posted on December 10, 2000 04:31:55 AM
I like having both boy scouts and girl scouts as opposed to the scouts canada thing. Boys and girls have different interests. As far as homosexuals go I don't have a problem with them I just wish they didn't have to make such a big deal about it it. Every time I turn on the TV some program is having some one "come out". Then there are the parades and demonstrations. People have always had different sexual prefrences and they are entitled to their own lifestyle as far as I'm concerned. I just don't want to know about it. A persons sex life should be private.
posted on December 10, 2000 07:09:54 AM
I am currently an asst. den leader for my son's Boy Scout den & have participated in Scouts for several years...As a private organization, the BSOA do have the rightto exclude members/leaders as per their rules/ideals at the risk of loosing access to public buildings/funding.
Personally, as an individual & a parent I do not agree with their philosophy any more than I agree with the public schools philosophy of generic "holiday" labeling...If we do not teach our children appreciation for diversity how will they grow to create a better society that we have created?....When I left corporate America, some 5 years ago, the "hot" training was in "diversity", millions of dollars being spent to teach adults how to appreciate the value of those that were "different" from them....We COULD do that now with our children simply by having them taught as many different cultures & ideals as possible. It is too often fear of the unknown that causes prejudices. Elimiate the fear by teaching.
In the case of the homosexual scout leaders, they are there to teach scouting, not their sexual preferences any more than I am there to teach them what I may or may not have done with my husband the night before. The number of volunteers for leaders/asst leaders has fallen to a dangerously low level, where boys who wish to join the scouts have to be turned away. And we are doing so because we can't accept leaders who sexual preference varies from what the majority considers the norm?...Shame...
BTW I am a woman who leads her BOY scout den with another woman. Our boys are tall, short, chubby, thin, black, white, jewish & christian...and none of that mattered last week when we all made bird feeders & discussed the different types of birds in our area, or when we pitched pennies into the pie tin as part of our dexterity practice, or when we said our pledge....
posted on December 10, 2000 07:32:06 AMbut if, as you say, the boy scouts have had many problems with pedophiles then can't we assume that a good percentage of them are homosexual?
stusi where in the heck did you come up with such crap? Why would you think that there is a higher percentage of homosexual pedophiles than heterosexual pedophiles? One is not the other.
posted on December 10, 2000 08:22:18 AM
katyd- talk about misquoting-someone made the statement that there was in fact a problem with some pedophiles in the boy scouts. i don't know if that is true or not! i just said that if it was true then obviously there has to be some homosexuality involved. if a male pedophile molests a male child isn't the act both pedophilia and homosexual? i never said there was a higher percentage of homosexual pedophiles! i asked, if you would look at my previous posts, whether or not anyone knew if that was the case. are you saying for a fact that you know it is not so?
[ edited by stusi on Dec 10, 2000 08:23 AM ]
posted on December 10, 2000 09:32:42 AMi just said that if it was true then obviously there has to be some homosexuality involved. if a male pedophile molests a male child isn't the act both pedophilia and homosexual?
NO! There is no "sexuality" in pedophile crimes, anymore than there is "sexuality" to the crime of rape. They are both acts of domination and control, and brutal assault. Do not confuse the pedophiles choice of gender with the choice of gender between to consulting adults. From your other comments and coy, but nontheless "pointed" questions on the first page of this thread, it appears that you are one of those that see homosexuals as having some secret agenda to convert children to their "way of life". I will chalk it up to ignorance, or charitably, naivete. How many homosexuals do YOU know?
posted on December 10, 2000 09:47:19 AM
Regarding Pedophiles:
-Most researchers agree that there are more young girls molested than boys. Official statistics are often in conflict on this ratio. Girls are more likely to be molested by family members or persons close to the family and the crimes are less likely to be reported to police. Boys are more often molested by adults outside the family and there is a higher incidence of official reporting.
-Pedophiles are often drawn to activities or occupations that put them into proximity with young people. Boy Scout leaders are just one of many such positions.
-Sexual assaults by strangers on children are a statistical rarity. The overwhelming majority of molestations are perpetrated by adults the children know and trust.
