Libs Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 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 didn't really mean you should take it without examining it. What I meant, was what you (or someone?) said about examining the information, itself, and not discarding it, based, simply, on what you believe about the organization. No one, here has dealt with, either, the information from the SPLC, about the Family Research Council, nor with the stats from the Family Research Council (including myself). I have seen stats like that, before, and the research is usually biased and skewed, so I didn't really pay much attention to them. Same with selek and others who believe the SPLC is biased. They won't bother with the actual information, about Family Research Council and what they have said and done, because they already have an opinion about the organization from which that information came. So, you have both sides, here, dismissing information, based on the source, rather than the actual information. No difference.The Boy Scouts did not make their decision on biblical grounds, as far as I know. Really? That has always been my understanding. They do not allow atheist to participate, either. I have to assume all of that is based in religious belief. Will look into it further.I don't remember anybody using "shoddy" stats and degrading inferences about homosexuals. Please tell me what you consider shoddy stats and degrading inferences. Well, I haven't really checked into it, but I am assuming the stats from Family Research Council are "shoddy", because those folks have an agenda. And, I'm sorry, but I see degrading references about ss attracted quite a lot, on this board. I have reported some of them, as a matter of fact, and I would really prefer not pointing them out, again. When someone is coming from the POV that homosexual activities are sinful, I think it gives a reference point that might overlook some of that (for some, anyway).
ERayR Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 I didn't really mean you should take it without examining it. What I meant, was what you (or someone?) said about examining the information, itself, and not discarding it, based, simply, on what you believe about the organization. No one, here has dealt with, either, the information from the SPLC, about the Family Research Council, nor with the stats from the Family Research Council (including myself). I have seen stats like that, before, and the research is usually biased and skewed, so I didn't really pay much attention to them. Same with selek and others who believe the SPLC is biased. They won't bother with the actual information, about Family Research Council and what they have said and done, because they already have an opinion about the organization from which that information came. So, you have both sides, here, dismissing information, based on the source, rather than the actual information. No difference.Did you even look at the linked to article? Did you even skim through it? Did you look at the bibliography? It does not appear so. It appears that you merely went out and found a site that listed the Family Research Council as a hate site and you did that without back grounding the site you referenced to. My motive in challenging this is that the "hate" label is brandied about as a club to silence everybody else and brow beat them into submission and that is wrong. Really? That has always been my understanding. They do not allow atheist to participate, either. I have to assume all of that is based in religious belief. Will look into it further.The Boy Scouts of America encourages religious worship but they do not endorse any religion. In fact they do not even publicly endorse Christianity. There are Muslim scouting units. Boy Scout founder, Robert Baden-Powell was convinced that a belief in and allegiance to a higher power gave a superior moral footing.Well, I haven't really checked into it, but I am assuming the stats from Family Research Council are "shoddy", because those folks have an agenda. There you go again assuming without justification. Am I assume your conclusion is shoddy because you have an agenda that doesn't coincide with the Family Research Council?And, I'm sorry, but I see degrading references about ss attracted quite a lot, on this board. I have reported some of them, as a matter of fact, and I would really prefer not pointing them out, again. When someone is coming from the POV that homosexual activities are sinful, I think it gives a reference point that might overlook some of that (for some, anyway).The only thing, posted on this board, I can imagine you thinking of as degrading is my posting that by definition it is homosexual males who molest boys. What POV should one come from about homosexual activities? I also come from the POV that some heterosexual activities are sinful. Any time sexual activity goes beyond the bounds set by God it is sinful.
