyors of fireworks, those who
>think it harmless to bring a bottle of wine to camp, and those who sneak a
>cigarette behind the tree. Investigations are not pretty, but they are
>prettier than summary expulsion.
>
Right. I just think that the threshhold that would trigger "investigations"
should be consistant, for example known smokers are assumed to be following the
rules on Scout events, and are not investigated merely because they are
smokers. If a Scout reported seeing Mr. Smokey having a smoke, then that
should trigger an investigation. Baptists shouldn't be investigated, or forced
to swear an oath that they will not try to convert their Scouts, but any
reports of prostylitizing should be investigated. If I go to a Grateful Dead
concert (in my time machine, of course) I shouldn't be investigated for
recreational drug use, if a parents sees me acting eratically I should be
investigated.
David Stephens
>
> >Frederick Northrop wrote:
> >
> >news:398993E8...@flash.net...
> >> I have yet to see any compromise from the other side of the fence that
> >> would tolerate exclusion of a potential gay leader if he refused to make
> >> such statements against homosexual practice, say citing privacy rights.
> >
> >Yes, David, I have noticed here and in the Left Handedness thread that the
> >only people interested in compromise are those who want to believe that BSA
> >can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of gay sex. No
> >Gadow, Little Deer, or Bill B.
> >
>
> Well, I suppose that's because many Scouters do not have the religious belief
> that homosexual sex is immoral. That's an acceptable belief in religions that
> charter BSA troops. This is why I think the BSA's policy is absurd.
Do you use the same argument about recreational drugs, alcohol, or
tobacco? Some people do not feel that they are bad for anybody to use
them so do you think scouts should allow them? Just think how many kids
could afford uniforms if they could have beer and cigarette logos on
them.
Morality in any subject is an arbitrary line. BSA happen to have one
that is more restrictive than you like but keep in mind that scouts did
not earn the reputation for high moral values by picking and choosing
what values they are going to uphold.
David S.
Frederick Northrop
.
> >Our council requires YP training every two years. Since the policy won't
> >keep out closeted gays and other pedophiles, BSA needs to be vigilent any
> >way.
> >
>
> "[G]ays and other pedophiles"? Fred, how is that different from saying
"blacks
> and other criminals"? Sexual orientation and pedophilia are two different
> things. I don't like it when feminists say that all men are rapists, and
I
> don't like it when you say that all gays are pedophiles.
My choice of words was inapt. I apologize. I was trying to point out,
contra to Dave S., that expelling avowed gays does not really serve YP,
because pedophiles and those homosexuals who are interested in seducing,
mentoring, or turning youth will remain closeted. In fact, one might
conclude that those gay men who would not seek to seduce, mentor, or turn
would be better able to detect such activity when it occurs. That's based
on some pretty big assumptions.
At any rate, I apologize to anyone who took me to mean that all or most gay
men, closeted or not, would violate YP or seduce, mentor, or try to turn
scouting youth.
> The BSA doesn't exclude homosexuals to protect youth from sexual abuse.
Unless
> the BSA does not care about youth in programs it runs that allow
homosexuals.
Yes, that is very true.
Gregory Gadow
> "Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000809015632...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
> .
> > >Our council requires YP training every two years. Since the policy won't
> > >keep out closeted gays and other pedophiles, BSA needs to be vigilent any
> > >way.
> > >
> >
> > "[G]ays and other pedophiles"? Fred, how is that different from saying
> "blacks
> > and other criminals"? Sexual orientation and pedophilia are two different
> > things. I don't like it when feminists say that all men are rapists, and
> I
> > don't like it when you say that all gays are pedophiles.
>
> My choice of words was inapt.
Inapt, but it does demonstrate the depth of the bigotry and homophobia that
exists.
> I apologize.
Apologies without actual effort to make good are worth only the air used to
mouth them.
--
Gregory Gadow
Email: tech...@serv.net
Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
David Stephens
>
> I'm not pro or anti gay here but I had to make a statement about the
> gays and other pedophiles statement too.
> At one time I used to work for the state police in the IT area. We would
> keep up the databases for all criminals in the state and also would
> receive the daily profiles on criminal activity from the FBI.
> One thing I learned by having access to the database and reading a lot
> of it (all public records also) is that the profile of a pedophile does
> not fit most gays. Most 95% are "straight" white males between the ages
> of 30 and 50 and in a "trust" roll with youth. Not gay. Also Family
> members like Uncles and Step Fathers. Only about 12% are female.
> So people may not agree with gays but lets keep an eye on your straight
> leadership also. Your CC or ASM is more likely to assault a child than a
> gay leader.
> Just facts according to crime stats and profiling by experts not us
> amateurs.
A couple of points to note about the data you mention. You say 95% are
straight white males. Does this indicate some racial bias or some
difference in vigilance? How is the straight determined? Noting that
most of the data I have seen indicates that gays are about 3%, that
would indicate almost twice the likelihood of abuse by gays, using your
figures, I see no argument against the concern for gay sexual
attractions. Then there is the point of positions of trust. Gays are not
as likely to be in such positions as they typically are not parents.
Looking at scouts, it is quite clear that they are not highly welcomed
in that trust position so it is rather easy to assume that your data is
further skewed. Does any of the profiling mention motive for the sexual
interest or did it break down the numbers for sex of the victims? If
your numbers are reasonably accurate, then they do little to shift
concern away from sexual attraction as being motive and thus a cause for
concern for youth. I would suspect that gays are a lot less risk for
sexual abuse of girls and that women, who are 50% of the population, are
very little risk to either.
David S.
Frederick Northrop
We only have to keep drinking and smoking away from the boys. While I don't
know of any policy about it, I assume we also avoid talking approvingly of
it(sharing stories and the like) and discourage youth from engaging in these
(for them) illegal activities. But I can still be an avowed drinker and
formerly avowed smoker. Okay, I still have the occasional cigar or
cigarette. <SG>
Fred
"David Stephens" <cd...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:39917A29...@flash.net...
Frederick Northrop
around here. They are no longer going to hire youth to work closely with
priests. Yeah, BSA could just get rid of the boys and then all them Texas
Good Old Boys can feel safe. [SG}
"Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000809113327...@ng-cd1.aol.com...
> >Frederick Northrop wrote:
> >
> >>Leanmc420 wrote:
>
> >> >Frederick Northrop wrote:
>
Frederick Northrop
"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
news:399186AB...@serv.net...
> Frederick Northrop wrote:
>
> > "Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
Frederick Northrop
for YP guidelines and training. I'm sure we all agree about that. But I do
agree that it is dangerous to draw conclusions from statistical information
without knowing the full details of methodology of the sampling. For
example, I wouldn't trust the statistics if the determination was based on a
cop asking a handcuffed prisoner, "So, are you queer?" Isn't that the
point? We cannot know the unstated conscious or unconscious desires of a
given person and the mere statement "I am gay" or "I am straight" doesn't
provide a very reliable method of deciding the risk of abuse.
"David Stephens" <cd...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:3991A1A3...@flash.net...
Scott Miller
for years and they are the ones that say heterosexual white males are
more prone to sexual advances on children. Also It was about 7 years ago
when I worked for the State police on that project so I am quite sure
the stats have changed. But if I remember right the majority of the
pedophiles preyed on young boys. I don't remember exact figures there
but I think it was around 78% were boys. Also with conversations with
police and probation officers I have had I can't remember one person
that was defined as homosexual being arrested for being a pedophile. But
I am sure it does happen. But I know there were a few women I saw on our
sex offenders list and there they do list sexual orientation and the
violations that they committed. Michigan also has a public access web
site that list all convicted sex offenders that are on parole.
