Bsa Unanimously Reaffirms Homosexual Ban

[ERayR]

I know, one young lady was banned from the Olympics for a tweet. Bad joke, but banned from the games?

It seems the patients are now running the asylum.

[thesometimesaint]

The Family Research Counsel is a hate group. Please do not link to them as a source.

You have been given a CFR repeatedly. Respond to it or leave the thread.

[ERayR]

The Family Research Counsel is a hate group. Please do not link to them as a source.

I don't see where your vitriol has any substantive foundation so I am going to have to cal for a CFR on this one. I can see how you as a liberal might not agree with theirstand on several issues but that does not make them a hate group. Sounds like an attempt to marginalize them and shut off their voice from public debate.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

It seems the patients are now running the asylum.

Freedom is under attack all over the world.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The Family Research Counsel is a hate group. Please do not link to them as a source.

The problem is that supporting traditional marriage is now considered hate talk...which means many think our church is a hate group. How are you defining them as a hate group? I do not ask amiss, I don't know who.they are. I do know our faith is under attack. Just this morning there was a report that Romney will and his beliefs will put women's lives in danger.

[KevinG]

I cited a Catholic review of multiple studies that indicate a correlation between homosexuality and predatory behavior on boys between 11-17 years of age. It was a self-examination by the Catholics who found homosexuality not celibacy was the correlation to the predatory behavior. Unless you are ready to define every one of the sources and the Catholics as "hate groups" then some statistics to the contrary might be an appropriate response.

[KevinG]

I am well aware of that. This homosexual who was in the closet, was the young mans president for many years. I was also the teachers quorum advisor for many years. The bishop put me in the youth program because he felt that not only God called me to that position, but he saw me change lives of some of the boys that I worked with. It has been many years since I worked in the young men's program. Yet there are still to this day some young men that are no longer young men keep in contact with me and thank me for the influence I was in their lives. I sometimes wonder if I had been "out" those opportunities would have been lost bor both me and the boys I served. I guess is all I am saying, is I don't feel wheter you are gay or not makes a bit of difference to being a good role model. I like how the church has avoided similar law suites by requiring 2 adults at all times. Personally I feel this structure is a much better protection for youth than a don't ask don't tell policy.

The Scouts do have a two deep youth leadership policy and have for years. That is where the church got it from.

[ERayR]

The Family Research Counsel is a hate group. Please do not link to them as a source.

Second Call for A CFR.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I cited a Catholic review of multiple studies that indicate a correlation between homosexuality and predatory behavior on boys between 11-17 years of age. It was a self-examination by the Catholics who found homosexuality not celibacy was the correlation to the predatory behavior. Unless you are ready to define every one of the sources and the Catholics as "hate groups" then some statistics to the contrary might be an appropriate response.

If being opposed to gay marriage means you are a hate group the the LDS Church is a hate group and I hate one of my children...which is untrue. So this is what it has come too?

[KevinG]

So this is what it has come too?

Unfortunately yes. Constitutional rights for me and not for thee.

I am saddened by how your daughter was treated. That should not have happened. That does not change how the BSA does have a right to define morally straight choose who will teach and lead their youth.

[USU78]

The Family Research Counsel is a hate group. Please do not link to them as a source.

Ad hominem. Really. Can't address the substance in the studies cited, so you adhominize the citer.

Despicable, tss.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Unfortunately yes. Constitutional rights for me and not for thee.

I am saddened by how your daughter was treated. That should not have happened. That does not change how the BSA does have a right to define morally straight choose who will teach and lead their youth.

I agree...but according to some I am filled with hate for supporting the BSA and the Church.

[Libs]

I wouldn't call it a "hate group", but it is an ultra conservative group with a political agenda.

[ERayR]

I wouldn't call it a "hate group", but it is an ultra conservative group with a political agenda.

As opposed to an ultra liberal group with and agenda which does not get called a hate group.