Libs Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Did you even look at the linked to article? Did you even skim through it? Did you look at the bibliography? It does not appear so. It appears that you merely went out and found a site that listed the Family Research Council as a hate site and you did that without back grounding the site you referenced to. My motive in challenging this is that the "hate" label is brandied about as a club to silence everybody else and brow beat them into submission and that is wrong. Ray, that was my point. There is a double standard in operation here (by both of us, I freely admit). Of course, you believe that the "hate" label is "bandied about as a club to silence" those who disagree. I don't (usually) see it that way. I'm sure that does happen, sometimes, but not nearly as often as some people would like to think. Sometimes, inferences really are inaccurate and can be interpreted as "hateful", if they are perceived as being "purposefully inaccurate", in order to defame. Personally, I doubt inaccuracies are usually purposeful. (But, I am told, I can be a bit naive)The Boy Scouts of America encourages religious worship but they do not endorse any religion. In fact they do not even publicly endorse Christianity. There are Muslim scouting units. Boy Scout founder, Robert Baden-Powell was convinced that a belief in and allegiance to a higher power gave a superior moral footing.Okay, thanks. But, they do, then, base their philosophy on religious belief, no secularism.There you go again assuming without justification. Am I assume your conclusion is shoddy because you have an agenda that doesn't coincide with the Family Research Council?As I said, I admit that I dismissed the stats from Family Research Council....just as you, apparently, dismissed the information about FRC, provided by SPLC. Did you carefully examine their findings about FRC, without any regard, as to where it came from (just as you are asking me to do with SRC)? I'm pretty sure selek didn't. He went right for the throat of the organization(SPLC), with no mention of their findings about SRC.The only thing, posted on this board, I can imagine you thinking of as degrading is my posting that by definition it is homosexual males who molest boys. What POV should one come from about homosexual activities? I also come from the POV that some heterosexual activities are sinful. Any time sexual activity goes beyond the bounds set by God it is sinful.I wasn't talking about you. Your opinion that it is homosexuals who molest boys, might be validated by some. I don't have a problem with that, even though I prefer to put pedophiles in a different category, altogether, myself. I do know that many pedophiles who rape boys are married to women and even have children of their own....Sandusky being the latest, most high profile, example of that.
USU78 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Isn't that what selek just did to the SPLC? Try to discredit them, rather than addressing the information in the link?Discrediting cannot happen through naked assertion, Libs. You need some evidence. tss provides none. tss, if he can defend his naked assertion, should do so. If you, Libs, are so very concerned about tss' welfare and the integrity of his naked assertion, why don't you make the case for tss?
USU78 Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 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.CFR "shoddy stats and degrading inferences."
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Btw, Southern Poverty Law Center does consider the Family Research Council a hate group.http://www.splcenter.org/blog/?s=family+research+council&submit=Then they should be proud...they consider having an ID to vote being hate behavior
ERayR Posted July 28, 2012 Posted July 28, 2012 Ray, that was my point. There is a double standard in operation here (by both of us, I freely admit). Of course, you believe that the "hate" label is "bandied about as a club to silence" those who disagree. I don't (usually) see it that way. I'm sure that does happen, sometimes, but not nearly as often as some people would like to think. Sometimes, inferences really are inaccurate and can be interpreted as "hateful", if they are perceived as being "purposefully inaccurate", in order to defame. Personally, I doubt inaccuracies are usually purposeful. (But, I am told, I can be a bit naive)You are indeed naive if you think the race card and the hate card are not used deliberatly and often to silence those who disagree. The are both prime weapons.Okay, thanks. But, they do, then, base their philosophy on religious belief, no secularism.It reminds me of those founders of our nation who believed in God and a moral imperative that emanated from that belief.As I said, I admit that I dismissed the stats from Family Research Council....just as you, apparently, dismissed the information about FRC, provided by SPLC. Did you carefully examine their findings about FRC, without any regard, as to where it came from (just as you are asking me to do with SRC)? I'm pretty sure selek didn't. He went right for the throat of the organization(SPLC), with no mention of their findings about SRC.To show the difference, whether you accept the research or not, in FRC article there were at least 60 footnote references to the material on which they based their article. In contrast, the SPLC article proclaiming FRC a hate group had none. No footnotes. No end notes. No bibliography of any kind. Just bare assertions. Which should I find more believable?I wasn't talking about you. Your opinion that it is homosexuals who molest boys, might be validated by some. I don't have a problem with that, even though I prefer to put pedophiles in a different category, altogether, myself. I do know that many pedophiles who rape boys are married to women and even have children of their own....Sandusky being the latest, most high profile, example of that.Male pedophiles who molest male children are a subset of the homosexual community. Male pedophiles who molest girls are not. Their marital status and self identification are irrelevant. By definition they are homosexual if they go for males. Go back and read the definition of homosexual. Pedophiles a a subset. Pedophiles come in two groups 1-those who molest boys(homosexual pedophiles) and 2-those who molest girls (heterosexual).
