Boy Scouts Introduce Merit Badge For Not Pirating

[~Di]

I agree. The BSA should not be publicly-funded, period. No private group should be funded by taxpayers, but I find it particularly onerous when my money goes to groups that discriminate in membership or push a specific political or religious agenda.

 

This is simple logic, in my opinion. I never cease to be amazed how many people don't agree.

[thepixiesrock]

What's funny is when someone jumps into the argument and just says what has already been said before.

[thepixiesrock]

I mean, good God.  Y'all are aware, are you not, that the vast majority of real sexual predators and pedophiles are NOT homosexual?  So if statistics count (rather than plain old bigotry), then non-homosexuals are the ones who should be banned from any profession that deals with children.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where is this statistic found?

[Dark Moth]

Actually, it does change it.  I don't want "private companies" that are pretty much publicly funded, doing whatever they want with tax payer dollars.  And I certainly don't want them using taxpayer money to promote intolerance.  I honestly don't know how you're okay with this, unless you yourself are intolerant of homosexuals, because no matter how much you spout off that they are a "private company," they receive more public funds than many public companies do.

Alright, fine. I'm in agreement with you there. A private organization should not get so much public funding and expect to do whatever they want.

 

The instant you A-OK'd their decision to not allow them to do so you certainly did imply that. Especially when considering that sexual abuse upon little boys is NOT restricted to homosexual men (in other words, yes, heterosexual men have committed sexual abuse on little boys as well...not just homosexual men).

I did not imply that by agreeing with their decision. Yeah, I'm well aware that sexual abuse is not restricted to homosexual men (prison cells, anyone?) but you can't ignore the fact that someone would be at greater risk being abused by a homosexual predator than a heterosexual predator if they were of the same sex. And as I already said, there have been cases of abuse like this already. What do you propose they do about that? I'm curious.

 

 

Start citing your sources bub.  Besides, nurture != choice.  It's not all biological, but there is zero evidence that hanging around gay people makes you gay.

Nurture is something that is brought about by environmental influence. If it's not all biological, then you've already admitted that there are environmental factors involved, which already negates your claim that hanging around gay people can't make you gay. It's a commonly know fact in biology and sociology that group behavior can influence individual behavior. So homosexuality is no exception.

 

That's because you've been woefully misinformed.  Probably from church related sources.  As I just said, there is no evidence that hanging around gay people makes you gay.  (And even if it did.....why is that necessarily a bad thing?)

'Woefully misinformed'. That's a laugh. How can I be misinformed if there are actual documented cases of people switching their sexual preferences? You seem to be the one misinformed, if you think that hanging around gay people can't influence a person. It can. That doesn't mean it always will happen, but it can.

 

I see no logic or reasoning.  I see you towing the company line of your religion.  It's the same type of logic and reasoning that says don't leave your children alone with a Catholic Priest.

I've already made my reasoning clear on this. You'll notice I also not once mentioned any religious reason for my views on this matter. Not once did I say that it's wrong because 'the Bible says so'. Your example of the Catholic priest doesn't hold weight here, either. Because a Catholic Priest first of all is someone who follows a belief that first of all does not encourage homosexuality and especially not pedophilia. A homosexual however is a different matter, because this is someone who has a set sexual preference whether it's hereditary or environmentaly influenced. My reasoning in no way supports what you just said.

 

And at this point, I would greatly appreciate it if you never called anyone a hypocrite again.  A "precautionary measure?"  Precautionary against WHAT?  You're still buying into the church's dogma that one, homosexuality is bad, and two, that homosexuality is contagious.  You say you don't judge a person's character by their sexual preference, yet A-OK the decision of a company heavily funded by taxpayers (i.e. not as private of a corporations as say, every other private corporation out there) to ban people specifically because they are homosexual.  And no, they aren't banned because they as a "precaution," they're banned because the Boy Scouts of America are a right-wing conservative group, that highly values the church (in fact, it is heavily, heavily supported by the Mormon Church).  Because they exercise the exact same judgement on athiests.  No Athiest troop masters.  No athiest boy scouts.

