Bsa Prez Calls For End To Ban On Gay Leaders

[Calm]

Thousands of years is not now.

And there was usually some difference indicated by puberty or are you suggesting that otherwise?

I assume you are not using that fact to remove all barriers of sexual distinction between children and adults now.

In our current society where is your evidence that the majority of heterosexual first sexual experience occurs between a minor and and adult?

[tonie]

Thousands of years is not now.

And there was usually some difference indicated by puberty or are you suggesting that otherwise?

I assume you are not using that fact to remove all barriers of sexual distinction between children and adults now.

In our current society where is your evidence that the majority of heterosexual first sexual experience occurs between a minor and and adult?

Was tss refer to now?

Tss original statement was "a majority of heteros", you appear to be adding a time constraint that tss did not claim.

[Mystery Meat]

For thousands of years there was no distinction between adults and children. Do you finally get it?

 

No, what you provided, even with your mediocre explanation, does not support your assertion.

[Calm]

Was tss refer to now?

Tss original statement was "a majority of heteros", you appear to be adding a time constraint that tss did not claim.

And he referred to "minors".

 

If he is talking about minors in all time periods, is he suggesting that the majority of heteros were already having sex as minors (prepubescents) in the past and were doing so with adults?

 

If this is tss' point, then what is he using it as evidence for?  That homosexual sexual experience is consistent with past ages of heterosexual experience of adults having sex with minors even if it isn't consistent with present day?  Does he really want to be arguing this?

Edited May 25, 2015 by calmoriah

[Mystery Meat]

For thousands of years there was no distinction between adults and children. Do you finally get it?

 

You need to support your assertion, retract it, or leave the thread.

 

The least you could do is quote the portion of the website you referenced that you think (but doesn't) supports your gross assertion.

[Analytics]

My understanding is that the way Scouts work, the organization that sponsors each troop gets to choose its scoutmaster.   "The Scoutmaster can be male or female, but must be at least 21 years old."* For troops sponsored by Mormon wards, this means the bishop chooses the scoutmaster.

 

As it currently stands, if, say, a Unitarian-Universalist congregation sponsored a troop and wanted to appoint a scoutmaster that happened to be an "open and avowed" homosexual, they don't have the freedom to do so because it is not allowed per BSA rules.

 

Robert Gates is now saying that the reality of life in the 21st Century is that if a UU church wants to appoint a gay scoutmaster, then that should be its prerogative.

 

I'm having a really hard time conceiving how this change would effect Mormon scouting.  Are you afraid that the only thing preventing bishops from calling gays to be scoutmasters is the BSA forbidding it?

 

 

____________________________________________

* http://scoutmaster.org/usscouts/boyscouts/bstroop.asp

Edited May 25, 2015 by Analytics

[sunstoned]

My understanding is that the way Scouts work, the organization that sponsors each troop gets to choose its scoutmaster.   "The Scoutmaster can be male or female, but must be at least 21 years old."* For troops sponsored by Mormon wards, this means the bishop chooses the scoutmaster.

 

As it currently stands, if, say, a Unitarian-Universalist congregation sponsored a troop and wanted to appoint a scoutmaster that happened to be an "open and avowed" homosexual, they don't have the freedom to do so because it is not allowed per BSA rules.

 

Robert Gates is now saying that the reality of life in the 21st Century is that if a UU church wants to appoint a gay scoutmaster, then that should be its prerogative.

 

I'm having a really hard time conceiving how this change would effect Mormon scouting.  Are you afraid that the only thing preventing bishops from calling gays to be scoutmasters is the BSA forbidding it?

 

 

____________________________________________

* http://scoutmaster.org/usscouts/boyscouts/bstroop.asp

I agree.  I cannot see where this proposed change will affect the church's scouting program at all.

[Scott Lloyd]

My understanding is that the way Scouts work, the organization that sponsors each troop gets to choose its scoutmaster.   "The Scoutmaster can be male or female, but must be at least 21 years old."* For troops sponsored by Mormon wards, this means the bishop chooses the scoutmaster.

 

As it currently stands, if, say, a Unitarian-Universalist congregation sponsored a troop and wanted to appoint a scoutmaster that happened to be an "open and avowed" homosexual, they don't have the freedom to do so because it is not allowed per BSA rules.