You can get to that list by going to the Michigan state police web site.
My point was that there are others that we should be worried about that
you may be sitting next to in your next committee meeting. My even be
your best friend!
This whole "queer" "gay" "fag" thing has been beaten to death and maybe
it's time to move on to other things.
Oh one more point. We do have a boy who's father is gay. He left his
wife and married another man. He is one of the nicest people in the
world and he has been camping with us. Nobody is worried about being
attacked in their tents in the middle of the night and his son is a life
scout working on his eagle. Well maybe he is more upset with the crap
banning gays than his father is.
Oh well rant over
Frederick Northrop
persuasive. For example, the FBI NIBRS does not collect data on the sexual
orientation of victims or perpetrators except for hate crime reporting or to
recognize relationships between them.
"Scott Miller" <smil...@ford.com> wrote in message
news:3991AF85...@ford.com...
Leanmc420
>
>"Leanmc420" <lean...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000809015632...@ng-fm1.aol.com...
>.
>> >Our council requires YP training every two years. Since the policy won't
>> >keep out closeted gays and other pedophiles, BSA needs to be vigilent any
>> >way.
>> >
>>
>> "[G]ays and other pedophiles"? Fred, how is that different from saying
>"blacks
>> and other criminals"? Sexual orientation and pedophilia are two different
>> things. I don't like it when feminists say that all men are rapists, and
>I
>> don't like it when you say that all gays are pedophiles.
>
Sorry for calling you out on that one. I didn't think that you really meant
that and I'm glad that wasn't what you meant.
>I was trying to point out,
>contra to Dave S., that expelling avowed gays does not really serve YP,
>because pedophiles and those homosexuals who are interested in seducing,
>mentoring, or turning youth will remain closeted. In fact, one might
>conclude that those gay men who would not seek to seduce, mentor, or turn
>would be better able to detect such activity when it occurs. That's based
>on some pretty big assumptions.
>
Good points.
>At any rate, I apologize to anyone who took me to mean that all or most gay
>men, closeted or not, would violate YP or seduce, mentor, or try to turn
>scouting youth.
>
I didn't think that's what you meant to say, but clearly some people here think
that.
danny or doreen dong
<fredno...@msn.com> wrote:
>Yes, David, but Scott's point was that we can't substitute "keep gays out"
>for YP guidelines and training. I'm sure we all agree about that. But I do
>agree that it is dangerous to draw conclusions from statistical information
>without knowing the full details of methodology of the sampling. For
>example, I wouldn't trust the statistics if the determination was based on a
>cop asking a handcuffed prisoner, "So, are you queer?" Isn't that the
>point? We cannot know the unstated conscious or unconscious desires of a
>given person and the mere statement "I am gay" or "I am straight" doesn't
>provide a very reliable method of deciding the risk of abuse.
Pedophiles can only be classified as gay or straight to a certain
extent. It does not depend on the gender of their victims (some are
interested in only boys or girls and others prey on both). When
statisics talk about pedophiles being gay or straight, it's in
reference to adult attractions/relationships or the appearance of
them, so that even if a pedophile only molested boys, if he was
married or had a girlfriend (and sometimes they get involved with
single moms for access to their kids) he would be classed as a
heterosexual ( and he certainly would appear to be one to the rest of
the world}. That's exactly why just as the statement "I'm gay" or
"I'm straight" is unreliable as a predictor of abuse, so is apparent
straight or gay behavior. That gay guy down the block may have no
sexual interest in children, while the married guy next door who's so
good with kids. may be so good with kids precisely because he's a
pedophile.
David Stephens
>
> Well, Where do I start. The FBI has tracked the sex offenders profile
> for years and they are the ones that say heterosexual white males are
> more prone to sexual advances on children.
Wasn't it the FBI that shot Randy Weaver's son and wife on Ruby ridge?
Wasn't it the FBI that protected the Davidian children near Waco? Can
you describe the personal life of J. Edgar Hoover and his sexual
orientation?
> Also It was about 7 years ago
> when I worked for the State police on that project so I am quite sure
> the stats have changed. But if I remember right the majority of the
> pedophiles preyed on young boys. I don't remember exact figures there
> but I think it was around 78% were boys.
Some posted reverse numbers for victims based on gender. Again I would
ask how the sexuality is determined? Do they have to go to gay bars and
be known to participate in the bath house culture to be defined as gay
or is it based on their word as trustworthy people? Did they gain the
trust of others by acting like they were not a threat to children?
> Also with conversations with
> police and probation officers I have had I can't remember one person
> that was defined as homosexual being arrested for being a pedophile.
It is politically correct to separate pedophile from sexual orientation.
How is a person determined to be homosexual? Is it was he says or is it
determined by the sexual choice of victims? If I use the gender choice
of victim and not the words of the people you cite, assume that the
women all chose male victims, then the results are 78%-12%=66%
homosexual males or "gay". I suppose that could be reduced by calling
them bisexual. What are the stats on these perpetrators who had victims
of both sexes?
> But
> I am sure it does happen. But I know there were a few women I saw on our
> sex offenders list and there they do list sexual orientation and the
> violations that they committed.
And how was the sexual orientation determined?
> My point was that there are others that we should be worried about that
> you may be sitting next to in your next committee meeting. My even be
> your best friend!
> This whole "queer" "gay" "fag" thing has been beaten to death and maybe
> it's time to move on to other things.
As long as there are people who wish to teach male teenage youth that
sex between them is good and rewarding and are going to sue BSA in order
to do it as leaders within that organization, then the issue will not go
away.
> We do have a boy who's father is gay. He left his
> wife and married another man. He is one of the nicest people in the
> world and he has been camping with us.
Prior to his coming out and abandoning his wedding vows, was he straight
like those in your crime stats? Could it be that those in the crime
stats are denying their sexuality to others and possibly to themselves?
What is wrong with using the gender choice of victim in sex crimes to
determine the assailant's sexual attractions?
> Nobody is worried about being
> attacked in their tents in the middle of the night and his son is a life
> scout working on his eagle.
Nobody worries about most abusers until they are caught. It's best to be
concerned about traffic accidents and wear seat belts before the
accident occurs.
Note that I have proposed a compromise that would allow gays to serve as
leaders without accepting being gay as a good and rewarding thus
something that should be tried or at least not resisted. That compromise
would allow adults that have unrestricted parental rights of scout age
boys to serve and other gays to serve in capacities that do not involve
as much close contact such as camping. It is not the person that
concerns me as much as the desire to have sex with teenage boys. The
definition of being gay is just such a desire.
> Well maybe he is more upset with the crap
> banning gays than his father is.
> Oh well rant over
Having been pressured and then assaulted by gays for sex in a youth
program supervised by adult gays and later, as a teenage life guard,
being solicited for sex by adult gays, I have a different take on it
than you. Is it personal experience that first convinced you to wear
seat belts or was it the experience of others?
David S.
David Stephens
>
> Yes, David, but Scott's point was that we can't substitute "keep gays out"
> for YP guidelines and training. I'm sure we all agree about that. But I do
> agree that it is dangerous to draw conclusions from statistical information
> without knowing the full details of methodology of the sampling. For
> example, I wouldn't trust the statistics if the determination was based on a
> cop asking a handcuffed prisoner, "So, are you queer?" Isn't that the
> point? We cannot know the unstated conscious or unconscious desires of a
> given person and the mere statement "I am gay" or "I am straight" doesn't
> provide a very reliable method of deciding the risk of abuse.
