Boy Scouts opt for 1/2 Pregnant

[Jim_Higgins]

BSA, with an eye to $$$, try to come down on both sides of the fence at
the same time. So much for being morally straight and upright. Another
American institution down the road to decay.

Boy Scouts Vote to End Ban on Gay Scouts; Gay Adults Still Barred From
Leadership Roles
http://tinyurl.com/nnt6wye

--
"Guarded by a tired cohort of Roman Heavy Infantry"

[Josh]

On 5/23/2013 6:27 PM, Jim_Higgins wrote:
> BSA, with an eye to $$$, try to come down on both sides of the fence at
> the same time. So much for being morally straight and upright. Another
> American institution down the road to decay.
>
> Boy Scouts Vote to End Ban on Gay Scouts; Gay Adults Still Barred From
> Leadership Roles
> http://tinyurl.com/nnt6wye

That decision undermines the legal rationale for keeping gay scout
leaders out.

In the state of New Jersey, a gay scout leader sued when he was kicked
out claiming the Scouts violated the state anti-discrimination statute.
He eventually lost at the Supreme Court which ruled such
discrimination was constitutionally protected Speech because the ban was
an "expressive association" - which is a fancy way of saying the Scouts
message (Speech) was communicated by its membership rules.

But if gay scouts are permitted, then how can the Scouts still have a
message against homosexuality? And if they no longer have that message,
then they can't be exempt from New Jersey's statute. Thus, they will
need to admit gay scout leaders too.

[Jim_Higgins]

Precisely the point. The BSA decision to go 1/2 pregnant sowed the seed
that will come to fruition in homosexual leaders. As I said-so much for

being morally straight and upright.

[El Castor]

Prior to 1994 the Boy Scouts had more than 2,000 molestation cases.
Hmmm. Were those scouts molested by women? Gosh, no. It was members of
the male gender. Men molesting boys? Homosexual men? By definition,
homosexual men. So what is to be done? Not allowing homosexual men to
escort young boys into the dark piney woods might be a good place to
start. Wouldn't you agree?

[Josh]

Firstly, you are making a policy argument, not a constitutional one. I
disagree with you on the policy because the molesters largely don't self
identify as being gay. That is, being out of the closet is a good
predictor of being an upstanding citizen. Also, openly gay scout
leaders are good role models for openly gay scouts.

Secondly, you already lost that argument in New Jersey where the
anti-discrimination statutes say the Scouts must accept gay leaders (yet
another case of gay "incessant whining" prevailing, Jeff? - or are you
able to face the reality of changing public opinion). Given that fact,
can you understand why the Scouts' decision to accept gay scouts
undermines their *constitutional* argument against rejecting gay leaders?

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:32:03 AM UTC-7, El Castor wrote:
> Prior to 1994 the Boy Scouts had more than 2,000 molestation cases.
> Hmmm. Were those scouts molested by women? Gosh, no. It was members of
> the male gender. Men molesting boys? Homosexual men? By definition,
> homosexual men.

Not so fast.

from http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Pedophilia and child molestation are used in different ways, even by professionals. Pedophilia usually refers to an adult psychological disorder characterized by a preference for prepubescent children as sexual partners; this preference may or may not be acted upon. The term hebephilia is sometimes used to describe adult sexual attractions to adolescents or children who have reached puberty.

Whereas pedophilia and hebephilia refer to psychological propensities, child molestation and child sexual abuse are used to describe actual sexual contact between an adult and someone who has not reached the legal age of consent. In this context, the latter individual is referred to as a child, even though he or she may be a teenager.

Although the terms are not always applied consistently, it is useful to distinguish between pedophiles/hebephiles and child molesters/abusers. Pedophilia and hebephilia are diagnostic labels that refer to psychological attractions. Not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually molest children; an adult can be attracted to children or adolescents without ever actually engaging in sexual contact with them.

Child molestation and child sexual abuse refer to actions, and don't imply a particular psychological makeup or motive on the part of the perpetrator. Not all incidents of child sexual abuse are perpetrated by pedophiles or hebephiles; in some cases, the perpetrator has other motives for his or her actions and does not manifest an ongoing pattern of sexual attraction to children.

Thus, not all child sexual abuse is perpetrated by pedophiles (or hebephiles) and not all pedophiles and hebephiles actually commit abuse. Consequently, it is important to use terminology carefully.

Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men2 is often referred to as "homosexual molestation." The adjective "homosexual" (or "heterosexual" when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim's gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

To avoid this confusion, it is preferable to refer to men's sexual abuse of boys with the more accurate label of male-male molestation. Similarly, it is preferable to refer to men's abuse of girls as male-female molestation. These labels are more accurate because they describe the sex of the individuals involved but don't implicitly convey unwarranted assumptions about the perpetrator's sexual orientation.