 

Robert Gates is now saying that the reality of life in the 21st Century is that if a UU church wants to appoint a gay scoutmaster, then that should be its prerogative.

 

I'm having a really hard time conceiving how this change would effect Mormon scouting.  Are you afraid that the only thing preventing bishops from calling gays to be scoutmasters is the BSA forbidding it?

 

 

____________________________________________

* http://scoutmaster.org/usscouts/boyscouts/bstroop.asp

 

 

I agree.  I cannot see where this proposed change will affect the church's scouting program at all.

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it sound.

 

We are talking here about a fundamental cultural shift in a movement that in the past has been fairly unified.

 

BSA cannot long exist as neither fish nor fowl. Obligatory nods to religious freedom to the contrary, the "gay rights' juggernaut is not going to rest until it has transformed BSA into an entity that suits them. With capitulators like Gates in control, I predict that BSA will fairly soon become an intolerably inhospitable environment for the Church of Jesus Christ and like-minded entities.

 

It might happen incrementally. Perhaps, as Smac suggests, the organization will begin by withdrawing from LDS units access to camps and professional services. The Church is not going to stand for that (assuming it has not already withdrawn its affiliation) and it and other organizations will withhold their sponsorship and support, leaving BSA to quickly wither and die on the vine. And the Church will get the blame for having killed the movement. You can mark my word on that.

 

rockpond, buckeye, canard78 and others are fond of telling me that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day embrace homosexual behavior as normal, acceptable and worthy of temple ordinances. I am as certain that such a thing will never happen as I am that I exist. But I have no such confidence in man-made entitles such as the Boy Scouts of America staying true to standards of moral cleanliness (or as the Scout Oath puts it, being "morally straight") in the face of intense social and political pressure.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

 

 

A majority of gays, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a gay adult, and almost every gay and lesbian knows that’s true.  We need to be willing to address that.¹

 

 

Confirms the bias, no one questions it.

 

 

 

A majority of hetero's, I believe, have their first sexual experience as a minor with a hetero adult, and almost every hetero knows that’s true.  We need to be willing to address that.

 

 

 

 

Everyone looses their minds.

 

 

 

And why is it, that what is CLEARLY an OPINION - "I believe" - can be subject to a CFR with thread banning threats?

Edited May 26, 2015 by tonie

[Scott Lloyd]

Confirms the bias, no one questions it.

 

 

 

 

Everyone looses their minds.

 

 

 

And why is it, that what is CLEARLY an OPINION - "I believe" - can be subject to a CFR with thread banning threats?

When said "opinion" asserts an observable, objective, falsifiable fact that is so outlandish it fairly cries out for documentation if it purports to be taken seriously.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[tonie]

When said "opinion" asserts an observable, objective, falsifiable fact that is so outlandish it fairly cries out for documentation if is to be taken seriously.

 

Very telling that you did not challenge that your biased was not confirmed with the first statement.

 

And it is very strange that tss, chaning a few words in a quote (the original quote being ridiculous) ruffles so many feathers; yet the original quote is accepted without question.

Edited May 26, 2015 by tonie

[tonie]

 

The "gay rights' juggernaut is not going to rest until it has transformed BSA into an entity that suits them.

 

CFR

 

 

 

 

rockpond, buckeye, canard78 and others are fond of telling me that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day embrace homosexual behavior as normal, acceptable and worthy of temple ordinances.

 

CFR. 

 

Have the said the Church "will" or "might".

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR

 

That is a prediction of a future event. The substantiation will be obvious when it transpires.

 

CFR. 

 

Have the said the Church "will" or "might".

 

I've understood them to say that it will.

 

But as far as I know they are each still active on this board. You can pose that question to them.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Very telling that you did not challenge that your biased was not confirmed with the first statement.

 

And it is very strange that tss, chaning a few words in a quote (the original quote being ridiculous) ruffles so many feathers; yet the original quote is accepted without question.

I can't make sense of this.

[Buckeye]

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it sound.

 

We are talking here about a fundamental cultural shift in a movement that in the past has been fairly unified.