Having a desire for the sexual relationship is only the first
precondition for abuse in virtually all sexual abuse prevention
programs. There are three more. The second to overcome is the internal
barriers of the potential abuser. In this, they must accept that the
desire is normal or more important than their own moral convictions
against abuse. Is the pronouncement that they accept their sexual
attractions to the same sex as normal and worthy of society's acceptance
evidence that this barrier is weakened if not breached? The third is the
external barriers to abuse from the environment. This is where BSA
procedures come in to play such as two deep leadership but enforcement
of this is up to the leaders. What is to stop two adults with a common
interest in sexual relations with the boys from getting together? My
swim team experience was just such a case. Thirteen year old Jesse
Dirkhising was accidentally killed by two adult gays having rough sex
with him. That situation was two deep. The final precondition barrier is
the defenses of the potential victim. These are based on the moral
convictions of the victim and in the case of teenage boy scouts, it is a
youth with the conflicting biological pressures for sex and his own
moral convictions that have had little of life's experiences to
reinforce. When his mentors in scouting are teaching by example, if not
direct words, that sex with other males is good and rewarding, how
strong is this barrier? If scouts itself is teaching that such sex is
acceptable by embracing those who proclaim it to be good and rewarding
as leaders, what happens to this barrier. What this does is set the
stage for abuse even if the threat does not come from inside scouts but
from some other source.
David S.
David Stephens
>
> Pedophiles can only be classified as gay or straight to a certain
> extent. It does not depend on the gender of their victims (some are
> interested in only boys or girls and others prey on both). When
> statisics talk about pedophiles being gay or straight, it's in
> reference to adult attractions/relationships or the appearance of
> them, so that even if a pedophile only molested boys, if he was
> married or had a girlfriend (and sometimes they get involved with
> single moms for access to their kids) he would be classed as a
> heterosexual ( and he certainly would appear to be one to the rest of
> the world}. That's exactly why just as the statement "I'm gay" or
> "I'm straight" is unreliable as a predictor of abuse, so is apparent
> straight or gay behavior. That gay guy down the block may have no
> sexual interest in children, while the married guy next door who's so
> good with kids. may be so good with kids precisely because he's a
> pedophile.
Note that boy scouts is a program for boys age 11 to 18 and thus most
are sexually mature early in the program. This would mean that the
sexual attractions that motivate abuse in this age range are not
pedophillic but adult. Can you explain how abusers choose the gender of
their victims when their victims are supposedly genderless because of
their lack of maturity? I suspect that it has more to do with
accessibility and the ability to control a minor over controlling an
adult that is more the basis for choosing minors for sexual assault. I
understand that castration has been a successful treatment for
pedophiles in that it reduces sex drive. If the point is that power is
the motivator for child sexual abuse, why would this treatment be
effective?
David S.
David Stephens
>
> However, David, BSA doesn't require leaders to be nonsmokers or teetotalers.
> We only have to keep drinking and smoking away from the boys. While I don't
> know of any policy about it, I assume we also avoid talking approvingly of
> it(sharing stories and the like) and discourage youth from engaging in these
> (for them) illegal activities. But I can still be an avowed drinker and
> formerly avowed smoker. Okay, I still have the occasional cigar or
> cigarette. <SG>
These activities do not require any participants. Sexual attractions by
definition involve other people and since boy scouts involve sexually
mature boys, they are subject to this desire.
David S.
Bill Bekkenhuis
<3992C0B4...@flash.net>...
> Scott Miller wrote:
> >
> > Well, Where do I start. The FBI has tracked the sex offenders profile
> > for years and they are the ones that say heterosexual white males are
> > more prone to sexual advances on children.
>
> Wasn't it the FBI that shot Randy Weaver's son and wife on Ruby ridge?
> Wasn't it the FBI that protected the Davidian children near Waco? Can
> you describe the personal life of J. Edgar Hoover and his sexual
> orientation?
Boy, Mr. Stephens, you sure do get testy when someone produces hard evidence
that contradicts your personal prejudices.
Not what one would expect from someone who claims that his childhood trauma
has not affected his ability to be objective about this issue.
Mr. Miller, don't waste your time - Mr. Stephens has been equally unresponsive
when other research data bases [see
http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Alerts/Old/Older/molestation.html]
have been cited in support of the claim that most child molesters are (or
successfully pose as) heterosexuals, not homosexuals.
It is a truth he is not ready to hear and, unless he gets into some type of
therapy, will probably never be able to hear it - no matter the source.
<snip to the end>
--
Regards,
Bill Bekkenhuis <bekke...@fast.net>
<http://www.users.fast.net/~bekkenhuis/>
"In its ninety-year history, BSA Inc. has been resistant to cultural change
and proud of it. It ostracizes dissenters. And it is secretive: Not a single
current BSA official agreed to be interviewed for this story. When the
organization's public-relations department learned of my inquiries, I received
two calls informing me that I was banned from contact with any troop in
America, and to stop calling anyone connected to the Boy Scouts."
Chuck Sudetic, "The Struggle for the Soul of the Boy Scouts", Rolling Stone,
July 6-20, 2000, p.102.
David Stephens
>
> David Stephens <cd...@flash.net> wrote in article
> <3992C0B4...@flash.net>...
> > Scott Miller wrote:
> > >
> > > Well, Where do I start. The FBI has tracked the sex offenders profile
> > > for years and they are the ones that say heterosexual white males are
> > > more prone to sexual advances on children.
> >
> > Wasn't it the FBI that shot Randy Weaver's son and wife on Ruby ridge?
> > Wasn't it the FBI that protected the Davidian children near Waco? Can
> > you describe the personal life of J. Edgar Hoover and his sexual
> > orientation?
>
> Boy, Mr. Stephens, you sure do get testy when someone produces hard evidence
> that contradicts your personal prejudices.
Actually, the evidence supports my contention. I was noting the climate
within the FBI that effects its conclusions based on evidence at its
disposal. The cases I mention are examples where the FBI acted on
evidence, or possibly political motive, without understanding, or
ignoring, its implications and destroyed lives as a result. I noted the
person most responsible for building the FBI and his own idiosyncrasies
that shaped its culture and decisions. Are you familiar with his
sexuality and various exploits?
> Mr. Miller, don't waste your time - Mr. Stephens has been equally unresponsive
> when other research data bases [see
> http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Alerts/Old/Older/molestation.html]
> have been cited in support of the claim that most child molesters are (or
> successfully pose as) heterosexuals, not homosexuals.
This "study" and its conclusion have been discussed here extensively and
several people on your side of this issue have admitted its serious
flaws when I pointed them out. Your argument that I don't listen much
less try to understand is pretty shallow when I have discussed this
"study" at length. Calling this "unresponsive" is inappropriate. The
"study's" careful omissions of pertinent data and extrapolated
conclusions fit very well with its stated political purpose. It is
rather easy to use the data this study had to reach the opposite
conclusions that could have been easily verified if they just hadn't
been so careful in omitting those specifics. Of course your cite does
not have the study at all much less its raw data. Just the conclusions
in a political framework. Did you not bother to check your reference for
something more than editorial rhetoric that itself only summarizes the
conclusions of the "study"?
> It is a truth he is not ready to hear and, unless he gets into some type of
> therapy, will probably never be able to hear it - no matter the source.
So you prefer third party insults instead of direct approach? Why not
direct your insults to me? It would seem your are not ready to confront
my challenging your statements. If I am in need of therapy because of
interaction with gays in my youth, then why are you arguing for more
youth interaction with gays? Do you feel a little hurt about how your
own behavior conflicts with your own stated religious philosophy?