[ERayR]

The Family Research Counsel is a hate group. Please do not link to them as a source.

tss I really hate to do this but you made a serious accusation and I really want you to back it up or withdraw it. Last call for a CFR before reporting you.

[california boy]

Unfortunately yes. Constitutional rights for me and not for thee.

I am saddened by how your daughter was treated. That should not have happened. That does not change how the BSA does have a right to define morally straight choose who will teach and lead their youth.

You missed the point. No one is saying that the BSA does not have a right to discriminate against gays in their organization, The point is, that it will help in pushing gay youth further away from the church. Some may feel this is not in the best interest of their child who is gay. I personally think that any policy that is unfounded in reason and pushes anyone further from the church is a bad idea. What is in discussion here is if that policy is unfounded in it's stated goal.

[Libs]

As opposed to an ultra liberal group with and agenda which does not get called a hate group.

Like I said, I don't consider it a hate group. Did you miss that part?

Any group with a political agenda is likely to be biased, because they, generally, start with a premise that they already believe to be true. I would be very skeptical of any research that comes from any group with a political agenda.

Besides which, it is very dangerous to try to apply statistics to a whole group of people, across the board. You don't punish innocent people for belonging to specific groups. In this country, we are, individually, innocent until proven guilty (ideally).

[Libs]

Btw, Southern Poverty Law Center does consider the Family Research Council a hate group.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?s=family+research+council&submit=

[selek1]

Btw, Southern Poverty Law Center does consider the Family Research Council a hate group.

What was that about "ultra liberal groups with an agenda" again?

SPLC is not exactly a middle-of-the-road outfit known for their restraint.

After all, the outfit has been criticized many times for its extremism and overt self-interest.

This is, after all, the same organization that ran a sham campaign for the President of the Sierra Club not out of a desire to serve or any experience with environmental issues- but as a platform to slander the Sierra Club for its stated public concerns about the effect illegal immigration was having on national parklands.

There are serious charges that it's "hate group" categorization is highly arbitrary- and is applied to any pro-family or conservative group that disagrees with them publically.

Traditional Catholics were smeared as a "hate group" for the "crime" of advocating a return to the Latin mass.

Additionally, SPLC authors and associates have appeared in the publications of such restrained, mainstream organizations as the Communist Party USA.

Those criticizing the Church for it's finances might also look askance at the SPLC's books.

The Better Business Bureau's Wise Giving Alliance refuses to list SPLC as a charitable or philanthropic organization (despite their tax-exempt status) because too much of their money goes into the partner's pockets and not enough "to the purposes and programs for which the organization exists".

According to sources, SPLC raised $44 million dollars in the year 2000- but spent only $13 million on its stated mission.

More recently, it was announced that the organization has over $200 million dollars in assets and spends 89% of its budget on fundraising and administrative costs. Among those costs are the six figure (or more) salaries many of its executives receive.

SPLC also has a vested financial interest in declaring people "hate groups".

In addition to its more traditional fundraising activities, the SPLC raises revenue by using the courts to seize the assets of "hate groups" and by threatening others with lawsuits unless they agree to pay a "settlement".

In 1987, the SPLC won a major case on behalf of Beulah Mae Donald, the mother of a Klan lynching victim. Unfortunately. Ms. Donald benefitted very little. Of the $7 million verdict, only $50,000 went to her.

Finally, civil rights leader Laird Wilcox has publically criticized the SPLC for functioning as an extralegal private intelligence gathering agency for the FBI and other law enforcement agencies- doing activities as a private organization that public law enforcement agencies are barred from by law. T

he SPLC keeps dossiers on people solely because of their political or religious views- and then hands those dossiers over to either law enforcement for criminal prosecution or to campaign functionaries for public relations offensives.

If the government were to track people simply for their political views, it would be a civil rights violation and a crime. But because they've handed the task off to the SLPC. it's just "opposition research".

No- the SPLC has demonstrated time and time again that the only operable definition of "hate" they understand is opposition to their ideology.