Typologies of Offenders

The distinction between a victim's gender and a perpetrator's sexual orientation is important because many child molesters don't really have an adult sexual orientation. They have never developed the capacity for mature sexual relationships with other adults, either men or women. Instead, their sexual attractions focus on children – boys, girls, or children of both sexes.

[forbi...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 4:49:29 AM UTC-7, Gary wrote:

> About 60 years ago, I took the Boy Scout oath. I'm wondering how
>
> little gay boys can truthfully take this oath. Especially the two
>
> words:
>
>
>
> "On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty, to God and my country,
>
> to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, and to keep
>
> myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

I was in boy scouts in the '60s. We had a couple of gay members in
our troop. We were sponsored by the Methodist church in our mid-west
town. I was a member of the church. I never knew there was a ban
against gays and I never thought they were a problem.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=strait
gives the coinage related to hetrosexuality to be from 1941 but
the boy scouts predate that. "morally straight" doesn't reference
hetrosexuality but rather the strength of one's moral convictions.
Each of us are human. We have failings. Many children engage in
sexual contact with each other. Would you have us hetrosexuals
kicked out of boy scouts should we engage in premarital sex or
sexual contact? Why then would you hold homosexuals who have
not engaged in sex to a higher standard?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On May 24, 7:49 am, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:10:17 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> About 60 years ago,  I took the Boy Scout oath.  I'm wondering how
> little gay boys can truthfully take this oath.    Especially the  two
> words:
>
> "On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty, to God and my country,
> to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, and to keep
> myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

I don't see any problem. Gay people are morally straight.

[rumpelstiltskin]

>On 5/23/2013 6:27 PM, Jim_Higgins wrote:
>> BSA, with an eye to $$$, try to come down on both sides of the fence at
>> the same time. So much for being morally straight and upright. Another
>> American institution down the road to decay.

Jim Higgins sure isn't my idea of "morally straight
and upright". "Bigoted and Uncharitable" is decidedly
not "Straight and Upright" IMV. I recognize that many
people, particularly and vividly people in religious sects,
feel in effect that those are the same thing. That's
"natural" (albeit "evil", IMV), because without such an
"us" versus "them" mentality, the sect would have no
reason for being, since the members would not have the
human comfort of "belonging" that the sect provides.




Faces along the bar
Cling to their average day:
The lights must never go out,
The music must always play,
All the conventions conspire
To make this fort assume
The furniture of home;
Lest we should see where we are,
Lost in a haunted wood,
Children afraid of the night
Who have never been happy or good.

-- Auden, from "September 1, 1939"
http://www.poemdujour.com/Sept1.1939.html

[rumpelstiltskin]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:10:17 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

Jeff is accusing other people of incessant whining?

That's funny!

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On May 24, 12:12 pm, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth

> No they aren't.     Even they themselves describe people unlike them
> as being "straight".      So that means they are non-straight or .....
> odd.  Peculiar.

"Straight" in morally straight means upstanding and of good character.
"Straight" in sexuality means attracted to someone of the opposite
sex.

That's two entirely different uses of the word straight. Gays are
morally straight, just not sexually straight.

[Josh Rosenbluth]

On May 24, 1:18 pm, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013 09:39:14 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On May 24, 12:12 pm, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 06:55:58 -0700 (PDT), Josh Rosenbluth
>
> >> <jrosenbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >On May 24, 7:49 am, Gary <n...@none.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:10:17 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> About 60 years ago, I took the Boy Scout oath. I'm wondering how
> >> >> little gay boys can truthfully take this oath. Especially the two
> >> >> words:
>
> >> >> "On my honor, I will do my best, to do my duty, to God and my country,
> >> >> to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, and to keep
> >> >> myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."
>
> >> >I don't see any problem. Gay people are morally straight.
>
> >> No they aren't. Even they themselves describe people unlike them
> >> as being "straight". So that means they are non-straight or .....
> >> odd. Peculiar.
>
> >"Straight" in morally straight means upstanding and of good character.
> >"Straight" in sexuality means attracted to someone of the opposite
> >sex.
>

> Which is to say ...... it means the same thing.

I wasn't aware you had problems with the basic English concept of a
homonym. I guess you believe that the word "fluke" means the same
thing when it refers to a type of fish versus a stroke of luck?

[El Castor]

On Fri, 24 May 2013 07:10:17 -0400, Josh <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Changing public opinion"? It's now OK for adult men to molest 12 year
old boys? Not in my book. I expect the BSA and the Catholic Church to
take every reasonable step to weed out Gay men in their ranks, and
when caught, the molesters should spend many years behind bars. Are
you Gay by any chance?

[Josh Rosenbluth]

No. I'm sure your reading comprehension is better than that.

[El Castor]

Simply put, adult males who molest boys are homosexuals -- period.