Interesting how you practice devaluing the worth and dignity of people
with some argument about seeking truth but then cite political
conclusions devoid of the evidence that supposedly backs those
conclusions. Where is the truth, or are your confusing it with rhetoric?
David S.
FL PBPress
> . . .research data bases [see
>http://www.youth.org/loco/PERSONProject/Alerts/Old/Older/molestation.html]
>have been cited in support of the claim that most child molesters are (or
>successfully pose as) heterosexuals, not homosexuals.
>
Bill:
The operative words being the ones in parentheses - "OR SUCCESSFULLY POSE
AS.
In this case, just because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
does not necessarily mean that it IS a duck.
Ken
danny or doreen dong
>
>Note that boy scouts is a program for boys age 11 to 18 and thus most
>are sexually mature early in the program. This would mean that the
>sexual attractions that motivate abuse in this age range are not
>pedophillic but adult.
Cub Scouts is also a BSA program, and the post I was responding to was
about pedophiles. There's a separate category for adults attracted to
adolescents (ephebophiles (sp?)) which I think excludes those
comparable in age, say an 18 year old attracted to a 17 yr old,
although it would include a 40 year old attracted to a 17 yr old.
Can you explain how abusers choose the gender of
>their victims when their victims are supposedly genderless because of
>their lack of maturity?
I didn't say the victims were genderless, I said the gender of the
victim was not how the pedophile was determined to be homosexual or
heterosexual.Truthfully, I don't think pedophiles should be classified
as either.They're a separate category in my view.
I suspect that it has more to do with
>accessibility and the ability to control a minor over controlling an
>adult that is more the basis for choosing minors for sexual assault. I
>understand that castration has been a successful treatment for
>pedophiles in that it reduces sex drive. If the point is that power is
>the motivator for child sexual abuse, why would this treatment be
>effective?
>David S.
My understanding is that power is not exactly the motivator,but rather
the pedophile ( or ephebophile} on some level, feels he (and it is
usually a he ) is likely to be unsuccessful at having a relationship
with an adult or prefers having more "control" than he would likely
have in a relationship with an adult, but not necessarily power in a
physical sense."Control" would also include for example, the sort of
power a well-educated, wealthy 40 year old man would likely have in a
relationship with an immature, unsophisticated 25 year old woman who
works as a waitress..
Doreen
David Stephens
> >
> >Note that boy scouts is a program for boys age 11 to 18 and thus most
> >are sexually mature early in the program. This would mean that the
> >sexual attractions that motivate abuse in this age range are not
> >pedophillic but adult.
>
> Cub Scouts is also a BSA program, and the post I was responding to was
> about pedophiles. There's a separate category for adults attracted to
> adolescents (ephebophiles (sp?)) which I think excludes those
> comparable in age, say an 18 year old attracted to a 17 yr old,
> although it would include a 40 year old attracted to a 17 yr old.
If you will note, I have not mentioned cub scouts as cause for concern
for a number of reasons. The most important of these is are parental
involvement in what little camping they actually do. I have specifically
outlined a compromise that accept gays in low risk positions or as
regular leaders if they are parents of scout age boys. This would
eliminate those that are say 21 supervising teenage boys that are very
close to them in age. How old was Dale?
> Can you explain how abusers choose the gender of
> >their victims when their victims are supposedly genderless because of
> >their lack of maturity?
> I didn't say the victims were genderless, I said the gender of the
> victim was not how the pedophile was determined to be homosexual or
> heterosexual.Truthfully, I don't think pedophiles should be classified
> as either.They're a separate category in my view.
I do not agree. The definitions that define pedophile etc. are based on
arbitrary age differences. I have yet to see a human change even
noticeably, much less significantly, the instant of their birth
anniversary. There is significant overlap even if there is some special
sexual attraction targeted specifically at small children. If there is
any gender preference then that is related to sexual orientation.
> > I suspect that it has more to do with
> >accessibility and the ability to control a minor over controlling an
> >adult that is more the basis for choosing minors for sexual assault. I
> >understand that castration has been a successful treatment for
> >pedophiles in that it reduces sex drive. If the point is that power is
> >the motivator for child sexual abuse, why would this treatment be
> >effective?
>
> My understanding is that power is not exactly the motivator, but rather
> the pedophile ( or ephebophile} on some level, feels he (and it is
> usually a he ) is likely to be unsuccessful at having a relationship
> with an adult or prefers having more "control" than he would likely
> have in a relationship with an adult, but not necessarily power in a
> physical sense.
Is this in any way in disagreement with what I have said about ability
to control or sexual attractions involving youth of a chosen gender? You
use the specific situation of failure in relationships but that could
also include fear that prevents the effort in the first place. If pure
sexual gratification is all that is desired, then such gratification can
be readily found in the same sex with similar interests. All that is
left to do is to make such gratification more accessable and less guilt
ridden. This can be accomplished by making it socially acceptable.
Perhaps a political movement and euphemisms for their practices like
"gay" and "cruising". Perhaps they can argue that those who favor more
restraint are like racists and use some tie in to that. Should we now
consider it light of the current concept of sexual addictions? Perhaps
there is an explanation why there is no clear, or even hinted, genetic
connection to male homosexuality.
> "Control" would also include for example, the sort of
> power a well-educated, wealthy 40 year old man would likely have in a
> relationship with an immature, unsophisticated 25 year old woman who
> works as a waitress..
Are you arguing that a relationship between a youth and an adult is just
as acceptable or unacceptable as a 40 year old and a 25 year old with
little prospect for financial success? I would congratulate both the
waitress and the older man for finding a common interest in each other
and being willing to think outside the box, that is if neither one is
abandoning their vows to someone else. I would throw the adult seeking a
similar relationship with a youth in jail.
David S.
danny or doreen dong
wrote:
>danny or doreen dong wrote:
>
>
>> >
>> >Note that boy scouts is a program for boys age 11 to 18 and thus most
>> >are sexually mature early in the program. This would mean that the
>> >sexual attractions that motivate abuse in this age range are not
>> >pedophillic but adult.
>>
>> Cub Scouts is also a BSA program, and the post I was responding to was
>> about pedophiles. There's a separate category for adults attracted to
>> adolescents (ephebophiles (sp?)) which I think excludes those
>> comparable in age, say an 18 year old attracted to a 17 yr old,
>> although it would include a 40 year old attracted to a 17 yr old.
>
>If you will note, I have not mentioned cub scouts as cause for concern
>for a number of reasons. The most important of these is are parental
>involvement in what little camping they actually do. I have specifically
>outlined a compromise that accept gays in low risk positions or as
>regular leaders if they are parents of scout age boys. This would
>eliminate those that are say 21 supervising teenage boys that are very
>close to them in age. How old was Dale?
I'm sorry, somehow I missed your compromise.I actually don't have much
of a problem with a compromise that allows gay parents to be leaders,
and I'm really not sure any 21 year old, gay or straight , should be
supervising teenage boys close to them in age. I assume then, that you
feel there should be a minimum age for leaders in Exploring.
>
>> Can you explain how abusers choose the gender of
>> >their victims when their victims are supposedly genderless because of
>> >their lack of maturity?
>
>> I didn't say the victims were genderless, I said the gender of the
>> victim was not how the pedophile was determined to be homosexual or
>> heterosexual.Truthfully, I don't think pedophiles should be classified
>> as either.They're a separate category in my view.