 

BSA cannot long exist as neither fish nor fowl. Obligatory nods to religious freedom to the contrary, the "gay rights' juggernaut is not going to rest until it has transformed BSA into an entity that suits them. With capitulators like Gates in control, I predict that BSA will fairly soon become an intolerably inhospitable environment for the Church of Jesus Christ and like-minded entities.

 

It might happen incrementally. Perhaps, as Smac suggests, the organization will begin by withdrawing from LDS units access to camps and professional services. The Church is not going to stand for that (assuming it has not already withdrawn its affiliation) and it and other organizations will withhold their sponsorship and support, leaving BSA to quickly wither and die on the vine. And the Church will get the blame for having killed the movement. You can mark my word on that.

 

rockpond, buckeye, canard78 and others are fond of telling me that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day embrace homosexual behavior as normal, acceptable and worthy of temple ordinances. I am as certain that such a thing will never happen as I am that I exist. But I have no such confidence in man-made entitles such as the Boy Scouts of America staying true to standards of moral cleanliness (or as the Scout Oath puts it, being "morally straight") in the face of intense social and political pressure.

 

 

I can't recall making this exact prediction. I have stated that, in my limited experience, I judge same-sex marriages to be a great good. I've also said that with the passage of time we will be better able to judge such unions and the families they produce. And I've said that if our shared experience results in my view being confirmed - that SSMs are good - that I expect the LDS Church to eventually embrace that good, just as it has done with inter-racial marriages and other goods once rejected. But to be clear, I don't have enough confidence in my own judgments to predict that I'll ever be proven right.

 

Regarding BSA, I'll repeat my previous thought that I really don't see the harm in allowing local control. Children come into contact with wonderful LGBT people all the time, including through organizations the church supports and works with such as the Red Cross. And BSA's current policies are actually stricter than LDS ones in some ways. The Church allows a celibate gay man to serve in scouting; BSA does not.

 

Regarding predictions about future changes and pressure put on the Church to allow practicing LGBT into scouts, I would only point out that, as Robert Gates said, over 70% of units are church-sponsored. So long as most of these churches maintain their same stance on the issue, there is no conceivable way that BSA would go this route. As with BYU, the church will be safe on this point so long as most other christian denominations adhere to the same beliefs. If the day comes that Catholics, Protestants, and others change, well then I could see the pressure coming. But by then we'd be changing ourself, just as we've done with other issues.

 

Edit for typos.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Buckeye

[Mystery Meat]

Very telling that you did not challenge that your biased was not confirmed with the first statement.

 

And it is very strange that tss, chaning a few words in a quote (the original quote being ridiculous) ruffles so many feathers; yet the original quote is accepted without question.

 

The first statement was not made by someone posting on this board.

[tonie]

The first statement was not made by someone posting on this board.

The point still stands.

The first statement confirms bias, therefore it is not suprising that it has not been challenged. And given that the second statement is an opinion you had no basis to protest.

Should I have reported you for you unsoucred and unsupported claims made about tax exempt status?

Edited May 26, 2015 by tonie

[Mystery Meat]

The point still stands.

The first statement confirms bias, therefore it is not suprising that it has not been challenged. And given that the second statement is an opinion you had no basis to protest.

 

Who said I agreed with the first statement? I don't have the information to back it up. But I can't CFR someone who isn't on the board. The second statement was not given as an opinion, it was given as fact. If TSS would have offered it as an opinion I would have laughed and moved on. He didn't. 

 

Your point does not stand.

 

ETA: He did say, "I believe" in there. So you are right it was stated as an opinion of sorts. But as it was his opinion, the CFR should have resulted some tangible evidence. It did not.

Edited May 26, 2015 by lvjd66

[Mystery Meat]

The point still stands.

The first statement confirms bias, therefore it is not suprising that it has not been challenged. And given that the second statement is an opinion you had no basis to protest.

Should I have reported you for you unsoucred and unsupported claims made about tax exempt status?

 

No, because it is supported. But that's way off topic.

[Analytics]

It's not as simple as you are trying to make it sound.

We are talking here about a fundamental cultural shift in a movement that in the past has been fairly unified.

BSA cannot long exist as neither fish nor fowl. Obligatory nods to religious freedom to the contrary, the "gay rights' juggernaut is not going to rest until it has transformed BSA into an entity that suits them. With capitulators like Gates in control, I predict that BSA will fairly soon become an intolerably inhospitable environment for the Church of Jesus Christ and like-minded entities.