 

Then you say you judge people based on their actions, when the actions of the Boy Scouts of America is to discriminate based on religious, racist (yup, many of them are racist too), and sexual orientation.

 

Unfortunately, it's a recent phenomenon.  When the Mormon Church started to really get involved, they added to the Scout Oath that people must have a duty to God, and morally straight.  It's odd that allowing homosexuals and athiests wasn't a problem before the Mormon Church hijacked the organization, and utilized it's popularity and pervaisiveness to spread its intolerance.  But I suppose banning people because they are athiests is just as precautionary as banning them because they are homosexuals. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe if I were actually being a hypocrite, you'd be right, but I'm not. You see, if I were a bigot, that would mean I would be judging homosexuals as people just on their sexual preference. But I'm not. I've already made that point abundantly clear. You seem to be ignoring many of the things I said in response to meta's post. If I think homosexuality is wrong, so what? You yourself most likely have defined for yourself what kind of behavior you consider wrong, haven't you? I can think homosexuality is wrong yet still think a homosexual can be a good person, whether you think so or not. Now I want to ask you a question. Why do you think homosexuality is right? Also, what are your views on the organizations I already mentioned before - those that discriminate already based on biology or belief? Answer me that.

 

Also, you're now ascribing motives to the Boy Scouts based on what you think. You and I seem to think they are doing what they do for different reasons. Alright, fine. But I think it's a stretch for you to say they ban them simply because they are right-wing and religous. They have more reasons than that, as I've already stated and made clear. You're also now making the mistake of generalizing them by saying that many are racist. You don't know that, so don't say that. Heck, you don't even live in the U.S.!

 

I was never affiliated with the boy scouts, so I can't speak for their organization. But to clarify, I think you're right that if they recieve so much public funding, then they should not be able to anything they want with taxpayer dollars. You and I seem to be looking at this each as a different issue. So at this point, they should probably become more inclusive if they want to continue operating. If they were more private, then it'd be a different matter.

Edited October 24, 2006 by Dark Moth

[LoneWolf16]

Lonewolf, none of us needs your "OK" anymore than anyone else, you really ought to worry about if it was some christian fundie who'd be preaching your boy into some sort of bible maniac.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I didn't think so...and, to be honest, I really don't care. The entire issue means exactly **** to me.

 

Personally, I don't care. Just trying to rationalize what the BS of America was doing, and I failed miserably.

 

I could give less of a damn what any of you do on your own time, feel free, run, frolick...just dont molest/harm kids, and don't murder someone, or I'll personally string ya up by your intestines. (w00t)

[Skynet]

<snip>

Di, I know you are frustrated by some of the things said in this thread, and I respect your patience and self-control. Thanks.

 

 

I doubt it will change anything as far as if you think I'm a bigot or not, but I'd like to clarify my point about gay men and the BSA.

 

For young elementary aged children, I don't see homosexuals as any more dangerous than heterosexuals. There are some rotten apples out there, sure, but

that is the case with both sides of the fence.

 

It's when they get a bit older that things get a little different. Boy scouts range in age from 12 to 17, right in their teenage years. During this time their physical features change to reflect those of a grown adult, they become aware of their sexual desires, and are in turn desired.

 

Those who go after kids in this age range, both girls and boys, have a different mindset than those who abuse eight-year-olds. Though there are probably still pedophiliac tendencies, they are more attracted to the adult features. Sometimes they even target them not because of pedophiliac urges, but because they know they are naive and can be taken advantage of. At this age, the gender is a more dominant drive than pedophiliac tendencies.

 

This is why I feel people should think twice before sending a homosexual man out with boys on a boy scout campout.

 

This is why I feel people should think twice before sending a heterosexual man out with girls on a girl scout campout.

 

My feelings are the exact same on both of these situations. Not an ounce of difference.

 

Of course, many of you will ignore the fact that I am simply trying to balance concern with fair judgment, that I have treated those of both sexual preferences equally in my assumptions. You will ignore the fact that there has been no aggression in my posts, that I have never said anything remotely close to calling homosexuals mutants or less than human.

 

But hey, I tried.