>
>I do not agree. The definitions that define pedophile etc. are based on
>arbitrary age differences. I have yet to see a human change even
>noticeably, much less significantly, the instant of their birth
>anniversary. There is significant overlap even if there is some special
>sexual attraction targeted specifically at small children. If there is
>any gender preference then that is related to sexual orientation.
The definition that of a pedophile does not depend on arbitrary age
difference at all.It depends on the attraction to pre-pubertal
children.A person who is attracted to a 10 year old who's past puberty
is not a pedophile ( but is likely to be a felon, and certainly has
something wrong mentally ), while conversely someone attracted to a 15
year old who hasn't entered puberty is a pedophile. You may believe
that a man who molests boys but has adult relationships with women is
a bisexual,and I may believe he's in his own category, but the stats
will count him as a hetereosexual
Because you appear to believe that sexual desire is not involved at
all, and if it wasn't for the power angle, they'd have appropriate
desires. I am trying to say , perhaps clumsily, that the power aspect
is part of the reason for the desire,but that there is a desire which
could not be satisfied by an easily controlled adult.
>> "Control" would also include for example, the sort of
>> power a well-educated, wealthy 40 year old man would likely have in a
>> relationship with an immature, unsophisticated 25 year old woman who
>> works as a waitress..
>
>Are you arguing that a relationship between a youth and an adult is just
>as acceptable or unacceptable as a 40 year old and a 25 year old with
>little prospect for financial success? I would congratulate both the
>waitress and the older man for finding a common interest in each other
>and being willing to think outside the box, that is if neither one is
>abandoning their vows to someone else. I would throw the adult seeking a
>similar relationship with a youth in jail.
No, it's not just as acceptable at all. Simply an example of the type
of power I'm talking about when I said "not necessarily physical"
Child molesters generally don't physically overpower and abduct
children.Don't you think my hypothetical 25 year old ( remember, she's
immature and unsophisticated, and that's important to my example} is
more likely to defer to the well-educated , wealthy 40 year old than
vice-versa? That's the kind of power I'm talking about
Doreen.
Bill Bekkenhuis
<uKRuu9h$$GA.436@cpmsnbbsa07>...
<snip>
> Yes, David, I have noticed here and in the Left Handedness thread that the
> only people interested in compromise are those who want to believe that BSA
> can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of gay sex. No
> Gadow, Little Deer, or Bill B.
Huh?
Of COURSE the BSA can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of
gay sex.
Just as they include divorcees, smokers, drinkers, professional gamblers and
abortionists without endorsing divorce, smoking, drinking, gambling and
abortion.
It is the BSA that refuses the same compromise position on homosexuality that
they accept for ALMOST ALL OTHER morally significant issues in which there is
significant disagreement, not me.
Mr. Stephen's position that gays are presumed teen-predators who require a
separate standard from heterosexuals before they can be allowed membership is
hardly a compromise position.
Bill Bekkenhuis
> Bill Bekkenhuis wrote:
<on Mr. Stephens attempt to discredit the FBI>
> > Boy, Mr. Stephens, you sure do get testy when someone produces hard
evidence
> > that contradicts your personal prejudices.
>
> Actually, the evidence supports my contention. I was noting the climate
> within the FBI that effects its conclusions based on evidence at its
> disposal.
Why, how extraordinarily ODD, Mr. Stephens.
An outright admission that the FBI's "climate" might effect the FBI's
"conclusions based on evidence at its disposal"!
Yet for all the times that many, many people have pointed out that YOUR swim
team experience might have effected your "conclusions based on evidence at
[your] disposal", you would have none of it.
Funny how you have 20-20 eyesight when it comes to seeing bias in others and
yet are so completely blind to your own.
Bill Bekkenhuis
<20000810140142...@ng-fu1.aol.com>...
> Bill Bekkenhuis wrote:
<Bill Bekk's summary: I cite evidence to support the assertion that "most
child molesters are (or successfully pose as) heterosexuals, not homosexuals.>
> The operative words being the ones in parentheses - "OR SUCCESSFULLY
POSE
> AS.
>
> In this case, just because it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck,
> does not necessarily mean that it IS a duck.
But that is not Mr. Stephen's point.
Mr. Stephen's point is that allowing "known or avowed" gays into Scouting
without extraordinary safeguards not applicable to heterosexuals will endanger
youth.
His sole backing for this is his own personal experience as a child.
Yet the evidence supports the idea that the BIGGEST threat to youth is from
adults who at least APPEAR to be heterosexuals, not "known or avowed"
homosexuals.
Which is why the BSA, bless their black little shriveled hearts, presume that
EVERY adult is a potential child molester irregardless of their heterosexual
credentials.
Which fits in with both the BSA's acceptance of gay adults and youth as
participants in their wholly-owned Learning for Life subsidiary and their
claim that their gay ban IS NOT based in the "gay as child molester"
stereotype.
>
> Ken
Rob Blau
<bekke...@fast.net> wrote:
> Yet the evidence supports the idea that the BIGGEST threat to youth is from
> adults who at least APPEAR to be heterosexuals, not "known or avowed"
> homosexuals.
I completely agree. As I have stated here many times, in terms of fear
of child molestation I am much more concerned by closet homosexuals
and those who are heterosexual in there every day lives than by
"avowed" homosexuals who, I would think, are among the least likely
people to molest a child in a BSA situation.
>
> Which is why the BSA, bless their black little shriveled hearts, presume that
> EVERY adult is a potential child molester irregardless of their heterosexual
> credentials.
Well I won't sign up to endorse the "black little shriveled hearts"
characterization, but I agree with the BSA's position that everyone is
a potential child molester regardless of their "avowed" sexual
orientation.
>
> Which fits in with both the BSA's acceptance of gay adults and youth as
> participants in their wholly-owned Learning for Life subsidiary and their
> claim that their gay ban IS NOT based in the "gay as child molester"
> stereotype.
It does. Clearly, the BSA's anti-homosexual position is not based on
unwarranted fear of child molestation but is based on their stated
position that homosexuals are not good role models and that
homosexuality is not moral. I don't understand, however, why
homosexuals are allowed in LFL?
Isn't learning for life a moral organization too? I am not trying to
be provacative here. I really don't understand the rationale for the
distinction.
Rob Blau
Bill Nelson
Certain sexual acts, that can be conducted by either homosexuals or
heterosexuals are outlawed. I would guess many were put on the books
and are kept on the books are aimed at homosexuals, but they can be
applied to everyone.
bill
In article <39958E97...@nc.rr.com>,
"Richard F. Pickett" <rpic...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Divorce, smoking, drinking, legalized gambling and abortion are legal
activities. Isn't
> homosexuality still outlawed in some states? I believe that Georgia
has a 20 year
> imprisonment penalty for sodomy on the books. Would you suggest that
the BSA include or
> exclude homosexuals on a state by state basis relative to each state's
laws? Can the
> BSA include homosexuals without endorsing the illegality of their
lifestyle in some
> states?
>
> rfp
> > --
> >
> > Regards,
> > Bill Bekkenhuis <bekke...@fast.net>
> > <http://www.users.fast.net/~bekkenhuis/>
> >
> > "In its ninety-year history, BSA Inc. has been resistant to cultural
change
> > and proud of it. It ostracizes dissenters. And it is secretive: Not
a single
> > current BSA official agreed to be interviewed for this story. When
the
> > organization's public-relations department learned of my inquiries,
I received
> > two calls informing me that I was banned from contact with any troop
in
> > America, and to stop calling anyone connected to the Boy Scouts."
> >
> > Chuck Sudetic, "The Struggle for the Soul of the Boy Scouts",
Rolling Stone,
> > July 6-20, 2000, p.102.
