Www.Mormonsandgays.Org

[tyler90az]

It is hard to deny that the site coming out was prophetic. Only a short time later, now, we are hearing about people from all political parties supporting gay marriage. In 2016 the presidential ballot is likely to have two supporters of gay marriage on it. Then you throw in the fact that is going before the Supreme Court today. The website was undoubtedly prophetic.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org

[BlueDreams]

Do you mind further explaining specifically what you mean by this?

Thanks,

BD

[rpn]

I'd say it hasn't been timely enough if 83% of the scouters in the SLC BSA Council oppose changing the BSA policy to allow sponsoring organizations to determine their own policy on welcoming scouts with same gender attraction. Guess a lot of scouters haven't gotten the message that ssa and the church (and scouting) are not incompatible, and we don't need to be afraid of those who deal with ssa.

[tyler90az]

Do you mind further explaining specifically what you mean by this?

Thanks,

BD

It did not directly predict what has happened. It did, however, proceed the events I stated. As Latter-day Saints we have very little control over what will happen with gay marriae. We do have control over our own hearts and minds. This website serves the purpose of softening Latter-day Saints for the inevitable. In that way it was very prophetic and timely.

Edited March 26, 2013 by tyler90az

[CASteinman]

The website reflects my views on this matter pretty much. Although I believe that political action for homosexuals is substantially tied to progressive issues, to atheism and eventually will lead to oppression of the Church -- three things that I am opposed to. So those things get into the mix.

[Questing Beast]

No moral issue has been more complex or fraught with the danger of reverse discrimination. Once the GLBTQ advocacy takes active control of Gov't agencies religious assertion will be attacked. The LDS faith and the RCC will be at the top of the "hit list" as organizations that discriminate against GLBTQ's. It won't stop at "let the organizations decide". In effect, civil court suits will find "those who decide" guilty of discrimination. It's all about the liberal mind seeking to redress the imbalance, the injustice, of centuries of discrimination, by compelling "those who decide" to feel some of the discrimination, as part of the "justice" of establishing that balance. In other words, the liberal mind is viciously bent upon giving guilty people their comeupance. Liberals can't resist playing "God" and dispensing their brand of justice. There is no rational thinking involved, only the clear vision of establishing their definition of the balance of justice. If you hit "them" with the inequity of what they want to do they will not even see it. This that I have said is a dumbed-down explanation of what's coming and why. It is more complicated than that, of course. But when you place a so-called liberal in charge of anything, s/he must exercise control to make it perfect, even if it's compulsory "for your own good"....

[CASteinman]

No moral issue has been more complex or fraught with the danger of reverse discrimination. Once the GLBTQ advocacy takes active control of Gov't agencies religious assertion will be attacked. The LDS faith and the RCC will be at the top of the "hit list" as organizations that discriminate against GLBTQ's. It won't stop at "let the organizations decide". In effect, civil court suits will find "those who decide" guilty of discrimination. It's all about the liberal mind seeking to redress the imbalance, the injustice, of centuries of discrimination, by compelling "those who decide" to feel some of the discrimination, as part of the "justice" of establishing that balance. In other words, the liberal mind is viciously bent upon giving guilty people their comeupance. Liberals can't resist playing "God" and dispensing their brand of justice. There is no rational thinking involved, only the clear vision of establishing their definition of the balance of justice. If you hit "them" with the inequity of what they want to do they will not even see it. This that I have said is a dumbed-down explanation of what's coming and why. It is more complicated than that, of course. But when you place a so-called liberal in charge of anything, s/he must exercise control to make it perfect, even if it's compulsory "for your own good"....

I am not sure I agree with this post. Mainly because I am a liberal. But I am not sure that people who consider themselves liberals would own me. As I understand it, Liberals are in favor of political freedoms of speech and assembly, democratic elections, private property, free trade and equitable legal systems. That seems to fit me like a glove.

So, I think the word liberal has been misused.

If you replace the word "liberals" above with the term "social progressives", then I would be in full agreement with you and you would be highlighting one of my very huge concerns.

In my view of things "social progressives" were responsible for the enslavement and murder of millions of their own and other citizens in the 20th Century -- and will do it again if given a chance... all in the name of progress.

I had no idea we would be so closely aligned in views like this.

[Questing Beast]

"Social progressives", then. I agree that the words "liberal" and "conservative" require further qualifying in order to come closer to an agreed upon definition. I did offer the caveat that my concerns were "dumbed down"....