-It is probably inaccurate to categorize pedopiles as homosexual or heterosexual, although most do have a sexual preference in victims. The primary sexual interest of pedophiles is children. Most do not have an interest in sexual relations with adults.
-Most pedophiles who come to the attention of police are male. I've encountered only two adult females, a schoolteacher and a babysitter, whose crimes were reported.
-Some sociologists hold significantly different views on pedophilia than law enforcement. There are official academic studies, for instance, that reflect the view that pedophilia is not harmful to children.
-There is an organization known as NAMBLA that advocates and supports pedophilia.
Although I am no longer specializing in this area, I have ten years experience in dealing with sexual predators of all sorts.
posted on December 10, 2000 10:08:54 AM
Homosexuality has been around since the beginning of time.
Being homosexual does not mean you're a pedophile.
What someone does in the privacy of their bedroom is not my business.
We have all had homosexual teachers, troop leaders, school nurses - even religious leaders like our Pastors and priests. We just didn't know it because it was not something that was broadcast to everyone as it is today. In some circles today it is chic to be gay and young people today are much more open about their sexuality and experimentation.
I don't care what someone's sexuality is as long as it does not interfere with the job they are doing. It is their business.
I think a lot of homosexuals felt that coming out would eventually bring tolerance and understanding and I feel they were deceiving themselves, one only need to look at race relations in this country to know that tolerance and acceptance and understanding is not the status quo with most Americans. Hell, look at the election and these boards - now we have Republican/Democrat wars and Pro life/Pro choice wars.
Maybe someday more of us will learn to embrace all people regardless of race, religion, sexual preference or political affiliation. (I do not think that pedophiles, murderers and rapists have any place in society and should be kept separate).
I would be far more concerned with a troop leaders (nurse, teacher whatever) content of character than his/her sexual preference.
I think that the idea that homosexuals will force their sexual preference on our children is a myth dreamed up by the religious right.
I don't think that homosexuals have an agenda to indoctrinate our children.
I agree with december3 that a person's sex life should be private. I think each of us would do well if we kept it that way. I really don't need or want to know what goes on in anyone's bedroom or who is taking part in what.
I would also like to say that I applaud rancher24 for her post and her insight.
posted on December 10, 2000 10:15:47 AM
I want to add that I think it is very important to keep an open dialogue with our children and teach them about appropriate and inappropriate behavior starting at a young age. I think this, more than anything, will protect them from molestation.
Many parents today do not realize how important it is to keep the dialogue open and regular with our children throughout their childhood.
posted on December 10, 2000 11:02:50 AM
katyd- although i am sure you have already read what xardon said, read it again! so far as the secret agenda issue-i don't know if it is a secret that people in general tend to want(wish) most other people to be like them. yes there are many who cherish diversity, but most people are selfish in their interests or lifestyles. are gay pride parades not intended to promote that lifestyle? how aggressive people are in seeking to "convert" others varies , but from religion to politics to homosexuality you can not deny the public, and less public preaching in these areas. for the record, my wife has two gay male friends that i have met and i have no problem with them. they are funny and intelligent but i would rather hang out with my straight friends. one quick story- i met a gay female couple years ago when i was in the car business. i overheard them telling their teenage daughters(12-15?) that they expected them to also be a couple just like them. something about this bothers me to this day.
posted on December 10, 2000 11:17:21 AMi met a gay female couple years ago when i was in the car business. i overheard them telling their teenage daughters(12-15?) that they expected them to also be a couple just like them
Stusi, perhaps you heard it out of context, like I did earlier with a different statement made by someone else? I would like to think so. Overhearing something half-a$$ed and then putting a plot to it in the wrong way is possible.
posted on December 10, 2000 11:25:13 AM
From an April 2000 press release from the US Dept. of Health and Human Services:
"Parents continue to be the main perpetrators of child maltreatment. More than 80 percent of all victims were maltreated by one or both parents. The most common pattern of maltreatment (45 percent) was a child victimized by a female parent with no other perpetrators. Victims of physical and sexual abuse, compared to victims of neglect and medical neglect, were more likely to be maltreated by a male parent acting alone.