>
>
--
And can the liberties of a nation be thought
secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a
conviction in the minds of men that these
liberties are the gift of God? - Thomas Jefferson
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Bill Nelson
Rob Blau <rb...@eclipse.net> wrote:
>
> It does. Clearly, the BSA's anti-homosexual position is not based on
> unwarranted fear of child molestation but is based on their stated
> position that homosexuals are not good role models and that
> homosexuality is not moral. I don't understand, however, why
> homosexuals are allowed in LFL?
>
> Isn't learning for life a moral organization too? I am not trying to
> be provacative here. I really don't understand the rationale for the
> distinction.
As I see it, it involves the concept of membership. If you are a member
of an organization, you adhere to and embrace the moral values of that
organization.
Traditional BSA programs are constructed to include participants in the
programs as members of the BSA. Like being members of a church.
The Learning for Life program is constructed in such a way that the
participants of the program are not members of the BSA. They are simply
participants in the program. Like participants at Disneyland.
Members of traditional programs are members of the BSA
Participants of Learning for Life programs are participants in the
program, not members of the BSA. They could be members of the
organization that puts on the program though (like a school or church).
YiS,
Bill
Leanmc420
>
>Homosexuality (i.e., being a homosexual) is not outlawed anywhere.
>Certain sexual acts, that can be conducted by either homosexuals or
>heterosexuals are outlawed. I would guess many were put on the books
>and are kept on the books are aimed at homosexuals, but they can be
>applied to everyone.
>
Cheers, Bill, that was a great answer.
>--
>And can the liberties of a nation be thought
>secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a
>conviction in the minds of men that these
>liberties are the gift of God? - Thomas Jefferson
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
></PRE></HTML>
Leanmc420
>
>Leanmc420 wrote:
>
>> >Bill Nelson wrote:
>> >
>> >Homosexuality (i.e., being a homosexual) is not outlawed anywhere.
>> >Certain sexual acts, that can be conducted by either homosexuals or
>> >heterosexuals are outlawed. I would guess many were put on the books
>> >and are kept on the books are aimed at homosexuals, but they can be
>> >applied to everyone.
>> >
>>
>> Cheers, Bill, that was a great answer.
>
>
>State by State Map of Sodomy Laws
>http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/23/sodomy.law.03/usa.sodom.map.gif
>
>. . . including states that prohibit sodomy only between same sex partners.
>
I've been accused of being dense before, but what do state sodomy laws have to
do with being homosexual? I hate to break it to you, but someone can be
homosexual without ever committing sodomy. Like heterosexuals, homosexuals
generally, excluding rape) have freewill to choose whether or not they will
have sex. Some or their choices may or may not be legal or moral, depending on
where you live or what you believe. But merely being homosexual (or
heterosexual) isn't the same thing as having a particular sex act.
We decide on gambling laws from state to state, too. If I place a bet in NC, I
am not "obedient", in NV that's okay. Why should that be any different for
sodomy? Even though many religious people consider gambling immoral, the BSA
doesn't have a national policy on it.
>rfp
>
>
Brian Westley
...
>I know of no instance where the BSA advocates breaking the law. Do you?
Yes, when the BSA expects public schools to exclude people from
the school-chartered scout troop based on a religious test.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Rob Blau
<rpic...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
> Do you think that the BSA would retain a volunteer in a leadership position
> if he were found to be running an illegal gambling operation?
No. However a black-jack dealer in an Atlantic City casino would be
acceptable, right? By the same token someone who does something that
would be illegal in Georgia should be ok if he does it where it is
legal.
Rob Blau
Rob Blau
> I know of no instance where the BSA advocates breaking the law. Do you?
No, I don't. Why do you assume that homosexuals break the law?
Rob Blau
Brian Westley
>>
>> the school-chartered scout troop based on a religious test.
>Are you talking about Learning For Life or is there a troop actually chartered to a
>public school?
Hundreds. The BSA own figures show public schools chartered about
10,000 units with about 360,000 members in 1998.
http://sir.home.texas.net/PERCENT.htm has the numbers with
jpgs of the faxes from the BSA. Private schools and PTA groups
and non-PTA school groups are counted separately. All of these
are for the 'Traditional Scouting program', i.e. kicks out
atheists.
Plus, there are other government agencies listed that can't
exclude people with a religious test, like Fire Departments
or the National Guard. There's even one category for 'governmental
bodies'.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Frederick Northrop
> Bill Bekkenhuis wrote:
>
> > Frederick Northrop <fredno...@msn.com> wrote in article
> > <uKRuu9h$$GA.436@cpmsnbbsa07>...
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Yes, David, I have noticed here and in the Left Handedness thread that
the
> > > only people interested in compromise are those who want to believe
that BSA
> > > can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of gay sex. No
> > > Gadow, Little Deer, or Bill B.
> >
> > Huh?
> >
> > Of COURSE the BSA can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality
of
> > gay sex.
> >
> > Just as they include divorcees, smokers, drinkers, professional gamblers
and
> > abortionists without endorsing divorce, smoking, drinking, gambling and
> > abortion.
Quite so, inclusion does not equal moral endorsement, but moral neutrality.
Even at that, BSA's neutrality on smoking, drinking, and gambling is limited
in that these activities are banned from official functions. I assume sex
of all kinds is likewise banned, though my training materials only refer to
coed tenting. BSA is not neutral on homosexual activity.
> >
> > It is the BSA that refuses the same compromise position on homosexuality
that
> > they accept for ALMOST ALL OTHER morally significant issues in which
there is
> > significant disagreement, not me.
I generally ignore BB's posts, but I agree with him to the extent that BSA
does not attempt a compromise. It's really great to see that Mr. B is ready
to say that it is enough to allow homosexuals in so long as they do there
best to abstain from sex and avoid advocating for it. It's a wonderful day
when we can get together on this.
> > Mr. Stephen's position that gays are presumed teen-predators who require
a
> > separate standard from heterosexuals before they can be allowed
membership is
> > hardly a compromise position.
Stephens isn't ready to agree yet, I know.
Leanmc420
>
>Leanmc420 wrote:
>
>> >Richard F. Pickett wrote:
>> >
>> >Leanmc420 wrote:
>> >
>> >> >Bill Nelson wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Homosexuality (i.e., being a homosexual) is not outlawed anywhere.
>> >> >Certain sexual acts, that can be conducted by either homosexuals or
>> >> >heterosexuals are outlawed. I would guess many were put on the books
>> >> >and are kept on the books are aimed at homosexuals, but they can be
>> >> >applied to everyone.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Cheers, Bill, that was a great answer.
>> >
>> >snip
>> >
>> >State by State Map of Sodomy Laws
>> >http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/23/sodomy.law.03/usa.sodom.map.gif
>> >
>> >. . . including states that prohibit sodomy only between same sex
>partners.
>> >
>>
>> I've been accused of being dense before, but what do state sodomy laws have
>to
>> do with being homosexual? I hate to break it to you, but someone can be
>> homosexual without ever committing sodomy.
>
>
Yes, but where is it written that you have to commit any particular sex act to
be homosexual? To be a "known homosexual" according to the BSA, you don't have
to actually have homosexual sex, much less sodomy.
>> Like heterosexuals, homosexuals generally, excluding rape) have freewill to
>choose
>> whether or not they will have sex. Some or their choices may or may not be
>legal or
>> moral, depending on
>> where you live or what you believe. But merely being homosexual (or
>heterosexual)
>> isn't the same thing as having a particular sex act.