[Pidesco]

You're silly. There's always the risk something will happen, but unless you consider the option of forbidding your kids from leaving the house unaccompanied till they're 18, there's no way for you, as a parent, not to take that risk (which is tiny, by the way).

[Skynet]

You're silly. There's always the risk something will happen, but unless you consider the option of forbidding your kids from leaving the house unaccompanied till they're 18, there's no way for you, as a parent, not to take that risk (which is tiny, by the way).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I realize we can't always live in fear. I'm not as terrified of something happening as you may think; it just seems that way since my last few posts have been all about that topic.

 

Also, I'm not saying a gay guy should never be with boys, and a straight guy should never be with girls. I'm just emphasizing the fact that it's a good idea to send others along and be sure they're responsible.

[Pidesco]

Wouldn't it be true, by that rationale, that a group of grown women should never be alone with an heterosexual man? I mean, there's not a whole lot of difference physically, between a 17 years old girl and a 25 years old woman.

[~Di]

...This is why I feel people should think twice before sending a homosexual man out with boys on a boy scout campout.

 

This is why I feel people should think twice before sending a heterosexual man out with girls on a girl scout campout.

 

My feelings are the exact same on both of these situations.  Not an ounce of difference.

 

Of course, many of you will ignore the fact that I am simply trying to balance concern with fair judgment, that I have treated those of both sexual preferences equally in my assumptions.  You will ignore the fact that there has been no aggression in my posts, that I have never said anything remotely close to calling homosexuals mutants or less than human.

 

But hey, I tried.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I understand what you are saying, and did not consider your posts to be aggressive or particularly hateful. However, what you are effectively saying in the post above is that adolescents should never be alone with adults who are attracted to their particular gender. Think about that. Instead of raising our children so that by the time they reach puberty they understand those urges, and the right way to deal with them... along with the wrong way to deal with them.. we instead try to lock our girls away from heterosexual men and lesbian women, and lock our boys away from heterosexual women and gay men. Ahem. That sure leaves out a lot of potential life, including the classroom, sleepovers with friends, gender integrated campouts of any type whatsoever, and frankly even walking down a public street.

 

Seriously, most sexual predations (both 'consentual' and non-consentual) do not take place on overnight campouts. They take place in everyday places, like apartments, the kids' room when parents are out, in vehicles and yes, in the classroom. Segregating homosexual men and women for particular concern is, in my opinion, discriminatory. I simply urge you, and others, to delve a little deeper in determining exactly why a homosexual scout leader or sport coach (or a lesbian leader for female scouts and sports) would be so frightening to people who don't bat an eye about a heterosexual male coaching a female team, or a heterosexual female being a scout leader (yes, they most certainly are both boy and girl scout leaders... overnight campouts and all!)

 

Just think about it. That's all I ask.

[Skynet]

Well, atleast I'm being called overdefensive rather than a bigot.

 

@ Di- I know there is a balance between caution and just living, and I know I exaggerated the former in my post considerably. I was just trying to get the point across. Also, I was specifically sticking with the campout situation since that is where this mess started.

 

Wouldn't it be true, by that rationale, that a group of grown women should never be alone with an heterosexual man? I mean, there's not a whole lot of difference physically, between a 17 years old girl and a 25 years old woman.

I over exaggerated; I know. Although, by age 25, they should have enough sense that they can look out for themselves.

[Colrom]

Start citing your sources bub.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It would be refreshing to see you follow your own instructions to others more often - with or without the accompanying disrespectful language. :D

[Colrom]

Good for you Di!

 

You have been quite eloquent about this topic!

 

And right on!

 

I think there is merit to affirming that you intend to be morally straight. It is unfortunate that the Boy Scouts has embraced extremist views about what is required to be morally straight.

 

It certainly is not extremist to suggest that stealing music is wrong. But a merit badge? I don't see it.

[Sand]

Even if they get public dollars, they are still a private organization.  If you have a problem with them getting public money, fine.  But that doesn't change it.

 

Yes, they are a private organization and as a private organization they can do what they want. I am not arguing that. However if they want public funding then they need to adhere to proper equality for all. Otherwise they should not recieve any whatsoever.