Libs Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 To show the difference, whether you accept the research or not, in FRC article there were at least 60 footnote references to the material on which they based their article. In contrast, the SPLC article proclaiming FRC a hate group had none. No footnotes. No end notes. No bibliography of any kind. Just bare assertions. It's not just "bare assertion". There are examples of what they are calling hate speech. This is not a study, where footnotes would be required. These are observations of the behavior and statements (which can be verified) of certain individuals.You are indeed naive if you think the race card and the hate card are not used deliberatly and often to silence those who disagree. The are both prime weapons.Even if you believe so, every incident deserves a separate hearing and not just summarily dismissed as playing some "race card". I very much disagree that it is "often" used as a weapon. That's a part of the problem with this country, right now. Everyone has their own agenda and no one wants to take the time to try and understand someone, with which they disagree. Much easier just to demonize them.
ERayR Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 It's not just "bare assertion". There are examples of what they are calling hate speech. This is not a study, where footnotes would be required. These are observations of the behavior and statements (which can be verified) of certain individuals.Even if you believe so, every incident deserves a separate hearing and not just summarily dismissed as playing some "race card". I very much disagree that it is "often" used as a weapon. That's a part of the problem with this country, right now. Everyone has their own agenda and no one wants to take the time to try and understand someone, with which they disagree. Much easier just to demonize them.Even documentation of the observations. We are left with nothing but what SLRC tells us. With FRC they at least let us know where their information comes from.I am not going to argue any further. This thread is turning political;
Libs Posted July 29, 2012 Posted July 29, 2012 Even documentation of the observations. We are left with nothing but what SLRC tells us. With FRC they at least let us know where their information comes from.I am not going to argue any further. This thread is turning political;Okay, fair enough. We can leave it at that. Thanks for the civil discussion, Ray.
KevinG Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Please provide better statistics and studies or withdraw the "shoddy and degrading" accusation.Is there a significant link or not between homosexuality and attraction to boys age 11-17 or not? This is a legitimate risk factor for consideration when creating standards for leadership in an organization that cares for 11-17 year old boys.I resent the personal attacks obfuscating the content of the discussion.
Tacenda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Please provide better statistics and studies or withdraw the "shoddy and degrading" accusation.Is there a significant link or not between homosexuality and attraction to boys age 11-17 or not? This is a legitimate risk factor for consideration when creating standards for leadership in an organization that cares for 11-17 year old boys.I resent the personal attacks obfuscating the content of the discussion.Am I understanding your position right, that you think it's unfair for the boys 11-17 to be shut off from participating in scouts if they admit that they may be gay? If so, hear, hear to your post!!
KevinG Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Am I understanding your position right, that you think it's unfair for the boys 11-17 to be shut off from participating in scouts if they admit that they may be gay? If so, hear, hear to your post!!No. My position is that beyond the obvious moral objection there may be some legitimate concerns having gay adult males in leadership positions over boys.My position on the boys sexuality is that discussions of sexual preference should be restricted to religious leaders and private conversations. Coming out in a youth group is not appropriate for hetero or homosexuals. I have been a Scout leader for almost a 1/4 century and without fail I teach the boys chastity until marriage. I cannot tell you which boys are "gay" but I know of a few who revealed this when they were grown.