>>
>> We decide on gambling laws from state to state, too. If I place a bet in
>NC, I am
>> not "obedient", in NV that's okay. Why should that be any different for
>sodomy?
>> Even though many religious people consider gambling immoral, the BSA
>doesn't have a
>> national policy on it.
>
>Do you think that the BSA would retain a volunteer in a leadership position
>if he were
>found to be running an illegal gambling operation?
>
Of course not. But would the BSA allow someone who ran a legal gambling
establishment to be a Scouter? Yes. If I am in a state where sodomy is legal,
then I am breaking no statuatory law. Different religions weigh in on this
differently.
>> Currently, five states ban sexual relations between adults of the same sex,
>and 12
>> other states ban sodomy between any consulting adults.
>>
>> Although those laws are seldom enforced, they can take
>their toll
>> in other
>> ways. Robin Shahar said she lost her job at the Georgia
>Attorney
>> General's
>> office after she had a commitment ceremony with another
>woman.
>>
>> "He used the sodomy law to justify his firing me," Shahar
>said.
>
>Full article at: http://www.cnn.com/US/9811/23/sodomy.law.03/
>
>Texas, Kansas, MO, and Arkansas have laws that prohibit anal and oral sex
>between
>same-sex partners only.
>
>I know of no instance where the BSA advocates breaking the law. Do you?
>
Well, our founding fathers and the civil rights movement make a case that its
one's responibility to challenge unjust laws, but that's not my cup of tea :-)
The BSA says that if one disagrees with a law, then one should work within the
law to change it.
But laws against sodomy vary from state to state, and at any rate there's no
"law" that says all homosexuals committ sodomy. And I don't think that its a
good idea for the government to poke its nose into the bedrooms of consenting
adults. That's what we've got churches for.
>
Frederick Northrop
mother in Nevada.
Fred
"Rob Blau" <rb...@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:130820001419114770%rb...@eclipse.net...
> In article <3996E03A...@nc.rr.com>, Richard F. Pickett
> <rpic...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Do you think that the BSA would retain a volunteer in a leadership
position
> > if he were found to be running an illegal gambling operation?
>
Richard F. Pickett
Rob Blau wrote:
> In article <3996E03A...@nc.rr.com>, Richard F. Pickett
> <rpic...@nc.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > I know of no instance where the BSA advocates breaking the law. Do you?
>
> No, I don't. Why do you assume that homosexuals break the law?
>
> Rob Blau
Why do you assume that I haven't seen them break the law?
rfp
Leanmc420
I'm sure its possible that you've seen some homosexuals commit some crimes; its
darn near improbable that you've seen *all* homosexuals commit crimes. If
you've seen certain individuals break the law, then they should be delt with on
an individual basis.
If someone actually sees a Scouter break the law then that's a seperate issue.
If a Scouter actually says "I break [such and such] law" then that's a seperate
issue. Its not against any law in the USA to be a homosexual.
>rfp
Ulftonn
>activities. Isn't
>homosexuality still outlawed in some states?
USSC cases make it quite clear such laws are unconstitutional in their very
nature. I note its also still outlawed in many eastern states to drive a car
with out a cryer anouncing the automobile and that you can not exceed 10 mph
under any condition. So shall we ban all Scouters who drive the Freeways?
I believe that Georgia has a 20
>year
>imprisonment penalty for sodomy on the books. Would you suggest that the BSA
>include or
>exclude homosexuals on a state by state basis relative to each state's laws?
>Can the
>BSA include homosexuals without endorsing the illegality of their lifestyle
>in some
>states?
>
Can it include horseless carriage drivers who exceed 10 mph?
Ulftonn
>rfp
>
>Bill Bekkenhuis wrote:
>
>> Frederick Northrop <fredno...@msn.com> wrote in article
>> <uKRuu9h$$GA.436@cpmsnbbsa07>...
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Yes, David, I have noticed here and in the Left Handedness thread that
>the
>> > only people interested in compromise are those who want to believe that
>BSA
>> > can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of gay sex. No
>> > Gadow, Little Deer, or Bill B.
>>
>> Huh?
>>
>> Of COURSE the BSA can include homosexuals without endorsing the morality of
>> gay sex.
>>
>> Just as they include divorcees, smokers, drinkers, professional gamblers
>and
>> abortionists without endorsing divorce, smoking, drinking, gambling and
>> abortion.
>>
>> It is the BSA that refuses the same compromise position on homosexuality
>that
>> they accept for ALMOST ALL OTHER morally significant issues in which there
>is
>> significant disagreement, not me.
>>
>> Mr. Stephen's position that gays are presumed teen-predators who require a
>> separate standard from heterosexuals before they can be allowed membership
>is
>> hardly a compromise position.
>>
Frederick Northrop
homosexual sodomy. So it depends on what Bill means by "homosexuality."
You can't be arrested for just wanting to rob a bank, you have to at least
make an attempt. It seemed pretty clear to me that Bill was refering to
acts of sodomy.
"Ulftonn" <ulf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000814000847...@ng-da1.aol.com...
David Stephens
>
> Mr. Stephen's point is that allowing "known or avowed" gays into Scouting
> without extraordinary safeguards not applicable to heterosexuals will endanger
> youth.
What you so blatantly missed is the connection to all four preconditions
for sexual abuse that the YPP as well as virtually all sexual abuse
programs are based. The sexual attraction is only the first and that is
motive. Some people may have their motive hidden. Is it possible for you
to get past this point and go to the next precondition?
The second precondition is the internal barriers of the potential
abuser. How much does he accept that his attractions to a teenage boy
are acceptable and thus pursuable? Accepting homosexual attractions as
normal for you are a big step in that direction. Teaching that such
attractions are normal is also an influence on others whose motive may
be hidden.
The third precondition are external barriers. This is where two deep
leadership etc. come into play. How about two adults getting together
who have the same motive and openly both justify such attractions as
normal for themselves? Where is the oversight to counter this
rationalization? My swim team had two deep leadership, in fact, they had
more than than that. That leads me to the last precondition and it is
directly effected by the pressure of such a team.
The fourth precondition to be overcome is the defenses of the potential
victim. Where are these defenses when the lesson he gets is that such
relationships are normal. It doesn't take much to convert this to being
normal between the youth and an adult male abuser even if the abuser is
not the openly gay leader teaching that such relationships are good and
rewarding.
So far, Bill, you have only attacked the first precondition of four and
even there, you defenses are weak. You use statistics to make your point
that such a motive should be discounted when the statistics are skewed
by bans such as the BSA has and similar concerns throughout society. The
external barrier I did not mention is lack of opportunity and this has
been the norm in society thus your statistics are only favorable to your
view because of these barriers.
> His sole backing for this is his own personal experience as a child.
Nope. My experience certainly caused my interest in this topic but is
not the sole reason. I have cited my adult observations and as you may
note, the four preconditions upon which virtually all sexual abuse,
youth or adult, programs are based. I have also based my argument on the
very definition of homosexual attractions, that being erotic or romantic
attractions to a person of the same gender. I have also cited statistics
about the gender of sexual abusers and child molesters along with their
choice of victim gender. I have also analyzed the "studies" you side has
quoted and pointed out the serious flaws they had in their conclusions.
I find it funny that you again chose to post a reference to one of these
studies but you post was DEVOID OF THE STUDY ITSELF OR ITS DATA!
> Yet the evidence supports the idea that the BIGGEST threat to youth is from
> adults who at least APPEAR to be heterosexuals, not "known or avowed"
> homosexuals.