"More than half of all victims (54 percent) suffered neglect, while almost a quarter (23 percent) suffered physical abuse. Nearly 12 percent of the victims were sexually abused. The number of child fatalities caused by maltreatment remained unchanged at about 1,100."
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/april00.htm
A 1998 table with a state-by-state breakdown of abuse by pepetrator by relationship to the child shows that, of 629,900 abuse cases that year (including sexual abuse), 503,379 were perpetrated by parents, and 66,154 by "other relatives," which (if my math is right) puts the chances of abuse by a family member over 90%, compared to an outsider.
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/news/stats/perps.htm
Who cares about the troop leaders' orientation--the Scouts need their lease back so the kids have somewhere safe to go!
posted on December 10, 2000 11:27:18 AM
frannys- it was not heard or quoted half-a**ed. i heard it clearly from about two feet away. they actually went into more detail then i gave in my previous post talking about buying cars, bank accounts, sharing household responsibilities etc. how do you feel about this kind of thing?
I don't see any real conflict between KatyD's comments and my post re: pedophilia.
While I do agree with her regarding the characterization of sexual assault as a crime of power and domination, that is more of an "accepted belief" than it is a fact. Consent of the child is very often present in reported pedophilia cases. Such consent, however, is deemed to be invalid. All states have laws governing the age of consent. It is possible for a person 18 years old to be prosecuted for child sexual assault of a victim 16 years old even though consent was present. Raw statistics on the issue can be very misleading.
-spelling
[ edited by xardon on Dec 10, 2000 11:35 AM ]
posted on December 10, 2000 11:59:47 AM
a point of clarification please as i am certainly no expert in this area. if a pedophile continuously seeks to "assault" children of only the same sex as they are, is there not a homosexual link? and what % of them do this? if it is any large % then the boy scout issue becomes more clear, at least for me.
There is, in a semantic sense, a link. To characterize homosexual pedophiles as simply homosexual is not accurate. They do not typically engage in adult homosexual relations. Their attraction to children is not motivated by homosexuality.
I believe homosexuals and heterosexuals both find pedophilia to be a repugnant crime.
I don't believe there are any statistics that would reveal what you appear to be seeking.
posted on December 10, 2000 12:36:30 PM
thanks for the clarification, xardon. it is another of those issues that evokes strong feelings and even here in the ft. lauderdale area, which has a large gay population, there are buildings, schools etc., that are not allowing scout meetings to get back to frannys' original post.
posted on December 10, 2000 12:42:59 PM
the boy scouts can be as discriminatory as they want with their own money but they better not be doing it on my dime. that includes meeting at schools and other public places that my tax dollars support.
For 5 years I had a lesbian youth group leader at my church and her partner came along when we went on campouts. So what? I turned out straight anyways. My close friend grew up in a very straightlaced religious Midwestern family. So what? He turned out to be gay anyways.
If you want to combat child molestation, then ban remarriage. Stepfathers (or live in boyfriends) commit a huge percentage of the molestation that happens to children of both sexes. Of the several people I know who were molested or abused as children, all but one were victims of their mom's boyfriend or new husband.
posted on December 10, 2000 12:59:34 PM
Stusi asked: how do you feel about this kind of thing?
You would have to clarify more what "this thing" is for me to answer. Not being there, and not knowing the conversation, it would be presumptious of me to respond. In a nutshell, I have no problem with gay teachers, scout leaders, etc, being around my children (child). Again, I do not believe it "rubs off". If said gay people are evil, degenerate, mean and nasty, then yes, I would have a problem with it. As I would with any human being in close proximity of children. Just because they have a life style that is different than mine, and either choose to not be "in a closet" about it, does not warrant me shuddering or calling out the militia or marching with bigots with no motive but to have hate for something THEY dont condone. I dont know what you heard, or the context of what it was. Therefore, I cannot answer that particular question, if thats what you are refering to.
Just because they have a life style that is different than mine, and either choose to not be "in a closet" about it, does not warrant me shuddering or calling out the militia or marching with bigots with no motive but to have hate for something THEY dont condone.
Just because someone thinks that homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean they engage in these activities either. I can believe something is wrong without hating a person that does it. I belive lots of things are wrong lying, stealing, being rude, abortion etc etc but I don't hate people who do these things. Depending on how much their choices to engage in these activities affects me I may choose to not associate with them. For instance if someone is a thief and everytime they come to my house they steal somthing I may choose not to be friends with them anymore but that doesn't equate to hate.