[Questing Beast]

Liberal: seeking equality and fairness without exception for all. Conservative: seeking equality for all, and not worrying about "fairness", since the world is not fair, but everyone ought to be given equal access to "the system", yet not all will achieve equality in successful terms, because the world is not fair; as long as "the system" does not prevent anyone from trying his/her best, it is a system of equality....

Edited March 26, 2013 by Questing Beast

[halconero]

I am not sure I agree with this post. Mainly because I am a liberal. But I am not sure that people who consider themselves liberals would own me. As I understand it, Liberals are in favor of political freedoms of speech and assembly, democratic elections, private property, free trade and equitable legal systems. That seems to fit me like a glove.

So, I think the word liberal has been misused.

If you replace the word "liberals" above with the term "social progressives", then I would be in full agreement with you and you would be highlighting one of my very huge concerns.

In my view of things "social progressives" were responsible for the enslavement and murder of millions of their own and other citizens in the 20th Century -- and will do it again if given a chance... all in the name of progress.

I had no idea we would be so closely aligned in views like this.

Agreed. I doubt John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Stuart Mills or Adams Smith would pass as liberals today.

Nor would Edmund Burke, Richard Hooker or David Hume pass as conservatives. (This is all according to the mainstream parties). What we have here is definitely a "New" or Neo liberalism and Neo conservatism.

[Darren10]

It is hard to deny that the site coming out was prophetic. Only a short time later, now, we are hearing about people from all political parties supporting gay marriage. In 2016 the presidential ballot is likely to have two supporters of gay marriage on it. Then you throw in the fact that is going before the Supreme Court today. The website was undoubtedly prophetic.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org

There will NOT be two candidates for same sex marriage in the general election for 2016. Hillary Clinton has already endorsed it and she's very likely to take the Democrat pirimary. However, all top runners for the GOP, save Rand Paul (whch I don't think will make it out of the primaries), do not endorse same sex marriage. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has thus far indicated it will not andorse a constitutional right for same sex marriage. To me that's good since the states should define marriage.

And I don't know how "prophetic" the mormons and gays website is since society's been moving towrds same sex marriage for a long time now. The only recent "shock", if you will, has been the official endorsement from a sitting President of the United States for same sex marriage. He doesn't care much about it now that he's elected but it was a first on the election front.

[Darren10]

I'd say it hasn't been timely enough if 83% of the scouters in the SLC BSA Council oppose changing the BSA policy to allow sponsoring organizations to determine their own policy on welcoming scouts with same gender attraction. Guess a lot of scouters haven't gotten the message that ssa and the church (and scouting) are not incompatible, and we don't need to be afraid of those who deal with ssa.

The attraction part is compatible, not acting on it or even acting it out. I for one do not want my male children being watched over by another male who has expressed attraction for other males. Especially not in scouting capacities.

[Darren10]

This website serves the purpose of softening Latter-day Saints for the inevitable. In that way it was very prophetic and timely.

That I can get behind.

[Darren10]

I am not sure I agree with this post. Mainly because I am a liberal. But I am not sure that people who consider themselves liberals would own me. As I understand it, Liberals are in favor of political freedoms of speech and assembly, democratic elections, private property, free trade and equitable legal systems. That seems to fit me like a glove.

Were this a political blog I'd have a field day with this one paragraph but I'll digress before this thread gets locked. But I do agree with your use of 'social progressive' but disagree that there is any great distinction between liberals and social progressives. There may have been at one time but not in the modern day.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Darren10

[Bikeemikey]

The attraction part is compatible, not acting on it or even acting it out. I for one do not want my male children being watched over by another male who has expressed attraction for other males. Especially not in scouting capacities.

So you wouldn't want your male children watched over by hetro-sexual females either?

This insidious tendency to conflate homosexual attraction with either attraction to children-youth or broader sexual perversion should be stopped.

The vast majority of pedophiles are attracted to children not gener (male or female). Men and women who are pedophiles consistently manifest attraction that does not discriminate between gender as long as the age is correct for them.

Here are a couple of links with a very basic but good overview:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/18/903178/-Gays-are-pedophiles-No-Here-s-the-proof#

http://psychology.uc...olestation.html

Edited March 26, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[RobertAC]

The attraction part is compatible, not acting on it or even acting it out. I for one do not want my male children being watched over by another male who has expressed attraction for other males. Especially not in scouting capacities.