Cite you "evidence" and not just some journalist's summary of some
biased study conclusions.
> Which fits in with both the BSA's acceptance of gay adults and youth as
> participants in their wholly-owned Learning for Life subsidiary and their
> claim that their gay ban IS NOT based in the "gay as child molester"
> stereotype.
It has been pointed out to you many times that LFL program policies are
a result of political circumstances and not the desires of the BSA.
The gay as child molester stereotype you mention is the very reason you
statistics are as favorable to your view as they are. Because of this
stereotype, they gay bath house culture has not reached very far outside
of the gay community. I have also noted the JAMA data about the spread
of HIV in US males. It stated that most, not just the majority, is from
sex between males. This is true for males below the age at which they
would have been involved in the original AIDS epidemic in the gay bath
house culture. When you are going to search for truth, one shouldn't be
blinded by religious doctrine. I have also pointed out you religious
affiliation and it rather high percentage of homosexual clergy. Could
this teaching have any influence on your point of view? Note; I have
also cited an article from the same organization that basically blamed
the abuse of choir and alter boys in the Catholic church by adult males
on homosexual attractions of these males. It explained that guilt over
these attractions are what influenced these men to seek celibate
religious positions.
David S.
David Stephens
>
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2000 14:37:13 GMT, David Stephens <cd...@flash.net>
> wrote:
> I assume then, that you
> feel there should be a minimum age for leaders in Exploring.
Yes. The problem is that maturity is even less tied to arbitrary
chronological age that physical characteristics. At some point, we must
defer to the arbitrary legal age for guidance.
> The definition that of a pedophile does not depend on arbitrary age
> difference at all.It depends on the attraction to pre-pubertal
> children.A person who is attracted to a 10 year old who's past puberty
> is not a pedophile ( but is likely to be a felon, and certainly has
> something wrong mentally ), while conversely someone attracted to a 15
> year old who hasn't entered puberty is a pedophile. You may believe
> that a man who molests boys but has adult relationships with women is
> a bisexual,and I may believe he's in his own category, but the stats
> will count him as a hetereosexual
The point I was making was that most boy scouts are post puberty and
thus subject to adult sexual attractions regardless of their emotional
maturity. I also point out that puberty is not something that occurs
instantly but is a process. Some aspects of the process of developing
sexually begin before birth and thus the argument that there is no
sexual orientation aspect to pedophillia is weak.
> >Are you arguing that a relationship between a youth and an adult is just
> >as acceptable or unacceptable as a 40 year old and a 25 year old with
> >little prospect for financial success? I would congratulate both the
> >waitress and the older man for finding a common interest in each other
> >and being willing to think outside the box, that is if neither one is
> >abandoning their vows to someone else. I would throw the adult seeking a
> >similar relationship with a youth in jail.
>
> No, it's not just as acceptable at all. Simply an example of the type
> of power I'm talking about when I said "not necessarily physical"
> Child molesters generally don't physically overpower and abduct
> children.Don't you think my hypothetical 25 year old ( remember, she's
> immature and unsophisticated, and that's important to my example} is
> more likely to defer to the well-educated , wealthy 40 year old than
> vice-versa? That's the kind of power I'm talking about
When you are using maturity, age almost becomes irrelevant. The waitress
could be much more mature that the successful 40 year old adult. I
happen to know a waitress who loves her job because of the people
contact she gets. The restaurant chain she joined many years ago was
generous with stock to its employees, she did very well and is fully
vested. Some people don't like that kind of work and she could have
easily quit. She is unmarried but has a kid. I have not pried into her
past but the father could be some older successful business man who does
not have the maturity to support his child. She could have almost any
position she wanted in the company but she likes the customers and we
like her.
David S.
Gregory Gadow
> Divorce, smoking, drinking, legalized gambling and abortion are legal activities. Isn't
> homosexuality still outlawed in some states? I believe that Georgia has a 20 year
> imprisonment penalty for sodomy on the books. Would you suggest that the BSA include or
> exclude homosexuals on a state by state basis relative to each state's laws? Can the
> BSA include homosexuals without endorsing the illegality of their lifestyle in some
> states?
At one time, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Therefore, the BSA had a duty
to prohibit interracial boys and their parents from participating in scouting?
--
Gregory Gadow
Bush/Gore 2000: Partnership for a Democracy-Free America
Vote for the 3rd Party of your choice
Email: tech...@serv.net
Web: http://www.serv.net/~techbear
Gregory Gadow
> Homosexuality (i.e., being a homosexual) is not outlawed anywhere.
> Certain sexual acts, that can be conducted by either homosexuals or
> heterosexuals are outlawed. I would guess many were put on the books
> and are kept on the books are aimed at homosexuals, but they can be
> applied to everyone.
If only that were true.
Fourteen states (Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Minnesota,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina,
Massachusetts and Michigan) and Puerto Rico have laws which prohibit
consentual "sodomy" among all couples. Five states (Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas,
Arkansas and Missouri) criminalize "sodomy" between same-sex couples but not
mixed-gender couples (ie, the law targets gay people exclusively.) See
http://www.soulforce.org/sodomy.html In most states, the definition of
"sodomy" includes practices that are very common among heterosexual couples.
In all states, heterosexual prosecution for "sodomy" is rare, although such
laws are frequently used as an excuse to discriminate against gay people.
(Witness a call at the Republican National Convention calling for the arrest
and imprisionment of Representative Jim Kolbe. As an out homosexual, he MUST
be a criminal under Arizona law! In Texas, gay people are routinely fired or
denied employment because they are de facto criminals under state law.)
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>"Richard F. Pickett" wrote:
>
>> Divorce, smoking, drinking, legalized gambling and abortion are legal activities. Isn't
>> homosexuality still outlawed in some states? I believe that Georgia has a 20 year
>> imprisonment penalty for sodomy on the books. Would you suggest that the BSA include or
>> exclude homosexuals on a state by state basis relative to each state's laws? Can the
>> BSA include homosexuals without endorsing the illegality of their lifestyle in some
>> states?
>
>At one time, interracial marriage was illegal in many states. Therefore, the BSA had a duty
>to prohibit interracial boys and their parents from participating in scouting?
The issue never came up in Scouts but mixed kids in the 40s were
ostracised by both black and white. It had nothing to do with the law.
We had 2 mixed really attractive girls in my home town and noone would
associate with them. At least I spoke to them - it was not their
fault.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
wrote:
>Bill Nelson wrote:
>
>> Homosexuality (i.e., being a homosexual) is not outlawed anywhere.
>> Certain sexual acts, that can be conducted by either homosexuals or
>> heterosexuals are outlawed. I would guess many were put on the books
>> and are kept on the books are aimed at homosexuals, but they can be
>> applied to everyone.
>
>If only that were true.
>
>Fourteen states (Virginia, Maryland, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Minnesota,
>Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina,
>Massachusetts and Michigan) and Puerto Rico have laws which prohibit
>consentual "sodomy" among all couples. Five states (Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas,
>Arkansas and Missouri) criminalize "sodomy" between same-sex couples but not
>mixed-gender couples (ie, the law targets gay people exclusively.) See
>http://www.soulforce.org/sodomy.html In most states, the definition of
>"sodomy" includes practices that are very common among heterosexual couples.
VERY COMMON!!!! Thank God I'm still naive!
Hugh
Rob Blau
<fredno...@msn.com> wrote:
> Quite so, Rob. Though I must wonder if a Nevada prostitute can be a den
> mother in Nevada.
I just hate it whem people make me think too much.
(I would leave it up to the Charter Organization.)
Rob Blau