 

Yes, I do hate that.  But you'll notice I never said or implied that all homosexuals are potential pedophiles.  I'm well aware that the vast majority of them are people who prefer their own age group.  But there are those out there who do do these sorts of things.  It's happened before, homosexuals abusing boys through Boy Scouts or other organizations.  There have been numerous cases of homosexuals joining boy scouts or becoming Catholic priests in order to prey on young boys.

 

So that makes it okay to blame and discriminate all homosexuals? I don't think so.

 

No, that does not mean homosexuals are also pedophiles.  But this is a very serious issue, and the Boy Scouts prefer to not have to take that risk, or at least minimize it as much as possible.  So if they choose to do what they do, then that's their decision.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed, but they shouldn't start whining about not getting public funding or using public facilities for free.

[Calax]

I think Pedophile and Gay Male are somewhat linked as Rape is with Male...

 

ie:

It is, to the wider media/populance at large, UNTHINKABLE that any person of of the male gender could commit rape. Or at least it's increably hard to get any sort of rape charge against a female pushed through to conviction.

 

the populance is similar in the Pedophile (hell 90% of sex crimes that we know of in general are, to the current mindset, only capable of being done by men/males) except that it'd be much easier for a grown gay male to gain access to a younger male AND be in a position to have sex with him, by virtue of single sex programs for the most part.

 

I don't ascribe to this personally...

[kumquatq3]

What's funny is when someone jumps into the argument and just says what has already been said before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What I find startling is that so many boy scouts were so heavily inspired by Jack Sparrow that the boy scouts felt the need to make a merit badge to combat the trend

 

 

When will they learn that pirating doesn't pay

Edited October 25, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Sand]

Dark Moth, there is one thing that kind of strikes a cord with me. You said that your faith in God is based on logic and reason, but belief and faith, by their very nature, defies logic and reason. Could you please elaborate? If not, I understand but I am very curious by your choice of words.

 

Instinct cannot be denied. It is the driving force behind every aspect of our nature. It can be buried, ignored, pushed back temporarily, but in the end instinct will win. It is the force that has driven human civilization from the moment we stood up right and looked at the stars. The human instinct is one of the most powerful force on this world. We need to embrace it, not fight it.

Edited October 25, 2006 by Sand

[alanschu]

All right, for my grand finale of posting on this forum. Lets start from the beginning:

 

I did not imply that by agreeing with their decision. Yeah, I'm well aware that sexual abuse is not restricted to homosexual men (prison cells, anyone?) but you can't ignore the fact that someone would be at greater risk being abused by a homosexual predator than a heterosexual predator if they were of the same sex.

 

I'm curious where you dug this fact up? I think it's a logical conclusion that one can make, but history has taught me that "commonsense" notions are not uncommonly incorrect.

 

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

 

The fact behind these conflicting statements is that most pedophiles are not homosexuals! Or to put it another way, most homosexual molestation is not done by homosexuals.

 

One study involved 175 male adults who had been convicted in Massachusetts of child sexual assault. They found that none of them were homosexuals; all of them would fit the description of a fixated child molester.

 

 

http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/informa...erhealth/myths/

 

Studies have shown no correlation between a man's sexual orientation and a tendency to sexually abuse children

 

 

Child molesters tend to not be classified as either homosexual nor heterosexual, and restrict their sexual attraction to children, and are often attracted to both boys and girls.

 

Nurture is something that is brought about by environmental influence. If it's not all biological, then you've already admitted that there are environmental factors involved, which already negates your claim that hanging around gay people can't make you gay. It's a commonly know fact in biology and sociology that group behavior can influence individual behavior. So homosexuality is no exception.

 

No it doesn't. You're making a logical fallacy here. You say that it is a common fact that biology and sociology that group behaviour can influence individual behaviour, and then state that homosexuality must fall under these conditions. Environmental factors include things like "harsh postnatal conditions" and "low morale and downward mobility." Environmental influences go far, far, far beyond social influences. They typically refer to anything that happens outside of the womb and outside of genetics.