I would imagine it would also depend upon whether you knew the gay/bi scout or scoutmaster. I am hopeful that regardless of the orientation of scout leaders that the BSA and parents also participate in scouting to be sure that it is a safe, educational and fun experience.

[tyler90az]

There will NOT be two candidates for same sex marriage in the general election for 2016. Hillary Clinton has already endorsed it and she's very likely to take the Democrat pirimary. However, all top runners for the GOP, save Rand Paul (whch I don't think will make it out of the primaries), do not endorse same sex marriage. Furthermore, the Supreme Court has thus far indicated it will not andorse a constitutional right for same sex marriage. To me that's good since the states should define marriage.

Do not be so sure about both of those predictions. We will have to wait and see. The election is four years out and none of the judges have hinted at what they would decide if they take on the case. There is no legal reason they have to ban marriage equality. There is also a great chance in 2016 the republican party is going to look a whole lot different then anytime before.

Edited March 26, 2013 by tyler90az

[webbles]

The vast majority of pedophiles are attracted to children not gener (male or female). Men and women who are pedophiles consistently manifest attraction that does not discriminate between gender as long as the age is correct for them.

Pedophile is someone over 16 attracted to someone prepubescent (generally under 11, at most 13). So a Boy Scout leader with an attraction for a Boy Scout would not be considered pedophilia in the majority of cases.

[CASteinman]

The vast majority of pedophiles are attracted to children not gener (male or female). Men and women who are pedophiles consistently manifest attraction that does not discriminate between gender as long as the age is correct for them.

Could you go through your extremely biased sources and find the reference that shows this to be true? For both men and women and that they "consistently" show that gender is irrelevant to them.

[Bikeemikey]

Could you go through your extremely biased sources and find the reference that shows this to be true? For both men and women and that they "consistently" show that gender is irrelevant to them.

One of the website's is a university psyc dept, I would say that one is fairly neutral.

As for the other site, this material is gathered by an individual who is obviously biased... they say as much in the tone and temperament of the opening paragraph. That said, the materials, references and links that they provided is actually very good solid.

I find it interesting that you have referred to both of these links as "extremely biased" whilst in the same instance asking me for a specific reference that recurs as a consistent theme through out the content of both sites.

Am I to conclude that you did not read the links? Had you read them it would seem you would have no need to ask the question you did.

It is not appropriate to continue to promote the idea that homosexual individuals are by default sexual predators. The data and evidence does not support this assertion. It does harm to legitimate moral concerns about the homosexual life style.

[CASteinman]

One of the website's is a university psyc dept, I would say that one is fairly neutral.

You would be wrong. It is biased. And its not actually the work of the "university".

I find it interesting that you have referred to both of these links as "extremely biased" whilst in the same instance asking me for a specific reference that recurs as a consistent theme through out the content of both sites.

That's fine. I did not see any such "consistent theme". Do you have a specific quote from them that supports your contention?

Am I to conclude that you did not read the links? Had you read them it would seem you would have no need to ask the question you did.

KOS... no. The other many many many times before.

If I had no need to ask the question, I would not have asked it. The question remains asked. Can you quote anything from it that says what you claim?

It is not appropriate to continue to promote the idea that homosexual individuals are by default sexual predators.

That is irrelevant. The question I was asking was specific to your claim that gender was irrelevant to the offenders. There is either some sort of evidence to support this or there isn't. I didn't see any.

Can you -- or can you not -- support your assertion?

[EllenMaksoud]

It is hard to deny that the site coming out was prophetic. Only a short time later, now, we are hearing about people from all political parties supporting gay marriage. In 2016 the presidential ballot is likely to have two supporters of gay marriage on it. Then you throw in the fact that is going before the Supreme Court today. The website was undoubtedly prophetic.

http://www.mormonsandgays.org

I would not support SSM in our church, but I am also confused as to how churches got involved in marriages in the first place. Civil partnerships should have the same rights in culture as some one that is married. IE Insurance, visitation, and inheritance. I also know something that really bothers me. In looking at Reuters, Al-jazeera, Arabnews, and BBC it is pretty clear that the world is watching us. If SSM is approved in America it will destroy our credibility completely. We won't lead the nations, we will be spit on by them.

[Bikeemikey]

You would be wrong. It is biased. And its not actually the work of the "university".