[ERayR]

Like I said, I don't consider it a hate group. Did you miss that part?

Nope I caught that and I also caught this: but it is an ultra conservative group with a political agenda.

Any group with a political agenda is likely to be biased, because they, generally, start with a premise that they already believe to be true. I would be very skeptical of any research that comes from any group with a political agenda.

Any group with or without a political agenda is biased. Any individual with or without a political agenda is biased. Biases are not the problem. The problem is attempting to silence the opposing view point wit pejorative labels.

Besides which, it is very dangerous to try to apply statistics to a whole group of people, across the board. You don't punish innocent people for belonging to specific groups. In this country, we are, individually, innocent until proven guilty (ideally).

Statistic can only be applied to a group as a whole. It is the prediction of group action predicted by a sample of that group. Statistical forecasts break down when applied to individuals They are only valid for a group plus or minus a margin of error.

An individual is innocent until proven guilty .

[ERayR]

Btw, Southern Poverty Law Center does consider the Family Research Council a hate group.

http://www.splcenter...council&submit=

Selek has covered Southern Poverty Law Center quite well. Remember "ultra liberal groups with an agenda".

[Libs]

Yes, I know about SPLC and that it is considered very leftist. I posted that to show where SSSaint may have gotten his information.

So, why would you expect people to take information from an ultra-conservative group at face value (considering the information and not just the group), but not do the same for the SPLC? Sometimes (I think rather often) they make some good points, as well.

An individual is innocent until proven guilty .

Then, why would a group like the BSA want to use statistics, to exclude individuals of a particular group, if they are innocent until proven guilty?

I don't think that's what the BSA is doing. I think their exclusion is based on moral grounds...but, I think some people, like the President of this Family Research Council (Mr. Dobbs) seek to reinforce the Bible with something more "secular" and acceptable to those who do not believe in the Bible.

[Libs]

Ad hominem. Really. Can't address the substance in the studies cited, so you adhominize the citer.

Isn't that what selek just did to the SPLC? Try to discredit them, rather than addressing the information in the link?

[Libs]

My bottom line on this is that if the BSA is going to exclude based on religious "moral" grounds, just own that and don't bring in these rather degrading attempts at justifying it, outside of the Bible. I would much rather people just tell me it is their religious belief, than try and justify it with shoddy stats and degrading inferences about homosexuals.

[ERayR]

My bottom line on this is that if the BSA is going to exclude based on religious "moral" grounds, just own that and don't bring in these rather degrading attempts at justifying it, outside of the Bible. I would much rather people just tell me it is their religious belief, than try and justify it with shoddy stats and degrading inferences about homosexuals.

Let me see if I can cover several posts with one answer.

Post # 172:

Unless you have had prior experience with a group and found them trustworthy you don't take their information at face value without checking the source of that information no matter what side they are.

I do not remember hearing or saying BSA used statistical data on which to base their decision. The fact is however as has been pointed out male molesters of boys are homosexual by definition. Again before the hand wringing "all homosexuals do not molest young boys" I know that. It is a small subset of the homosexual community that does molest boys but they are a subset of the homosexual community.

If Mr. Dobbs is trying to reinforce the Bible with more secular material then great as long as it is legitimate and the conclusions are reasonable. Isn't that what many, maybe most, biblical researchers do? Bring all legitimate information to the table.

Isn't that what selek just did to the SPLC? Try to discredit them, rather than addressing the information in the link?

No I think he was only pointing out that SPLC is not a credible source for defining another group as a hate group.

My bottom line on this is that if the BSA is going to exclude based on religious "moral" grounds, just own that and don't bring in these rather degrading attempts at justifying it, outside of the Bible. I would much rather people just tell me it is their religious belief, than try and justify it with shoddy stats and degrading inferences about homosexuals.

The Boy Scouts did not make their decision on biblical grounds, as far as I know.

I don't remember anybody using "shoddy" stats and degrading inferences about homosexuals. Please tell me what you consider shoddy stats and degrading inferences.