Tacenda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 No. My position is that beyond the obvious moral objection there may be some legitimate concerns having gay adult males in leadership positions over boys.My position on the boys sexuality is that discussions of sexual preference should be restricted to religious leaders and private conversations. Coming out in a youth group is not appropriate for hetero or homosexuals. I have been a Scout leader for almost a 1/4 century and without fail I teach the boys chastity until marriage. I cannot tell you which boys are "gay" but I know of a few who revealed this when they were grown.So you're saying they shouldn't have gay leaders in Scout Leadership, but you need "evidence" that they shouldn't accept gay young men to be allowed in. And you think maybe the teachings of chastity until marriage could be extremely useful in that it will come in handy in the long or short run and help them not sin while being gay? Or am I putting words in your mouth?So let them be partakers? Kind of like people that join the army when it had the policy "don't ask, don't tell". If that's your position then.... hear, hear for the young men who might need the influence of great scout leaders!
KevinG Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 You may not be trying but you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I'm saying...Here is what I teach youth: https://www.lds.org/...-youth?lang=engIf a young man came to me and confided he had same sex attraction I would encourage him to talk to the Bishop, his parents and/or a counselor.If sexually explicit discussions were occurring among my Scouts I would put a stop to it immediately regardless of the orientation. (IOW don't ask don't tell even for heterosexuals). That is not what Scouts is for.This is separate from the national BSA stance which is based upon moral objections.Which is separate from the studies showing a higher percentage of homosexual men engaging in "chicken hawking" behavior or sexual activity with young men.
Tacenda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 You may not be trying but you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what I'm saying...Here is what I teach youth: https://www.lds.org/...-youth?lang=engIf a young man came to me and confided he had same sex attraction I would encourage him to talk to the Bishop, his parents and/or a counselor.If sexually explicit discussions were occurring among my Scouts I would put a stop to it immediately regardless of the orientation. (IOW don't ask don't tell even for heterosexuals). That is not what Scouts is for.This is separate from the national BSA stance which is based upon moral objections.Which is separate from the studies showing a higher percentage of homosexual men engaging in "chicken hawking" behavior or sexual activity with young men.I'm definitely not trying to misrepresent and am misunderstanding. I guess I thought you said, you would need proof that boys in that age group shouldn't be allowed to participate in scouting. Sorry 'bout that.
ERayR Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 I'm definitely not trying to misrepresent and am misunderstanding. I guess I thought you said, you would need proof that boys in that age group shouldn't be allowed to participate in scouting. Sorry 'bout that.Tacenda you are again letting misinformation and biases get in the way of understanding.
KevinG Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 I'm definitely not trying to misrepresent and am misunderstanding. I guess I thought you said, you would need proof that boys in that age group shouldn't be allowed to participate in scouting. Sorry 'bout that.No troubles- its a charged issue. I would not restrict a boys participation based on anything but bad behavior (i.e. harmful to others or self).Adult leadership is another issue all together and there is a much higher standard including being examples of the Gospel and Scout Oath to the boys.
Tacenda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 No troubles- its a charged issue. I would not restrict a boys participation based on anything but bad behavior (i.e. harmful to others or self).Adult leadership is another issue all together and there is a much higher standard including being examples of the Gospel and Scout Oath to the boys.Ok, good to know, I think I now understand better what you are saying.
Tacenda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Tacenda you are again letting misinformation and biases get in the way of understanding.But I was not letting it get in the way, I was going all out to make sure I understood something KevinG. was saying. And now, finally the light went on and I get it. Not to be rude, but in this case I think you jumped to conclusions.
ERayR Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 But I was not letting it get in the way, I was going all out to make sure I understood something KevinG. was saying. And now, finally the light went on and I get it. Not to be rude, but in this case I think you jumped to conclusions.Possible I do that occasionally. Just going by past experience with you. As you state I am wrong I am extending my apology.
Tacenda Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Possible I do that occasionally. Just going by past experience with you. As you state I am wrong I am extending my apology.Apology accepted and you're so kind to give one.
KevinG Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Nooooooooooooooo... keep fighting I just got the popcorn popped!
ERayR Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Nooooooooooooooo... keep fighting I just got the popcorn popped! Pass it around so we can all have some.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.