I don't believe I have ever called out the militia on anyone or anything. There is only one thing is this world that would make me hate anyone and that is child molestation. Now that, if it were within my power, I would call out the militia on.
There is alot of talk on these boards for acceptance of other people's lifestyles or beliefs. Shouldn't that go both ways? What does acceptance mean? Is it saying that everything is right? Is it not beating up someone who behaves differently than you do? Is it refraining from hate speech? What is it?
Oddish~ The Odd One
posted on December 10, 2000 02:32:46 PM
I have to admit that I have a real problem with "Love the sinner, hate the sin" when applied to homosexuals. I don't think that they are sinning. I don't think they deserve to be lumped in with liars, thieves and murderers.
I don't see that they have a choice, just like being left handed. AS I read somewhere once, "Who would choose a lifestyle which leads to risk of violence, rejection, prejudice and second class-citizenry?"
You can pray at them. They can fake being hetero, try and maintain "normal" marriages as best they can. Hide what they feel. But just like a leftie forced into being a rightie, it's not going to work.
When I hear the (Christians, Southern Baptists, Moral Majority, fill-in-the-blank) doing their anti-gay spiels, all I hear is intolerance, their own kind of hate-speech, using the bible as justification, and I am repulsed by it.
If a gay man gets beaten to death and tied to a fencepost because of skinhead hate-speech, what significant difference is there when the hate-speech is performed by Pastor Brown? Just because he didn't actually say "stone them"?
posted on December 10, 2000 02:46:44 PM
The gay man beaten to death and left on a fence did not die due to hate speech but rather hate that went way beyond speech by hateful people.
Pastor Brown saying that homosexuality is wrong is not hate speech. If I am missing the boat on this I would be interested in how I am. I see a vast difference between saying someting is wrong or a sin and advocating any kind of violence or cruelty to a person.
posted on December 10, 2000 03:27:05 PM
Figure of speech, Oddish. "Hate", as in what I see on the local news about gay bashers who hurt them because they are gay. Ranting and fist shaking at them because they are gay and in a leadership role. You are exception to the rule, as are many who dont like what it represents, but also dont "hate". That word represents many feelings, yes? "Hate" asparagus. "Hate" loud music. "Hate" gay people. "Hate" the flu. Depends on what one does with that "hate" and what it represents to them.
posted on December 10, 2000 03:32:03 PM"Pastor Brown saying that homosexuality is wrong is not hate speech".
If Pastor Brown is saying this, then is he not sitting in judgement? And it IS hate speech, if he is wagging his finger, preaching hellfire and brimstone to those who ARE homosexual. Never mind they tithe to the church, pay their taxes, are kind to animals, love their neighbors, bother no one and are decent human beings, but are considered "wrong" because of HIS beliefs and PREACHES it to the masses that come to hear HIS leadership. Right?
posted on December 10, 2000 03:33:29 PM
It all starts with "just talk". They preach it to the faithful. They get TV time and preach it to the masses. One branch calls them sinners. One branch calls them an abomination (sp?). One branch calls them perverts and fornicators. And so it goes. Sure, branch number one says "We just think they're sinners, and wrong, we didn't ask for them to be put to death". But you know what? They preach intolerance. They all helped that poor young man get killed. And some of them even showed up at the funeral. With signs.
Disgusting.
That's my opinion. Its valuable only to me.
I hate getting into these threads, that's why I avoided the abortion thread. It pushes my buttons, and I feel like I have to speak up. And up. And up. I've got no axe to grind. I know I'm not going to change anybody. It's an exercise in futilty. But sometimes I just have to speak my piece, even in the middle of nowhere, here in the ether of auctionwatch. I am fully aware that "Oddish" is not guilty of the crime I cited, and was probably as aghast as I to see the pictures. I can't forget them.
I think that we as a people are hurting other people, and I want us to stop.
I'm taking myself out of this thread, all I'm doing is picking a fight with a total stranger, where no one is going to win, and nothing is going to be accomplished.