It might happen incrementally. Perhaps, as Smac suggests, the organization will begin by withdrawing from LDS units access to camps and professional services. The Church is not going to stand for that (assuming it has not already withdrawn its affiliation) and it and other organizations will withhold their sponsorship and support, leaving BSA to quickly wither and die on the vine. And the Church will get the blame for having killed the movement. You can mark my word on that.

rockpond, buckeye, canard78 and others are fond of telling me that the Church of Jesus Christ will one day embrace homosexual behavior as normal, acceptable and worthy of temple ordinances. I am as certain that such a thing will never happen as I am that I exist. But I have no such confidence in man-made entitles such as the Boy Scouts of America staying true to standards of moral cleanliness (or as the Scout Oath puts it, being "morally straight") in the face of intense social and political pressure.

I don't see it. The real issue is that in defiance of BSA rules, a Council in New York hired an 18 year old gay Eagle Scout as a counselor. The BSA now has a choice: revoke the Council's charter, or let it break the rules.

You seem to really want to frame this issue as the BSA forcing out Mormons, but it seems clear that the real issue is that *you* want the New York Council's charter revoked.

Looking down the slippery slope, I can see courts ruling that the BSA can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for paid positions. But it simply would't and couldn't be extended to who is selected as a volunteer scout master.

it really is simple; let sponsoring organizations choose their own scout masters. If you believed in freedom of religion, why be opposed to that?

[tonie]

Current case law, is that BSA can discriminate.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see it. The real issue is that in defiance of BSA rules, a Council in New York hired an 18 year old gay Eagle Scout as a counselor. The BSA now has a choice: revoke the Council's charter, or let it break the rules.

You seem to really want to frame this issue as the BSA forcing out Mormons, but it seems clear that the real issue is that *you* want the New York Council's charter revoked.

Looking down the slippery slope, I can see courts ruling that the BSA can't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for paid positions. But it simply would't and couldn't be extended to who is selected as a volunteer scout master.

it really is simple; let sponsoring organizations choose their own scout masters. If you believed in freedom of religion, why be opposed to that?

I do believe in freedom of religion, and I grant the BSA, as a non-governmental organization, the right to proceed in whichever direction it likes. I just think it's a shame to see it hijacked by the militant "gay-rights" juggernaut and to see the century-old association between the BSA and the Church of Jesus Christ destroyed thereby. And I think the BSA stands to be the biggest loser by far.*

 

It is not the Church of Jesus Christ or me that is changing; it is the BSA.

 

*Edited to add: Perhaps the even bigger losers will be the boys who will miss out on benefits when the BSA dissolves as a result of this conflict. Maybe some of them could be persuaded to join in with whatever entity the Church creates to fill the void for young, male Latter-day Saints. That would certainly be a silver lining to this cloud.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

I do believe in freedom of religion, and I grant the BSA, as a non-governmental organization, the right to proceed in whichever direction it likes. I just think it's a shame to see it hijacked by the militant "gay-rights" juggernaut and to see the century-old association between the BSA and the Church of Jesus Christ destroyed thereby. And I think the BSA stands to be the biggest loser by far.*

 

It is not the Church of Jesus Christ or me that is changing; it is the BSA.

 

*Edited to add: Perhaps the even bigger losers will be the boys who will miss out on benefits when the BSA dissolves as a result of this conflict. Maybe some of them could be persuaded to join in with whatever entity the Church creates to fill the void for young, male Latter-day Saints. That would certainly be a silver lining to this cloud.

 

I don't watch the show, but from what my wife tells me there are a lot of mormons on The Biggest Loser.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't watch the show, but from what my wife tells me there are a lot of mormons on The Biggest Loser.

I've only seen it sporadically, but the only Mormon I recall being on there is Rulon Gardner, the Olympic wrestler from Wyoming.

 

That's not what I meant by "biggest loser," though. But I'm sure you already knew that.

[Scott Lloyd]

Edit for typos.

This made me chuckle.

 

If I made a written confession every time I edited for typos, I'd have to stamp it on the bottom of each and every one of my posts.