 

 

'Woefully misinformed'. That's a laugh. How can I be misinformed if there are actual documented cases of people switching their sexual preferences?

 

You're misinformed because those "documented cases" don't actually demonstrate people switching their sexual preferences. Those documented cases are quite often homosexuals that have repressed their homosexuality (there's a social environmental effect) to avoid stigmatization and alienation. Furthermore, it is also not uncommon for these homosexuals to actual have heterosexual relationships, and even marry and have kids. The desire to fit in and be accepted is exceptionally strong. But deep down they are still homosexual, ashamed of their attractions and willing to do anything to stop it. This would also include homosexual males that enter reparative therapy. If someone is openly ashamed of their lifestyle (here's some more social environmental pressures), seeking consul to repress it isn't that difficult.

 

It also ignores bisexual individuals.

 

You seem to be the one misinformed, if you think that hanging around gay people can't influence a person. It can. That doesn't mean it always will happen, but it can.

 

Hanging around gay people can influence you. You may like the food that they eat or the music that they listen to. Hanging around gay people will not make a heterosexual gay.

 

I've already made my reasoning clear on this. You'll notice I also not once mentioned any religious reason for my views on this matter. Not once did I say that it's wrong because 'the Bible says so'.

 

Just because you're not saying it doesn't mean that that is not the foundation of your opinion.

 

Your example of the Catholic priest doesn't hold weight here, either. Because a Catholic Priest first of all is someone who follows a belief that first of all does not encourage homosexuality and especially not pedophilia. A homosexual however is a different matter, because this is someone who has a set sexual preference whether it's hereditary or environmentaly influenced. My reasoning in no way supports what you just said.

 

My example of the Catholic Priest was used because Catholic priests were sexually abusing little children. If you're concerned about homosexual males (which typically aren't child molestors) molesting your children, then you should also be concerned about Catholic Priests molesting your children. In fact, given history, you should be MORE concerned with a Catholic Priest doing it, because they seem to be doing it more than homosexual troop masters. That's why I cited the example.

 

Maybe if I were actually being a hypocrite, you'd be right, but I'm not. You see, if I were a bigot, that would mean I would be judging homosexuals as people just on their sexual preference.

 

You HAVE judged them. YOu have falliciously judged homosexual men as being more likely to be a child molestor. This is not true! Furthermore, you then support the BSA in their decisions to refuse admission to homosexuals as a "precautionary measure."

 

If I think homosexuality is wrong, so what?

Now I want to ask you a question. Why do you think homosexuality is right?

 

I am just baffled by this statement. You want to know why I think homosexuality is right? Well, for the record, I don't think homosexuality is right. Nor do I think it is wrong. I find it utterly absurd to think you can try to place something like that as being either right or wrong. It just is. For homosexuality to be "right" or "wrong" is to put some sort of morality associated with it. Given that homosexuality exists throughout nature, I'll even say that homosexuality is natural. But I'm not going to be absurd and claim that it is either right or wrong. It'd be like claiming that being white is right, and chinese is wrong. Or that being Christian is right, and Islamic wrong. Or even something simple, like right-handed versus left-handed.

 

As for the organizations you mentioned, I have no beef with them. And I wouldn't have any beef with the BSA if they weren't actively trying to promote myths about homosexuality. If one of your organizations was say a woman's group, that exluded men, and then justified it on false information, and used the group to spread false information about men, then I'd be significantly less understanding. At the same time, the groups you mention are examples of minorities as well as a heavily disenfranchised part of our society (women). I can recognize those groupings as being places to find support in dealing with the difficulties of living in a different culture, or looking for support in dealing with systemic inequalities between male and female. I also doubt they're getting huge amounts of public dollars from the government.

 

Another concern I have with the BSA, is that they are teaching children (whom are exceptionally impressionable) that homosexuality is indeed "wrong."

 

Also, you're now ascribing motives to the Boy Scouts based on what you think. You and I seem to think they are doing what they do for different reasons. Alright, fine. But I think it's a stretch for you to say they ban them simply because they are right-wing and religous.