That would be going on the assumption that the pastor is wrong. But what if..just for a moment what if he is right? Someone must be right. No one will really know until you die and see what happens. If I'm wrong then I'll have to figure out what to do about it then. If the Pastor is right then wouldn't it be a good thing that he warned people before it's too late?
I still don't think stating something is wrong..even preaching to anyone who will listen that something is wrong is akin to hate speech. That would mean no one could ever say anything was wrong otherwise they would be guilty of hate speech to anyone who happens to do that particular thing.
Most pastors will also preach that sex outside of marriage is a sin. I don't think that means hate anyone who does it or feel free to beat them to death or call them names or hurt them in any other way. Two wrongs don't make a right. I find it irritating for people to froggy jump from thinking something is wrong to advocating violence or cruelty against another human being.
posted on December 10, 2000 04:18:52 PM
I wanted to make a few additional points in this thread:
With regard to child abuse, in the BSOA Wolf book (the handbook for the CHILDREN) the beginning of the book is 23 pages entitled "How to Protect Your Children from Child Abuse: A Parent's Guide"...Information covered included physical/verbal/sexual abuse by family members & outsiders (even a chapter on "On-Line Safety)...It includes a series of "What if" scenarios that parents can address with their children (I don't think the BSOA would mind if you taught your daughters using the book!)....At the first meeting, leaders are taught to encourage the parents of each child to review this information with their child/children....A sign of the times, perhaps, but certainly a great starting point for those parents who have not or did not know how to cover this type of information with their children....Agree with nobsI think it is very important to keep an open dialogue with our children and teach them about appropriate and inappropriate behavior starting at a young age. I think this, more than anything, will protect them from molestation.
i heard it clearly from about two feet away. they actually went into more detail then i gave in my previous post talking about buying cars, bank accounts, sharing household responsibilities etc. how do you feel about this kind of thing? I feel that these were two people, committed to a relationship (they had children) who appeared to share the responsibilites of a household....They were merely setting an example of how a "couple" should work together for their family....It matters not if they were two women, two men, or man/woman couple, the basic concepts remain the same....&...are something that their children could use to guide them in their lives...whether they were homosexuals or heterosexuals...
Life is complicated enough.....Just live & let live....
posted on December 10, 2000 04:56:47 PM
rancher- these kids were repeatedly told to do those admirable things as a couple "just like us". if they were older and already had a chance to come to terms with their sexuality i wouldn't have a big problem with it. i feel that they were overwhelmed by seeing their parents in this relationship and verbally being persuaded as well. this was an unusual case where two lesbian women each had a child. franny- how did hate get into this chat?
posted on December 10, 2000 05:05:21 PM
Stusi, I get the feeling you are picking my posts apart for some reason. Hate IS bigotry. Hate IS hearing things and putting a topic on it to what one THINKS is being said without knowing the full facts. This thread is about HATE, which equals fear. Im not going to try to make you understand each sentence I say, because I think you do, but have some ulterior motive to picking what Im saying to what you WANT to hear but isnt necessarily so.
Victoria, your insight is appreciated by me, anyway. So far, you and rancher and many others have been right on. Thank you.
Oddish, ya know I loves ya. But what if your preacher ISNT right? And what if he is? Why is he, or any religious organization, judging to what they THINK is truth? Love thy neighbor. Judge not...you know the rest. I dont go to church. I have no particular faith. Each one claims theirs is the "true" faith and all could be wrong for all we know. Like you said, we wont know til we are dead, if even then.
posted on December 10, 2000 05:16:08 PM
We all judge and preach what we think is right. You can't help it unless you simply don't speak at all and even then the way you lived your life would be telling would it not? Yes some are more vocal than others, that's true, but we all do it.
My saying it is wrong is a judgement.
You're saying it's not wrong is also a judgement. Unless you know something for an absolute fact it's a judgement call on what you believe to be true.
As to your original question. I support the boy scouts on this. They are a private organization and should be free to set their own standards. I would feel this way even if there were an organization who excluded anyone who was religious. Private organization = they can exclude or include anyone they want to.
As for supporting them or kicking them out of the building. Whoever owned the building it is their choice. Their building, their money, their choice.