That's fine. I did not see any such "consistent theme". Do you have a specific quote from them that supports your contention?

KOS... no. The other many many many times before.

If I had no need to ask the question, I would not have asked it. The question remains asked. Can you quote anything from it that says what you claim?

That is irrelevant. The question I was asking was specific to your claim that gender was irrelevant to the offenders. There is either some sort of evidence to support this or there isn't. I didn't see any.

Can you -- or can you not -- support your assertion?

I stipulated that the author of one was biased and I found the university one to have an author with less obvious bias. A biased author does no bias data make. The link with the obviously biased author has much better linking to primary sources and research data, hence the inclusion. The uni link is a good summary of current research.

Sure, why not... ill bite.

Once I provide some quotes (one being the third paragraph in) I would be interested in you providing good solid sources that specifically provide evidence that homosexuals are bigger pedophiles compared to hetro-sexuals.

According to Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins University professor who founded the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma in Baltimore, Md., pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation marked by persistent, sometimes exclusive, attraction to prepubescent children. ~ Time

We do not find a connection between homosexual identity and the increased likelihood of subsequent abuse from the data that we have right now ... It's important to separate the sexual identity and the behavior. Someone can commit sexual acts that might be of a homosexual nature but not have a homosexual identity.

From the same article:

In the book Mental Disorders of the New Millennium (2006), author and psychology professor Thomas Plante writes:

Although the majority of clergy abuse victims are males, homosexuality cannot be blamed. First, many of the pedophile priests report that they are not homosexual. This is also true of many non-clergy sex offenders who victimize boys. Many report that they target boys for a variety of reasons that include easier access to boys ... pregnancy fears with female victims ... homosexuals in general have not been found to be more likely to commit sexual crimes against minors compared to heterosexuals. Sexual orientation is not predictive of sex crimes

In yet another approach to studying adult sexual attraction to children, some Canadian researchers observed how homosexual and heterosexual adult men responded to slides of males and females of various ages (child, pubescent, and mature adult). All of the research subjects were first screened to ensure that they preferred physically mature sexual partners. In some of the slides shown to subjects, the model was clothed; in others, he or she was nude. The slides were accompanied by audio recordings. The recordings paired with the nude models described an imaginary sexual interaction between the model and the subject. The recordings paired with the pictures of clothed models described the model engaging in neutral activities (e.g., swimming). To measure sexual arousal, changes in the subjects' penis volume were monitored while they watched the slides and listened to the audiotapes. The researchers found that homosexual males responded no more to male children than heterosexual males responded to female children (Freund et al., 1989).

Another important thing to understand about a pedophile is his inability to gender differentiate when it comes to sexual arousal. Those who prefer mature partners have arousal patterns that demonstrate gender differentiation consistent with preferred gender, pedophiles have difficulty with this:

Pedophiles differentiated erotically between females and males less than males who erotically preferred physically mature partners.

So there are a few quotes from the link. The website itself provides the primary source for each item i cut and pasted. I am not going to the effort of setting all of those up as hyperlinks as you didn't bother to read the first links i posted.

[WmLaw]

The attraction part is compatible, not acting on it or even acting it out. I for one do not want my male children being watched over by another male who has expressed attraction for other males. Especially not in scouting capacities.

did your sons ever have a Den Mother, when they were Cubs?

[Darren10]

So you wouldn't want your male children watched over by hetro-sexual females either?

Not on campouts, no. And a heterosexual female is a good role model for a young boy to aspire to grow up and seek a mate to marry and have a family. Can't say as much for a homosexual male role model.

This insidious tendency to conflate homosexual attraction with either attraction to children-youth or broader sexual perversion should be stopped.

Why?

The vast majority of pedophiles are attracted to children not gener (male or female). Men and women who are pedophiles consistently manifest attraction that does not discriminate between gender as long as the age is correct for them.

The question here is would you be OK for an openly expressed homosexual to take care of your boy? Not me.

The scouting program is more than watching over boys. It is designed to guide them and lead them in virtue, righteousness, diligence, and do good before God, country, and fellow being. Living and acting on a lifestyle which guarantees no exaltation is hardly my idea of a role model.

Here are a couple of links with a very basic but good overview:

http://www.dailykos....re-s-the-proof#

http://psychology.uc...olestation.html

Before looking at them, will they cause me to change what I just said?

Edited March 27, 2013 by Darren10