 

Not really. Homosexuality is typically considered a sin by religious people. If you have people that have strong religious convictions and believe that homosexuality is "wrong" and hence, a sin, it's not too surprising that they wouldn't want those people in their group. Especially when their handbook says The Boy Scouts of America maintain that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing his obligation to God as well as comments in court hearings such as "If a youth comes to a Scoutmaster and admits to doing wrong, like stealing, lying, cheating or vandalizing, the normal procedure is to counsel the youth privately and sympathetically...If the youth admits to being a homosexual, the Boy Scouts' policy is to instantly terminate his association with Scouting."

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa.htm

 

 

Note, Quotes are now bolded and italacized, since I've hit the limit for quote tags.

 

You're also now making the mistake of generalizing them by saying that many are racist. You don't know that, so don't say that. Heck, you don't even live in the U.S.!

 

I don't know that? How would you presume to know that I don't know that? Simply because of the (absurd) statement that I don't live in the United States? Never mind the fact that you probably don't know where I grew up. As for them not being racist, tell that to the Native Americans. I'm sure they are huge fans of the heavy amount of stereotyping of natives that boy scouts commonly do. And prior to the Mormon Church becoming the powerbrokers of the BSA, the Mormon-sponsored troops did indeed have troubles with racism.

 

 

I was never affiliated with the boy scouts, so I can't speak for their organization.

 

So despite the fact that you were never affiliated with the BSA, you felt it prudent to point out that I don't even live in the US?

 

 

And from Colrom:

 

It would be refreshing to see you follow your own instructions to others more often - with or without the accompanying disrespectful language.

 

Okay then:

 

http://webpages.marshall.edu/~woods18/homosexuality.htm

http://www.gapimny.org/newsletter/older_issues/10myths.html

http://www.dignityusa.org/faq.html

http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american..._of_LDS_in_Utah

http://stereotype.drumhop.com/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/bsa.htm

http://chroniclesmagazine.org/Chronicles/M...4Abernethy.html

http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/49488

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chil.htm

http://www.mcgill.ca/studenthealth/informa...erhealth/myths/

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/...ey-pillard.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_fixe.htm

 

 

And those ignore books, such as DNA and Destiny: Nature and Nurture in Human Behavior and other fun little things I have read up on when scouring my University's libraries.

 

 

And on a final note, later everyone. This board just frustrates the **** out of me, and I am finally done with it. Have a nice life.

[Lucius]

You might not see this Alan, but even though I've got no affiliation with boy scouts, I just wanna say thanks. You're my new hero, don't leave! <_<

[Pidesco]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kirottu]

You seem to be the one misinformed, if you think that hanging around gay people can't influence a person. It can. That doesn't mean it always will happen, but it can.

 

Hanging around gay people can influence you. You may like the food that they eat or the music that they listen to. Hanging around gay people will not make a heterosexual gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Gay germs!

 

Also, don

[Shadowstrider]

Hanging around gay people can influence you.  You may like the food that they eat or the music that they listen to.  Hanging around gay people will not make a heterosexual gay.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

LAWLAWL

 

Must. Resist. Urge. To. Comment.

[Dark_Raven]

 

WTF?

[Walsingham]

Sand, ease up on the religious discussion. This is not a religious discussion.

 

No-one is leaving. I haff locked zee doors.

 

I definitely don't buy hanging around gay people will make ou gay. If you are naturally gay but suppressing it, hanging around gay people may make you realise you don't need to suppress it. Good for you. Having a gay scoutmaster could be exactly what some of the boyscouts need! It might also get across to some hetero lunkheads that gay men don't spend their entire time simply gaying themselves up and waiting to turn someone gay. They have jobs, and just like the rest of us can be committed hard working individuals.

 

Or am I missing something?

[kumquatq3]

Having a gay scoutmaster could be exactly what some of the boyscouts need!

 

I agree, their current uniforms are really ugly.

 

Penn & Teller did an episode of "BullSh*t" on this topic, here is a youtube clip, enjoy:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZWPLiGsHxU...related&search=

 

There was a scene I was hoping I could find that I couldn't, shame. Download the episode though, it's priceless.

Edited October 25, 2006 by kumquatq3